Jump to content

Interbasin transfer: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
expose link target
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) (GrapesRock - 20351
(43 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Michigan Ditch at Cameron Pass.JPG|upright=1.1|thumb|right|Michigan Ditch in northern Colorado carries water from the [[North Platte River]] watershed over [[Cameron Pass (Colorado)|Cameron Pass]] to the [[South Platte River]] watershed.]]
[[File:Michigan Ditch at Cameron Pass.JPG|upright=1.1|thumb|right|Michigan Ditch in northern Colorado carries water from the [[North Platte River]] watershed over [[Cameron Pass (Colorado)|Cameron Pass]] to the [[South Platte River]] watershed.]]
'''Interbasin transfer''' or '''transbasin diversion''' are (often hyphenated) terms used to describe man-made conveyance schemes which move water from one [[river basin]] where it is available, to another basin where water is less available or could be utilized better for human development. The purpose of such [[water resource engineering]] schemes can be to alleviate water shortages in the receiving basin, to generate electricity, or both. Rarely, as in the case of the [[Glory River]] which diverted water from the [[Tigris]] to [[Euphrates]] River in modern [[Iraq]], interbasin transfers have been undertaken for political purposes. While ancient water supply examples exist, the first modern developments were undertaken in the 19th century in [[Australia]], [[India]] and the [[United States]]; large cities such as [[Denver]] and [[Los Angeles]] would not exist as we know them today without these diversion transfers. Since the 20th century many more similar projects have followed in other countries, including Israel, Canada and China. Utilized alternatively, the [[Green Revolution in India]] and [[hydropower]] development in Canada could not have been accomplished without such man-made transfers.
'''Interbasin transfer''' or '''transbasin diversion''' are (often hyphenated) terms used to describe man-made conveyance schemes which move water from one [[river basin]] where it is available, to another basin where water is less available or could be utilized better for human development. The purpose of such [[water resource engineering]] schemes can be to alleviate water shortages in the receiving basin, to generate electricity, or both. Rarely, as in the case of the [[Glory River]] which diverted water from the [[Tigris]] to [[Euphrates]] River in modern [[Iraq]], interbasin transfers have been undertaken for political purposes. While ancient water supply examples exist, the first modern developments were undertaken in the 19th century in Australia, India and the United States, feeding large cities such as [[Denver]] and Los Angeles. Since the 20th century many more similar projects have followed in other countries, including Israel and China, and contributions to the [[Green Revolution in India]] and [[hydropower]] development in Canada.


Since conveyance of water between natural basins are described as both a subtraction at the source and as an addition at the destination, such projects may be controversial in some places and over time; they may also be seen as controversial due to their scale, costs and [[environmental impact|environmental]] or developmental impacts.
Since conveyance of water between natural basins are described as both a subtraction at the source and as an addition at the destination, such projects may be controversial in some places and over time; they may also be seen as controversial due to their scale, costs and [[environmental impact|environmental]] or developmental impacts.
Line 6: Line 6:
In [[Texas]], for example, a 2007 [[Texas Water Development Board]] report analyzed the costs and benefits of IBTs in Texas, concluding that while some are essential, barriers to IBT development include cost, resistance to new reservoir construction and environmental impacts.<ref name="window.state.tx.us">[http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/water/96-1746.pdf Texas Water Report: Going Deeper for the Solution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222144253/http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/water/96-1746.pdf |date=2014-02-22 }} Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Retrieved 11 February 2014.</ref> Despite the costs and other concerns involved, IBTs play an essential role in the state's 50-year water planning horizon. Of 44 recommended ground and surface water conveyance and transfer projects included in the 2012 Texas State Water Plan, 15 would rely on IBTs.<ref name="window.state.tx.us"/>
In [[Texas]], for example, a 2007 [[Texas Water Development Board]] report analyzed the costs and benefits of IBTs in Texas, concluding that while some are essential, barriers to IBT development include cost, resistance to new reservoir construction and environmental impacts.<ref name="window.state.tx.us">[http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/water/96-1746.pdf Texas Water Report: Going Deeper for the Solution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222144253/http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/water/96-1746.pdf |date=2014-02-22 }} Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Retrieved 11 February 2014.</ref> Despite the costs and other concerns involved, IBTs play an essential role in the state's 50-year water planning horizon. Of 44 recommended ground and surface water conveyance and transfer projects included in the 2012 Texas State Water Plan, 15 would rely on IBTs.<ref name="window.state.tx.us"/>


While [[developed countries]] often have [[Exploitation of natural resources|exploited]] the most economical sites already with large benefits, many large-scale diversion/transfer schemes have been proposed in developing countries such as Brazil, African countries, India and China. These more modern transfers have been justified because of their potential economic and social benefits in more heavily populated areas, stemming from increased [[water demand]] for [[irrigation]], industrial and municipal [[water supply]], and [[renewable energy]] needs. These projects are also justified because of possible [[climate change]] and a concern over decreased water availability in the future; in that light, these projects thus tend to hedge against ensuing droughts and increasing demand. Projects conveying water between basins economically are often large and expensive, and involve major public and/or private infrastructure planning and coordination. In some cases where desired flow is not provided by gravity alone, additional use of energy is required for pumping water to the destination. Projects of this type can also be complicated in legal terms, since [[water right|water]] and [[riparian rights]] are affected; this is especially true if the basin of origin is a transnational river. Furthermore, these transfers can have significant environmental impacts on [[Lotic ecosystems|aquatic ecosystems]] at the source. In some cases [[water conservation]] measures at the destination can make such water transfers less immediately necessary to alleviate [[water scarcity]], delay their need to be built, or reduce their initial size and cost.
While [[developed countries]] often have [[Exploitation of natural resources|exploited]] the most economical sites already with large benefits, many large-scale diversion/transfer schemes have been proposed in developing countries such as Brazil, African countries, India and China. These more modern transfers have been justified because of their potential economic and social benefits in more heavily populated areas, stemming from increased [[water demand]] for [[irrigation]], industrial and municipal [[water supply]], and [[renewable energy]] needs. These projects are also justified because of possible [[climate change]] and a concern over decreased water availability in the future; in that light, these projects thus tend to hedge against ensuing droughts and increasing demand. Projects conveying water between basins economically are often large and expensive, and involve major public and/or private infrastructure planning and coordination. In some cases where desired flow is not provided by gravity alone, additional use of energy is required for pumping water to the destination. Projects of this type can also be complicated in legal terms, since [[water right|water]] and [[riparian rights]] are affected; this is especially true if the basin of origin is a transnational river. Furthermore, these transfers can have significant environmental impacts on [[Lotic ecosystems|aquatic ecosystems]] at the source. In some cases [[water conservation]] measures at the destination can make such water transfers less immediately necessary to alleviate [[water scarcity]], delay their need to be built, or reduce their initial size and cost.
{{TOC right}}
{{TOC right}}


