On June 6, 2023, the rupture of the structure, destroyed by explosions, caused monster floods. A year later, the immense reservoir upstream has partly dried up, with consequences for the fauna, flora and population.
The ground is conquered by willows in many places. And in the dry bed of the Dnieper, life is gradually regaining its rights. Just a year ago, on June 6, 2023, in southern Ukraine at war, the imposing Kakhovka dam broke. The explosions that caused its destruction had been heard for miles around. More than 72% of the water in the upstream reservoir, so large that it was sometimes compared to an inland sea, had subsequently flowed away. They had flooded 600 km2 of land downstream, hitting indiscriminately the bank under Ukrainian control and that taken by Russian troops.
“This disaster marked the beginning of the end”, tells Mykhaïlo Pourichev to franceinfo. At the time, this Ukrainian did not hesitate to cross the river to rescue residents in occupied territory, under enemy drones which were scrutinizing his pink-painted boat. A third of the large city of Kherson, recaptured from the Russian army a few months earlier, was then under water. “The banks dried up quickly, but the area is diedenounces this volunteer who comes to the aid of populations. Businesses closed, as did restaurants. Residents never returned because their homes had been destroyed.”
Upstream of the destroyed dam, the immense artificial lake previously covered 2,150 km2, Yevhen Korjov, professor at the department of aquatic bioresources at Kherson University, explains to franceinfo. Today he describes a place that looks like a desert crossed by small canals, in the historic bed of the river, filled with a “swampy vegetation populated by harmful species of aquatic animals”. “A third of the land at the bottom of the old reservoir is covered with wetland vegetation”he adds, including islets invested by shoots of willows and white poplars.
Everywhere else a dense layer of dried silt extends. On the left bank occupied by Russian forces, in particular, “water accumulates in natural depressions, forming isolated lakes contaminated by the remains of animals and plants”underlines the researcher. Cut off from the hydrological network, they do not benefit from any fresh water supply. In the future, these stagnant waters “could potentially contaminate neighboring bodies of water, even the lower reaches of the Dnieper and the Black Sea”worries Yevhen Korjov.
Downstream of the destroyed dam, the “Research has shown that the water of the Dnieper has become less transparent and murkier than it was”. with a sometimes lower concentration of oxygen, continues the Ukrainian scientist. Which can have deleterious effects for certain aquatic organisms. In Kherson, the water of the Dnieper can have high levels of nitrates and certain heavy metals, particularly after episodes of rain which wash the soil.
The floodplains of the lower Dnieper are home to “wetlands of international importance”according to the Ukrainian Ministry of the Environment, which estimates that almost 10,000 hectares of this precious ecosystem have been destroyed.
“The destruction of the dam was the largest man-made disaster of the 21st century on the European continent.”
Yevhen Korjov, professor at Kherson Universityat franceinfo
Gradually, the river will return to its natural hydrological regime, characterized by “relatively high spring flood waters and low levels during summer and autumn low tides”, explains to franceinfo Ihor Pilipenko, who also teaches at the University of Kherson. But it will take several more decades for the territory to regain the hydrological characteristics that pre-existed the construction of the dam, launched in the 1950s.
After the explosion, “all biotopes were completely flooded and swept out to sea by a six-meter wave of water”, adds Yevhen Korjov. Millions and millions of invertebrates and fish were lost in a matter of weeks. “If we talk about the impact on fauna and flora, this disaster can only be compared to the Chernobyl accident.”
Several researchers, however, point to long-term benefits, with the return of several endemic species. Scientific expeditions carried out in the sector have made it possible to observe encouraging signals, when they are not random events. “Two weeks ago, poachers were controlled with sturgeons”explains to franceinfo Eugene Simonov, co-author of a report from the Working Group on the environmental consequences of the war in Ukraine. “This is the first observation of a migration of these rare fish.”
But the development of this ecosystem will depend “a lot of how the flow of the river will be managed upstream”, he nuances. However, the Russian army regularly strikes the five hydroelectric power stations located further north on the Dnieper. This forces operators to release water, disrupting the watercourse downstream.
:quality(50)/2024/06/05/carte-ukraine-kakhovka-2024-02-666088407b987949793495.png)
A year after the disaster, water supplies are still tight in the region. On the right bank of the Dnieper, work is underway to supply the network from other reservoirs in the country, explains Ihor Pilipenko. The continuation of hostilities obviously complicates development projects and access to drinking water, but the town of Kryvyï Rih, 60 km from the old reservoir, is today supplied by a pipeline coming from the Kremenchuk reservoir. , much further north. “The quality, moreover, is much better, because the water from Kakhovka was not very pure, the reservoir being shallow and vegetated.”
On the south bank, in occupied territory, the water tables are becoming inaccessible, even in areas located along the river. “Where they were previously at 20 m, they are now at 40 m”, illustrates Ihor Pilipenko. This bank indeed presents a different relief: “It lies on a huge watershed, and the entire water supply, even to the occupied cities of Melitopol and Berdyansk, is provided by a canal system from the Kharkovka reservoir.”
Coastal communities are today deprived of drinking water, notes Yevhen Korjov, and their wells are desperately empty. “It is no longer possible to draw water from the new Dnieper canal, because the volume of water is insufficient and its quality is degraded.”
“After the reservoir was drained, Ukraine lost 35% of its fresh water reserves.”
Yevhen Korjov, researcher at Kherson Universityat franceinfo
Around 25% of agricultural land was irrigated, to grow onions, tomatoes, peppers, watermelons and melons. But “this is no longer possible at all and this region will gradually have to switch to drought-resistant crops”, underlines Ihor Pilipenko. The reduction in productivity will lead to an exodus of the population, adds the researcher, when the former dry steppe returns. Finally, navigation is now impossible on the Dnieper, even though the river was one of the main outlets for agricultural production destined for Europe, Africa and Turkey.
Two investigations were opened after the destruction of the dam. The first to establish the responsibility of Russia, while the two parties still accuse each other today of having caused the catastrophe. The second for “ecocide”, the first case of its kind in the country. Maksym Popov, special advisor for environmental crimes to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, had deployed a total of “172 prosecutors and 285 investigators”AFP then reported.
“The terrorist attack destroyed irrigation systems”, argued the regional governor, Olexandr Prokoudine, in an interview with the Liga website, affirming that cereal production had fallen by 100,000 tonnes as a result. At this stage, however, it is mainly the fighting that threatens the region and its natural wealth. Even recently, the Ukrainian authorities denounced fires caused by Russian bombings in the Kamianska Sich national nature park, with more than 8.5 hectares going up in smoke.
This does not prevent kyiv from anticipating what happens next. Already a month after the destruction of the dam, the Ukrainian cabinet of ministers adopted a resolution aimed at rebuilding the dam. More recently, local authorities estimated that such a project could take five years, after the end of hostilities, with a cost estimated between one and two billion euros.
But several environmental organizations have already made known their opposition to the identical reconstruction of a structure imagined during Soviet planning, which they now consider obsolete. “I think this event was a massive shock to nature, and can be described as ecocidedeclares to franceinfo Eugene Simonov, who advocates a more mixed agricultural activity, better adapted to the constraints of the 21st century. “If anyone tried to rebuild this reservoir, it would be a new act of ecocide. The consequences would be just as tragic for nature, but also for the population faced with new climatic conditions.