== Existing transfers ==
== Existing transfers ==
There are dozens of large inter-basin transfers around the world, most of them concentrated in Australia, Canada, China, India and the United States. The oldest interbasin transfers date back to the late 19th century, with an exceptionally old example being the Roman gold mine at [[Las Médulas]] in Spain. Their primary purpose usually is either to alleviate water scarcity or to generate hydropower.
There are dozens of large inter-basin transfers around the world, most of them concentrated in Australia, Canada, China, India and the United States. The oldest interbasin transfers date back to the late 19th century, with an exceptionally old example being the Roman gold mine at [[Las Médulas]] in Spain. Their primary purpose usually is either to alleviate water scarcity or to generate hydropower.

{{incomplete list|date=October 2021}}


===Primarily for the alleviation of water scarcity===
===Primarily for the alleviation of water scarcity===
Line 22: Line 24:
====Americas====
====Americas====
* The [[Los Angeles Aqueduct]] completed in 1913 transferring water from the [[Owens Valley]] to Los Angeles
* The [[Los Angeles Aqueduct]] completed in 1913 transferring water from the [[Owens Valley]] to Los Angeles
* The [[Colorado River Aqueduct]] built in 1933-1941 to supply Southern California with water
* The [[Colorado River Aqueduct]] built in 1933–1941 to supply Southern California with water
* The [[All-American Canal]] built in the 1930s to bring water from the [[Colorado River]] to the [[Imperial Irrigation District]] in Southern California
* The [[All-American Canal]] built in the 1930s to bring water from the [[Colorado River]] to the [[Imperial Irrigation District]] in Southern California
* The [[California State Water Project]] built in stages in the 1960s and 1970s to transfer water from Northern to Southern California. It includes the [[California Aqueduct]] and the [[Edmonston Pumping Plant]], which lifts water nearly 2,000 feet (600 meters) up and over the [[Tehachapi Mountains]] through 10 miles of tunnels for municipal water supply in the [[Los Angeles]] Metropolitan area.
* The [[California State Water Project]] built in stages in the 1960s and 1970s to transfer water from Northern to Southern California. It includes the [[California Aqueduct]] and the [[Edmonston Pumping Plant]], which lifts water nearly {{convert|2,000|ft|m|abbr=off|sp=us}} up and over the [[Tehachapi Mountains]] through 10 miles of tunnels for municipal water supply in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area.
* The Cutzamala System built in stages from the late 1970s to the late 1990s to transfer water from the [[Río Cutzamala|Cutzamala]] River to [[Mexico City]] for use as drinking water, lifting it over more than 1000 meters. It utilizes 7 reservoirs, a 127&nbsp;km long aqueduct with 21&nbsp;km of tunnels, 7.5&nbsp;km open canal, and a water treatment plant. Its cost was US$1.3 billion.<ref>[https://archive.today/20130811234745/http://ambio.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1639/0044-7447(2003)032%5B0124:WMFAMM%5D2.0.CO;2&ct=1 Cecilia Tortajada and Enrique Castelán:Water Management for a Megacity: Mexico City Metropolitan Area], Ambio, Volume 32, Issue 2 (March 2003)</ref> See also [[Water resources management in Mexico]]
* The Cutzamala System built in stages from the late 1970s to the late 1990s to transfer water from the [[Río Cutzamala|Cutzamala]] River to [[Mexico City]] for use as drinking water, lifting it over more than 1000 meters. It utilizes 7 reservoirs, a 127&nbsp;km long aqueduct with 21&nbsp;km of tunnels, 7.5&nbsp;km open canal, and a water treatment plant. Its cost was US$1.3 billion.<ref>[https://archive.today/20130811234745/http://ambio.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1639/0044-7447(2003)032%5B0124:WMFAMM%5D2.0.CO;2&ct=1 Cecilia Tortajada and Enrique Castelán:Water Management for a Megacity: Mexico City Metropolitan Area], Ambio, Volume 32, Issue 2 (March 2003)</ref> See also [[Water resources management in Mexico]]
* The [[Central Utah Project]] to supply the [[Wasatch Front]] with urban water and for irrigation
* The [[Central Utah Project]] to supply the [[Wasatch Front]] with urban water and for irrigation
* The [[San Juan-Chama Project]] to bring water from the [[Colorado River]] basin into the [[Rio Grande]] basin for urban and agricultural purposes in northern [[New Mexico]] and municipal water supply for Santa Fe and Albuquerque
* The [[San Juan–Chama Project]] to bring water from the [[Colorado River]] basin into the [[Rio Grande]] basin for urban and agricultural purposes in northern [[New Mexico]] and municipal water supply for Santa Fe and Albuquerque
* The [[New Croton Aqueduct]], completed in 1890, brings water from the [[New Croton Reservoir]] in [[Westchester County, New York|Westchester]] and [[Putnam County, New York|Putnam]] counties.
* The [[New Croton Aqueduct]], completed in 1890, brings water from the [[New Croton Reservoir]] in [[Westchester County, New York|Westchester]] and [[Putnam County, New York|Putnam]] counties.
* The [[Catskill Aqueduct]], completed in 1916, is significantly larger than New Croton and brings water from two reservoirs in the eastern [[Catskill Mountains]].
* The [[Catskill Aqueduct]], completed in 1916, is significantly larger than New Croton and brings water from two reservoirs in the eastern [[Catskill Mountains]].
* The [[Delaware Aqueduct]], completed in 1945, taps tributaries of the [[Delaware River]] in the western Catskill Mountains and provides approximately half of New York City's water supply.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsmaps_wide.shtml |title=New York City's Water Supply System Map |work=[[New York City Department of Environmental Protection]] |access-date=2009-09-03}}</ref>
* The [[Delaware Aqueduct]], completed in 1945, taps tributaries of the [[Delaware River]] in the western Catskill Mountains and provides approximately half of New York City's water supply.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsmaps_wide.shtml |title=New York City's Water Supply System Map |work=[[New York City Department of Environmental Protection]] |access-date=2009-09-03 |archive-date=2009-10-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091014101349/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsmaps_wide.shtml |url-status=dead }}</ref>
*The [[Colorado-Big Thompson Project]], built between 1938 and 1957, diverts water from the upper Colorado River basin east underneath the Continental Divide to the South Platte basin.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.northernwater.org/WaterProjects/C-BTProject.aspx|title=Northern Water C-BT Project|website=www.northernwater.org|access-date=2019-03-07}}</ref>
*The [[Colorado–Big Thompson Project]], built between 1938 and 1957, diverts water from the upper Colorado River basin east underneath the Continental Divide to the South Platte basin.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.northernwater.org/WaterProjects/C-BTProject.aspx|title=Northern Water C-BT Project|website=www.northernwater.org|access-date=2019-03-07}}</ref>
* The Little Snake - Douglas Creek System, built in two stages between 1963 and 1988, moves water under the Continental Divide in southern Wyoming from the upper Colorado River basin to the North Platte basin. This is then traded for water from elsewhere in the North Platte basin, which is diverted to provide water for Cheyenne.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/14c2541d82f54f67a8611ae576965605|title=Where does Cheyenne get its Water|website=City of Cheyenne|access-date=2024-05-04}}</ref>
* Among other transfers, the [[Massachusetts Water Resources Authority]] moves water from the [[Quabbin Reservoir]] (completed 1939) and [[Ware River]] in the [[Connecticut River]] basin and the [[Wachusett Reservoir]] (completed 1908) in the [[Merrimack River]] basin, to provide drinking water to more densely populated areas in Eastern Massachusetts. Some of the flow is also used for hydropower.


The [[Central Arizona Project]] (CAP) in the USA is not an interbasin transfer ''per se'', although it shares many characteristics with interbasin transfers as it transports large amounts of water over a long distance and difference in altitude. The CAP transfers water from the [[Colorado River]] to Central Arizona for both agriculture and municipal water supply to substitute for depleted [[groundwater]]. However, the water remains within the watershed of the Colorado River, though transferred into the [[Gila River|Gila sub-basin]].
The [[Central Arizona Project]] (CAP) in the USA is not an interbasin transfer ''per se'', although it shares many characteristics with interbasin transfers as it transports large amounts of water over a long distance and difference in altitude. The CAP transfers water from the [[Colorado River]] to Central Arizona for both agriculture and municipal water supply to substitute for depleted [[groundwater]]. However, the water remains within the watershed of the Colorado River, though transferred into the [[Gila River|Gila sub-basin]].


==== Asia ====
==== Asia ====
* The [[Narmada Canal|Narmada Canal Project]] offtaking from [[Sardar Sarovar Dam|Sardar Sarovar]] in western India transfers water from the [[Narmada River|Narmada Basin]] to areas coming under other river basins in [[Gujarat]] ([[Mahi River|Mahi]], [[Sabarmati River|Sabarmati]] and other small river basins in [[North Gujarat]], [[Saurashtra (region)|Saurashtra]] and [[Kutch district|Kutch]]) and [[Rajasthan]] ([[Luni River|Luni]] and other basins of [[Jalore district|Jalore]] and [[Barmer district|Barmer]] districts) for irrigation, drinking water, industrial use, etc.<ref>{{cite web|title=Salient Features of Sardar Sarovar Project: Narmada Main Canal System|url=http://nca.gov.in/ssp_salient2.htm|website=Narmada Control Authority (NCA)|accessdate=28 November 2021}}</ref> The canal is designed to transfer {{convert|9.5|e6acre-ft|km3}} water annually from the [[Narmada River|Narmada Basin]] to areas under other basins in Gujarat and Rajasthan. (9 MAF for Gujarat and 0.5 MAF for Rajasthan).<ref name="Salient Features of NWDT Award">{{cite web|title=Salient Features of NWDT Award|url=http://nca.gov.in/aboutus_nwdt.htm|website=Narmada Control Authority (NCA)|accessdate=28 November 2021}}</ref>
* The Periyar Project in Southern India from the [[Periyar River]] in [[Kerala]] to the [[Vaigai]] basin in [[Tamil Nadu]]. It consists of a dam and a tunnel with a discharging capacity of 40.75 cubic meters per second. The project was commissioned in 1895 and provides irrigation to 81,000 hectares, in addition to providing power through a plant with a capacity of 140&nbsp;MW.<ref name="NWDA"/>
* The Periyar Project in Southern India from the [[Periyar River]] in [[Kerala]] to the [[Vaigai]] basin in [[Tamil Nadu]]. It consists of a dam and a tunnel with a discharging capacity of 40.75 cubic meters per second. The project was commissioned in 1895 and provides irrigation to 81,000 hectares, in addition to providing power through a plant with a capacity of 140&nbsp;MW.<ref name="NWDA"/>
* The [[Parambikulam]] [[Aliyar]] project, also in Southern India, consists of seven streams, five flowing towards the west and two towards the east, which have been dammed and interlinked by tunnels. The project transfers water from the [[Chalakudy River]] basin to the [[Bharatapuzha]] and [[Cauvery]] basins for irrigation in [[Coimbatore]] district of [[Tamil Nadu]] and the [[Chittur]] area of [[Kerala]] states. It also serves for power generation with a capacity of 185&nbsp;MW.<ref name="NWDA"/>
* The [[Parambikulam]] [[Aliyar]] project, also in Southern India, consists of seven streams, five flowing towards the west and two towards the east, which have been dammed and interlinked by tunnels. The project transfers water from the [[Chalakudy River]] basin to the [[Bharatapuzha]] and [[Cauvery]] basins for irrigation in [[Coimbatore]] district of [[Tamil Nadu]] and the [[Chittur]] area of [[Kerala]] states. It also serves for power generation with a capacity of 185&nbsp;MW.<ref name="NWDA"/>
Line 45: Line 50:
* The [[Irtysh–Karaganda Canal]] in central Kazakhstan is about 450&nbsp;km long with a maximum capacity of 75 cubic meters per second. It was built between 1962 and 1974 and involves a lift of 14 to 22&nbsp;m.<ref name="NWDA"/>
* The [[Irtysh–Karaganda Canal]] in central Kazakhstan is about 450&nbsp;km long with a maximum capacity of 75 cubic meters per second. It was built between 1962 and 1974 and involves a lift of 14 to 22&nbsp;m.<ref name="NWDA"/>
* The [[South–North Water Transfer Project]] in China, as well as other smaller-scale projects, such as the [[Irtysh–Karamay–Ürümqi Canal]].
* The [[South–North Water Transfer Project]] in China, as well as other smaller-scale projects, such as the [[Irtysh–Karamay–Ürümqi Canal]].
*Part of the water flowing northwards down [[Tung Chung River]] in Northern Lantau is diverted across the mountain ridge to [[Shek Pik Reservoir]] in southern Lantau.
*Part of the water flowing northwards down [[Tung Chung River]] in northern Lantau is diverted across the mountain ridge to [[Shek Pik Reservoir]] in southern Lantau.
* The IRTS (Inter-Reservoirs Transfer Scheme) which transfers water from the [[Kowloon Group of Reservoirs|Kowloon Byewash Reservoir]] to the [[Lower Shing Mun Reservoir]], {{convert|2.8|km|mile|abbr=off}} in length and {{convert|3|metres|ft}} in diameter.‌
* [[Lingqu]] in Kwangsi Province
* {{ill|Hong Kong West Drainage Tunnel|yue|%E6%B8%AF%E5%B3%B6%E8%A5%BF%E9%9B%A8%E6%B0%B4%E6%8E%92%E6%94%BE%E9%9A%A7%E9%81%93}}


==== Australia ====
==== Australia ====
Line 77: Line 85:
|-
|-
| [[Central Arizona Project]] (USA)
| [[Central Arizona Project]] (USA)
| 1973–1993
| 1973-93
| 541&nbsp;km
| 541&nbsp;km
| 1850.2 (1.5m acre-feet/year)
| 1850.2 (1.5m acre-feet/year)
Line 83: Line 91:
|-
|-
| [[National Water Carrier]] (Israel)
| [[National Water Carrier]] (Israel)
| 1953–1964
| 1953-64
| 130&nbsp;km
| 130&nbsp;km
| 1.7
| 1.7
Line 98: Line 106:
| 132&nbsp;km
| 132&nbsp;km
| 64 (740&nbsp;m<sup>3</sup>/s)
| 64 (740&nbsp;m<sup>3</sup>/s)
| ?
|-
| [[Narmada Canal]] (India)
| Commissioned in 2008
| 532&nbsp;km
| 11,718 (9.5m acre-feet/year) <ref name="Salient Features of NWDT Award"/>
| ?
| ?
|-
|-
Line 118: Line 132:
| ?
| ?
|-
|-
| [[Irtysh]]-[[Karaganda]] scheme (Kazakhstan)
| [[Irtysh]][[Karaganda]] scheme (Kazakhstan)
| 1962–1974
| 1962–1974
| 450&nbsp;km
| 450&nbsp;km
Line 195: Line 209:


==Transfers under construction==
==Transfers under construction==
The Eastern and Central Routes of the [[South-North Water Transfer Project]] in China from the [[Yangtse River]] to the [[Yellow River]] and Beijing.
The Eastern and Central Routes of the [[South–North Water Transfer Project]] in China from the [[Yangtse River]] to the [[Yellow River]] and Beijing.


==Proposed transfers==
==Proposed transfers==
Line 201: Line 215:


=== Africa ===
=== Africa ===
From the [[Ubangi River]] in Congo to the [[Chari River]] which empties into [[Lake Chad]]. The plan was first proposed in the 1960s and again in the 1980s and 1990s by Nigerian engineer J. Umolu (ZCN Scheme) and Italian firm Bonifica (Transaqua Scheme).<ref>[http://hydroweb.com/jeh/jeh1999/bunu.pdf Journal of Environmental Hydrology, Vol. 7, 1999]</ref><ref>[https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg12917615.500 New Scientist, March 23, 1991 Africa at a Watershed (Ubangi - Lake Chad Inter-basin transfer)]</ref><ref>Umolu, J. C.; 1990, Macro Perspectives for Nigeria’s Water Resources Planning, Proc. of the First Biennial National Hydrology Symposium, Maiduguri, Nigeria, pp. 218-262(discussion of Ubangi-Lake Chad diversion schemes)</ref><ref>The Changing Geography of Africa and the Middle East By Graham Chapman, Kathleen M. Baker, University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, 1992
From the [[Ubangi River]] in Congo to the [[Chari River]] which empties into [[Lake Chad]]. The plan was first proposed in the 1960s and again in the 1980s and 1990s by Nigerian engineer J. Umolu (ZCN Scheme) and Italian firm Bonifica (Transaqua Scheme).<ref>[http://hydroweb.com/jeh/jeh1999/bunu.pdf Journal of Environmental Hydrology, Vol. 7, 1999]</ref><ref>[https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg12917615.500 New Scientist, March 23, 1991 Africa at a Watershed (Ubangi - Lake Chad Inter-basin transfer)]</ref><ref>Umolu, J. C.; 1990, Macro Perspectives for Nigeria's Water Resources Planning, Proc. of the First Biennial National Hydrology Symposium, Maiduguri, Nigeria, pp. 218-262(discussion of Ubangi-Lake Chad diversion schemes)</ref><ref>The Changing Geography of Africa and the Middle East By Graham Chapman, Kathleen M. Baker, University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, 1992
Routledge</ref><ref>[http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C09/C09Links/www.ccnet.com/~mcumolu/globclim.html Combating Climate Induced Water And Energy Deficiencies In West Central Africa (Ubangi - Lake Chad Inter-basin transfer)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110526135224/http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C09/C09Links/www.ccnet.com/~mcumolu/globclim.html |date=2011-05-26 }}</ref> In 1994, the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC) proposed a similar project and at a March, 2008 Summit, the Heads of State of the LCBC member countries committed to the diversion project.<ref>[http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-28-voa33.cfm Voice of America News, March 28, 2008 African Leaders Team Up to Rescue Lake Chad]</ref> In April, 2008, the LCBC advertised a request for proposals for a World Bank-funded feasibility study.
Routledge</ref><ref>[http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C09/C09Links/www.ccnet.com/~mcumolu/globclim.html Combating Climate Induced Water And Energy Deficiencies In West Central Africa (Ubangi - Lake Chad Inter-basin transfer)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110526135224/http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C09/C09Links/www.ccnet.com/~mcumolu/globclim.html |date=2011-05-26 }}</ref> In 1994, the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC) proposed a similar project and at a March, 2008 Summit, the Heads of State of the LCBC member countries committed to the diversion project.<ref>[http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-28-voa33.cfm Voice of America News, March 28, 2008 African Leaders Team Up to Rescue Lake Chad]</ref> In April, 2008, the LCBC advertised a request for proposals for a World Bank-funded feasibility study.


=== Americas ===
=== Americas ===
* The [[transfer of the São Francisco River]] from the [[São Francisco River]] to the dry [[sertão]] in the four northeastern states of [[Ceara]], [[Rio Grande do Norte]], [[Paraiba]] and [[Pernambuco]] in Brazil. The project is estimated to cost US$2 billion and was given the green light to go ahead by the [[Supreme Court of Brazil]] in December 2007.
* The [[transfer of the São Francisco River]] from the [[São Francisco River]] to the dry [[sertão]] in the four northeastern states of [[Ceará]], [[Rio Grande do Norte]], [[Paraíba]] and [[Pernambuco]] in Brazil. The project is estimated to cost US$2 billion and was given the green light to go ahead by the [[Supreme Court of Brazil]] in December 2007.
* On a much smaller scale, the transfer of up to 36 million gallons of water per day (130,000 cubic meter/day) to [[Concord, North Carolina|Concord]] and [[Kannapolis, North Carolina|Kannapolis]] from the [[Catawba River]] and the [[Yadkin River]] in [[North Carolina]], USA.<ref>[http://www.hickorygov.com/hickoryitb.html City of Hickory:Interbasin transfer information]</ref>
* On a much smaller scale, the transfer of up to 36 million gallons of water per day (130,000 cubic meter/day) to [[Concord, North Carolina|Concord]] and [[Kannapolis, North Carolina|Kannapolis]] from the [[Catawba River]] and the [[Yadkin River]] in [[North Carolina]], USA.<ref>[http://www.hickorygov.com/hickoryitb.html City of Hickory:Interbasin transfer information]</ref>
* Shoal Creek Reservoir in [[north Georgia]], from [[Dawson Forest]] ([[Etowah River]]) to the city of [[Atlanta, Georgia|Atlanta]] ([[Chattahoochee River]]).<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/public-132757.html</ref>
* Shoal Creek Reservoir in [[north Georgia]], from [[Dawson Forest]] ([[Etowah River]]) to the city of [[Atlanta]] ([[Chattahoochee River]]).<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/public-132757.html {{Bare URL inline|date=August 2022}}</ref>


=== Asia ===
=== Asia ===
* The so-called "Peninsular river component" of India's [[Indian Rivers Inter-link|National Water Development Plan]] envisages to divert the [[Mahanadi River]] surplus to the [[Godavari]] and the surplus therefrom to the [[Krishna River|Krishna]], [[Pennar]] and [[Cauvery]], with "terminal dams" on the Mahanadi and the Godavari to enable irrigation. The Peninsular component also envisages three more transfers — (a) to divert a part of the waters of the west flowing rivers of [[Kerala]] to the arid east to meet the needs of [[Tamil Nadu]]; (b) to interlink the west flowing rivers north of [[Bombay]] and south of [[Tapti River|Tapi]] to provide irrigation to areas in [[Saurashtra (region)|Saurashtra]], [[Kachchh]] and coastal [[Maharashtra]] and to augment the drinking water supplies to [[Mumbai]]; and (c) to interlink the southern tributaries of the [[Yamuna]] and provide irrigation facilities in parts of [[Madhya Pradesh]] and [[Rajasthan]].<ref>[http://www.nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/11.jpg National Water Development Agency of India:Proposed Interbasin Transfer Links - Peninsular Component]</ref><ref name="hinduonnet.com">[http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/11/19/stories/2002111900130200.htm M.S. MENON: A case for inter-basin transfer of water], in:The Hindu, Nov. 19, 2002</ref>
* The so-called "Peninsular river component" of India's [[Indian Rivers Inter-link|National Water Development Plan]] envisages to divert the [[Mahanadi River]] surplus to the [[Godavari]] and the surplus therefrom to the [[Krishna River|Krishna]], [[Pennar]] and [[Cauvery]], with "terminal dams" on the Mahanadi and the Godavari to enable irrigation. The Peninsular component also envisages three more transfers — (a) to divert a part of the waters of the west flowing rivers of [[Kerala]] to the arid east to meet the needs of [[Tamil Nadu]]; (b) to interlink the west flowing rivers north of [[Mumbai]] and south of [[Tapti River|Tapi]] to provide irrigation to areas in [[Saurashtra (region)|Saurashtra]], [[Kachchh]] and coastal [[Maharashtra]] and to augment the drinking water supplies to [[Mumbai]]; and (c) to interlink the southern tributaries of the [[Yamuna]] and provide irrigation facilities in parts of [[Madhya Pradesh]] and [[Rajasthan]].<ref>[http://www.nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/11.jpg National Water Development Agency of India:Proposed Interbasin Transfer Links - Peninsular Component]</ref><ref name="hinduonnet.com">{{usurped|[https://web.archive.org/web/20021202110258/http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/11/19/stories/2002111900130200.htm M.S. MENON: A case for inter-basin transfer of water]}}, in:The Hindu, Nov. 19, 2002</ref>
* From the [[Chalakudy River]] to the [[Bharathapuzha River]] in Kerala, India
* From the [[Chalakudy River]] to the [[Bharathapuzha River]] in Kerala, India
* 14 transfers in Northern India. The so-called "[[Indian Rivers Inter-link#Himalayan development|Himalayan river component]]" envisages transfers from the [[Kosi River]], [[Gandak River]] and [[Ghaghara River]] to the west; a link between the [[Brahmaputra River]] to the [[Ganges River]] to augment the dry weather flows of the Ganges; and a link between the Ganges and the [[Yamuna River]] "to serve drought-prone areas of [[Haryana]], [[Rajasthan]], [[Gujarat]] as also south [[Uttar Pradesh]] and south [[Bihar]]".<ref name="hinduonnet.com"/><ref>[http://www.nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/10.jpg National Water Development Agency of India:Proposed Interbasin Transfer Links - Himalayan Component]</ref>
* 14 transfers in Northern India. The so-called "[[Indian Rivers Inter-link#Himalayan development|Himalayan river component]]" envisages transfers from the [[Kosi River]], [[Gandak River]] and [[Ghaghara River]] to the west; a link between the [[Brahmaputra River]] to the [[Ganges River]] to augment the dry weather flows of the Ganges; and a link between the Ganges and the [[Yamuna River]] "to serve drought-prone areas of [[Haryana]], [[Rajasthan]], [[Gujarat]] as also south [[Uttar Pradesh]] and south [[Bihar]]".<ref name="hinduonnet.com"/><ref>[http://www.nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/10.jpg National Water Development Agency of India:Proposed Interbasin Transfer Links - Himalayan Component]</ref>
* The [[Bheri Babai Diversion Multipurpose Project]] on the [[Ghaghara River]] in Nepal(Hydropower and irrigation)
* The [[Bheri Babai Diversion Multipurpose Project]] on the [[Ghaghara River]] in Nepal(Hydropower and irrigation)
* From Northern Russia and Siberia to Central Asia through the [[Northern river reversal]]. The proposal, originally dating to [[Joseph Stalin]]'s and [[Nikita Khrushchev]]'s eras, included a Western and Eastern route, in the European and Asian parts of the then [[Soviet Union]] respectively. The suggested Western route would be from the [[Pechora River]] to the [[Kama River]], a tributary of the [[Volga River]], along the abandoned and uncompleted [[Pechora-Kama Canal]]. The Eastern route would be from the [[Tobol River]], [[Ishim River]] and [[Irtysh River]] in the [[Ob River|Ob basin]] to the desert plains of Kazakhastan and the [[Aral Sea]] basin. In 2006 Kazakh president [[Nursultan Nazarbaev]] said he wanted to resuscitate the scheme that had been abandoned by the Soviet Union in 1986. The cost of that route alone is estimated at upwards from US$40 billion, well beyond the means of [[Kazakhstan]].<ref>[http://iwpr.net/?apc_state=hrubbca323728&l=en&s=b&p=bca&o=323728 Siberian River Project Revived] 08-Sep-06</ref>
* From Northern Russia and Siberia to Central Asia through the [[Northern river reversal]]. The proposal, originally dating to [[Joseph Stalin]]'s and [[Nikita Khrushchev]]'s eras, included a Western and Eastern route, in the European and Asian parts of the then Soviet Union respectively. The suggested Western route would be from the [[Pechora River]] to the [[Kama River]], a tributary of the [[Volga]], along the abandoned and uncompleted [[Pechora–Kama Canal]]. The Eastern route would be from the [[Tobol River]], [[Ishim River]] and [[Irtysh River]] in the [[Ob (river)|Ob basin]] to the desert plains of Kazakhastan and the [[Aral Sea]] basin. In 2006 Kazakh president [[Nursultan Nazarbayev]] said he wanted to resuscitate the scheme that had been abandoned by the Soviet Union in 1986. The cost of that route alone is estimated at upwards from US$40 billion, well beyond the means of [[Kazakhstan]].<ref>[http://iwpr.net/?apc_state=hrubbca323728&l=en&s=b&p=bca&o=323728 Siberian River Project Revived] 08-Sep-06</ref>
* The western route of the [[South-North Water Transfer Project]] in China, which foresees to divert water from the headwater of [[Yangtze]] (and possibly also the headwaters of [[Mekong]] or [[Salween]] downstream) into the headwater of [[Yellow River]]. If the Mekong and Salween rivers were included in the project this would affect the downstream riparian countries Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
* The western route of the [[South–North Water Transfer Project]] in China, which foresees to divert water from the headwater of [[Yangtze]] (and possibly also the headwaters of [[Mekong]] or [[Salween]] downstream) into the headwater of [[Yellow River]]. If the Mekong and Salween rivers were included in the project this would affect the downstream riparian countries Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.


=== Australia ===
=== Australia ===
* The [[Bradfield Scheme]] in [[Queensland]], serving primarily for irrigation
* The [[Bradfield Scheme]] in [[Queensland]], serving primarily for irrigation
* The Kimberley Pipeline Scheme to supply [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth]] with water through, proposed because of radical [[climate change in Australia|rainfall changes]] in [[Western Australia]] since the late 1960s
* The Kimberley Pipeline Scheme to supply [[Perth]] with water through, proposed because of radical [[climate change in Australia|rainfall changes]] in [[Western Australia]] since the late 1960s


=== Europe ===
=== Europe ===
Line 225: Line 239:


== Ecological aspects ==
== Ecological aspects ==
[[File:Unscreened-Water-Diversion-Pipes-Pose-an-Entrainment-Risk-to-the-Threatened-Green-Sturgeon-pone.0086321.s002.ogv|thumb|In this experiment, juvenile [[green sturgeon]]s are being dragged into an unscreened water diversion pipe operated under conditions like those found in the [[Sacramento river]].]]
[[File:Unscreened-Water-Diversion-Pipes-Pose-an-Entrainment-Risk-to-the-Threatened-Green-Sturgeon-pone.0086321.s002.ogv|thumb|In this experiment, juvenile [[green sturgeon]]s are being dragged into an unscreened water diversion pipe operated under conditions like those found in the [[Sacramento River]].]]
Since rivers are home to a complex web of species and their interactions, the transfer of water from one basin to another can have a serious impact on species living therein.<ref name=Mussen2014>{{Cite journal
Since rivers are home to a complex web of species and their interactions, the transfer of water from one basin to another can have a serious impact on species living therein.<ref name=Mussen2014>{{Cite journal
| last1 = Mussen | first1 = T. D.
| last1 = Mussen | first1 = T. D.
Line 248: Line 262:
| pmid = 24454967
| pmid = 24454967
| pmc = 3893286
| pmc = 3893286
| bibcode = 2014PLoSO...986321M
| doi-access = free
| doi-access = free
}}</ref>
}}</ref>

Revision as of 15:16, 5 July 2024

Michigan Ditch in northern Colorado carries water from the North Platte River watershed over Cameron Pass to the South Platte River watershed.

Interbasin transfer or transbasin diversion are (often hyphenated) terms used to describe man-made conveyance schemes which move water from one river basin where it is available, to another basin where water is less available or could be utilized better for human development. The purpose of such water resource engineering schemes can be to alleviate water shortages in the receiving basin, to generate electricity, or both. Rarely, as in the case of the Glory River which diverted water from the Tigris to Euphrates River in modern Iraq, interbasin transfers have been undertaken for political purposes. While ancient water supply examples exist, the first modern developments were undertaken in the 19th century in Australia, India and the United States, feeding large cities such as Denver and Los Angeles. Since the 20th century many more similar projects have followed in other countries, including Israel and China, and contributions to the Green Revolution in India and hydropower development in Canada.

Since conveyance of water between natural basins are described as both a subtraction at the source and as an addition at the destination, such projects may be controversial in some places and over time; they may also be seen as controversial due to their scale, costs and environmental or developmental impacts.

In Texas, for example, a 2007 Texas Water Development Board report analyzed the costs and benefits of IBTs in Texas, concluding that while some are essential, barriers to IBT development include cost, resistance to new reservoir construction and environmental impacts.[1] Despite the costs and other concerns involved, IBTs play an essential role in the state's 50-year water planning horizon. Of 44 recommended ground and surface water conveyance and transfer projects included in the 2012 Texas State Water Plan, 15 would rely on IBTs.[1]

While developed countries often have exploited the most economical sites already with large benefits, many large-scale diversion/transfer schemes have been proposed in developing countries such as Brazil, African countries, India and China. These more modern transfers have been justified because of their potential economic and social benefits in more heavily populated areas, stemming from increased water demand for irrigation, industrial and municipal water supply, and renewable energy needs. These projects are also justified because of possible climate change and a concern over decreased water availability in the future; in that light, these projects thus tend to hedge against ensuing droughts and increasing demand. Projects conveying water between basins economically are often large and expensive, and involve major public and/or private infrastructure planning and coordination. In some cases where desired flow is not provided by gravity alone, additional use of energy is required for pumping water to the destination. Projects of this type can also be complicated in legal terms, since water and riparian rights are affected; this is especially true if the basin of origin is a transnational river. Furthermore, these transfers can have significant environmental impacts on aquatic ecosystems at the source. In some cases water conservation measures at the destination can make such water transfers less immediately necessary to alleviate water scarcity, delay their need to be built, or reduce their initial size and cost.

Existing transfers

There are dozens of large inter-basin transfers around the world, most of them concentrated in Australia, Canada, China, India and the United States. The oldest interbasin transfers date back to the late 19th century, with an exceptionally old example being the Roman gold mine at Las Médulas in Spain. Their primary purpose usually is either to alleviate water scarcity or to generate hydropower.

Primarily for the alleviation of water scarcity

Africa

Americas

The Central Arizona Project (CAP) in the USA is not an interbasin transfer per se, although it shares many characteristics with interbasin transfers as it transports large amounts of water over a long distance and difference in altitude. The CAP transfers water from the Colorado River to Central Arizona for both agriculture and municipal water supply to substitute for depleted groundwater. However, the water remains within the watershed of the Colorado River, though transferred into the Gila sub-basin.

Asia

Australia

Europe

  • Various transfers from the Ebro River in Spain, which flows to the Mediterranean, to basins draining to the Atlantic, such as Ebro-Besaya transfer of 1982 to supply the industrial area of Torrelavega, the Cerneja-Ordunte transfer to the Bilbao Metropolitan area of 1961, as well as the Zadorra-Arratia transfer that also supplies Bilbao through the Barazar waterfall (Source:Spanish Wikipedia article on the Ebro River. See Water supply and sanitation in Spain).
  • The North Crimea Canal (Ukraine), transporting water from the Dniepr River to the Crimean Peninsula.

Characteristics of major existing interbasin transfers and other large-scale water transfers to alleviate water scarcity

Year of construction Length Capacity (Million cubic meters/year) Costs (US$ bn)
California State Water Project (USA) Early 1960s-1990s 715 km 25 (10,300 cubic feet/sec) 5.2
Colorado River Aqueduct (USA) 1933–1941 392 km 1603.5 (1.3m acre-feet/year) ?
Central Arizona Project (USA) 1973–1993 541 km 1850.2 (1.5m acre-feet/year) 3.6
National Water Carrier (Israel) 1953–1964 130 km 1.7 ?
Cutzamala System (Mexico) Late 1970s-late 1990s 154 km 2.1 (24 m3/s) 1.3
All-American Canal (USA) 1930s 132 km 64 (740 m3/s) ?
Narmada Canal (India) Commissioned in 2008 532 km 11,718 (9.5m acre-feet/year) [7] ?
Periyar Project (India) Commissioned in 1895 ? 3.5 (41 m3/s) ?
Indira Gandhi Canal (India) Since 1958 650 km ? ?
Telugu Ganga project (India) 1977–2004 406 km 10.1 (3.7 bn m3/year) ?
IrtyshKaraganda scheme (Kazakhstan) 1962–1974 450 km 6.5 (75 m3/s) ?

For the generation of hydropower

Africa

Australia

  • The Snowy Mountains Scheme in Australia, built between 1949 and 1974 at the cost (at that time) of A$800 million; a dollar value equivalent in 1999 and 2004 to A$6 billion (US$4.5 billion).
  • The Barnard River Scheme, also in Australia, constructed between 1983 and 1985.

Canada

In Canada, sixteen interbasin transfers have been implemented for hydropower development. The most important is the James Bay Project from the Caniapiscau River and the Eastmain River into the La Grande River, built in the 1970s. The water flow was reduced by 90% at the mouth of the Eastmain River, by 45% where the Caniapiscau River flows into the Koksoak River, and by 35% at the mouth of the Koksoak River. The water flow of the La Grande River, on the other hand, was doubled, increasing from 1,700 m³/s to 3,400 m³/s (and from 500 m³/s to 5,000 m³/s in winter) at the mouth of the La Grande River. Other interbasin transfers include:

British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Quebec
Saskatchewan

Asia

  • The Nam Theun II Project in Laos from the Nam Theun River to the Xe Bang Fai River, both tributaries of the Mekong River, completed in 2008.

For other purposes

The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in the US, which serves to divert polluted water from Lake Michigan.

Transfers under construction

The Eastern and Central Routes of the South–North Water Transfer Project in China from the Yangtse River to the Yellow River and Beijing.

Proposed transfers

Nearly all proposed interbasin transfers are in developing countries. The objective of most transfers is the alleviation of water scarcity in the receiving basin(s). Unlike in the case of existing transfers, there are very few proposed transfers whose objective is the generation of hydropower.

Africa

From the Ubangi River in Congo to the Chari River which empties into Lake Chad. The plan was first proposed in the 1960s and again in the 1980s and 1990s by Nigerian engineer J. Umolu (ZCN Scheme) and Italian firm Bonifica (Transaqua Scheme).[10][11][12][13][14] In 1994, the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC) proposed a similar project and at a March, 2008 Summit, the Heads of State of the LCBC member countries committed to the diversion project.[15] In April, 2008, the LCBC advertised a request for proposals for a World Bank-funded feasibility study.

Americas

Asia

Australia

Europe

From the Ebro River in Spain to Barcelona in the Northeast and to various cities on the Mediterranean coast to the Southwest

Ecological aspects

In this experiment, juvenile green sturgeons are being dragged into an unscreened water diversion pipe operated under conditions like those found in the Sacramento River.

Since rivers are home to a complex web of species and their interactions, the transfer of water from one basin to another can have a serious impact on species living therein.[22]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Texas Water Report: Going Deeper for the Solution Archived 2014-02-22 at the Wayback Machine Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Retrieved 11 February 2014.
  2. ^ Cecilia Tortajada and Enrique Castelán:Water Management for a Megacity: Mexico City Metropolitan Area, Ambio, Volume 32, Issue 2 (March 2003)
  3. ^ "New York City's Water Supply System Map". New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Archived from the original on 2009-10-14. Retrieved 2009-09-03.
  4. ^ "Northern Water C-BT Project". www.northernwater.org. Retrieved 2019-03-07.
  5. ^ "Where does Cheyenne get its Water". City of Cheyenne. Retrieved 2024-05-04.
  6. ^ "Salient Features of Sardar Sarovar Project: Narmada Main Canal System". Narmada Control Authority (NCA). Retrieved 28 November 2021.
  7. ^ a b "Salient Features of NWDT Award". Narmada Control Authority (NCA). Retrieved 28 November 2021.
  8. ^ a b c d e f National Water Development Agency of India:Existing Experience with Interbasin Transfers
  9. ^ Drakensberg Pumped Storage Scheme Archived 2008-10-17 at the Wayback Machine
  10. ^ Journal of Environmental Hydrology, Vol. 7, 1999
  11. ^ New Scientist, March 23, 1991 Africa at a Watershed (Ubangi - Lake Chad Inter-basin transfer)
  12. ^ Umolu, J. C.; 1990, Macro Perspectives for Nigeria's Water Resources Planning, Proc. of the First Biennial National Hydrology Symposium, Maiduguri, Nigeria, pp. 218-262(discussion of Ubangi-Lake Chad diversion schemes)
  13. ^ The Changing Geography of Africa and the Middle East By Graham Chapman, Kathleen M. Baker, University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, 1992 Routledge
  14. ^ Combating Climate Induced Water And Energy Deficiencies In West Central Africa (Ubangi - Lake Chad Inter-basin transfer) Archived 2011-05-26 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ^ Voice of America News, March 28, 2008 African Leaders Team Up to Rescue Lake Chad
  16. ^ City of Hickory:Interbasin transfer information
  17. ^ http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/public-132757.html [bare URL]
  18. ^ National Water Development Agency of India:Proposed Interbasin Transfer Links - Peninsular Component
  19. ^ a b M.S. MENON: A case for inter-basin transfer of water[usurped], in:The Hindu, Nov. 19, 2002
  20. ^ National Water Development Agency of India:Proposed Interbasin Transfer Links - Himalayan Component
  21. ^ Siberian River Project Revived 08-Sep-06
  22. ^ Mussen, T. D.; Cocherell, D.; Poletto, J. B.; Reardon, J. S.; Hockett, Z.; Ercan, A.; Bandeh, H.; Kavvas, M. L.; Cech Jr, J. J.; Fangue, N. A. (2014). Fulton, Christopher J (ed.). "Unscreened Water-Diversion Pipes Pose an Entrainment Risk to the Threatened Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris". PLOS ONE. 9 (1): e86321. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...986321M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086321. PMC 3893286. PMID 24454967.

Further reading