U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–300PDF 2014

WATER AS A GEOPOLITICAL THREAT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND 

EMERGING THREATS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 16, 2014

Serial No. 113–127

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs, 

Defense, and Trade Division, Congressional Research Service ........................ 7

Ms. Maura Moynihan, author & activist ............................................................... 13

Mr. Gordon G. Chang, author ................................................................................. 56

Mr. David Goodtree, co-chair and founder, Symposium on Water Innovation ... 62

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Jeremy M. Sharp: Prepared statement ........................................................... 10

Ms. Maura Moynihan: Prepared statement .......................................................... 18

Mr. Gordon G. Chang: Prepared statement .......................................................... 58

Mr. David Goodtree: Prepared statement .............................................................. 64

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 82

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 83

(1)

WATER AS A GEOPOLITICAL THREAT 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Good morning. This is the Subcommittee on 

Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats and we are now in session. 

And I would first and foremost like to ask my colleagues, with 

unanimous consent, that Mr. Blumenauer, who has spent such considerable time and effort on this issue of water and the importance 

of it and world affairs today, and then the standard of living of our 

people, that he be permitted to participate on the same status as 

any other member of the committee. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

It is the Chair’s intention to have a short opening statement. The 

ranking member will have an opening statement. And I will give 

also time to Mr. Blumenaurer, as well as our other members, for 

short opening statements. 

So good morning. The subcommittee has convened and we welcome our witnesses today as part of our emerging threats which 

is—that is within the title in our portfolio. We examine the topic 

of water as a strategic resource and its potential use as a threat. 

Those of us who have lived around water our whole lives may be 

unaware of how water may be manipulated maliciously for both 

material gain and for political coercion. Although in our country’s 

history, I think it is very clear that there were water wars and people in conflict or people in great accomplishments of people working 

together, that our country’s history is filled with focusing on the 

issue of water. 

Our witnesses today made clear such conduct is routine when it 

comes to countries like Communist China that routine conduct is 

manipulation of water for power’s sake. As our witness today, Gordon Chang will explain, China’s illegal occupation of Tibet puts it 

in control of the roof of the world and thus, the headwaters that 

service half the world’s population. We could be confident that resulting water disputes would be handled responsibly and reasonably, perhaps solved in international forums or in agreements like 

many other countries do, if that is we could be confident in that 

if China were a country that wasn’t the world’s worst human rights 

2

abuser that has had no political reform whatsoever in these last 20 

years when we have seen such incredible reform in other and 

former communist countries. 

Our Congressional Research Service testimony makes clear that 

most of these matters in terms of water are resolved through negotiations and peaceably and I might say remarkably these issues are 

solved by people acting responsibly and providing leadership and 

reaching out to people and to find solutions. Some of the 300 agreements over the last 70 years have unfolded in that way. Today, a 

warning alarm is sounding about China’s control of such water resources because we have seen that China, even in the last few 

months, is not so reasonable when it is making its territorial 

claims. 

China isn’t the only flash point for the water issue, however, and 

water controversies are nothing new. Water is a volatile issue in 

the Middle East today, for example, but let us take a look. If you 

read the history, water played a very significant role in, for example, creating the environment that led to the Six Day War back in 

1967. Basically, that conflict began when the Syrian Government 

decided to dam up waters that were flowing into Israel followed by 

an Israeli air attack which destroyed those dams. Then Egypt and 

other Arab neighbors were called into the conflict and it almost led 

to a superpower confrontation which would have been a disaster for 

the whole planet. And that all began with what, a water controversy over how much water was going to be flowing into Israel 

and the attempt by Syria to dam up that water. 

Today, there are heartening signs, however, of cooperation in 

that same region between otherwise adversarial parties. The Red 

Sea to Dead Sea canal project is one that has potential of supplying 

water to Jordan, a country suffering from extreme water scarcity. 

Last month, Israel and Jordan and the Palestinian Authority, 

signed an agreement setting the path for a Red to Dead canal that 

would allow a desalinization plant in Aqaba, Jordan. Israel agreed 

to increase its fresh water that it sends to Jordan from the Sea of 

Galilee and the Palestinians will be able to buy cheaper water from 

Israel. It seems like a very good deal all the way around, but let 

me note it took a long time and a lot of serious negotiations and 

a lot of sincerity on both sides, or all three sides of that negotiating 

table, to reach that agreement. 

And let me just note one of the first assignments, and many people know that I was a speech writer for President Reagan, and my 

first assignment was to welcome and work with the President on 

his welcoming remarks for President Hussein, King Hussein of Jordan. And King Hussein of Jordan was the first visit to the Reagan 

White House, the first official visit. And I was supposed to work 

for the President on welcoming remarks and that was the first remarks that I have ever written for a President of the United 

States, I might add, or anybody else. 

And the State Department sent me over a stack of things to look 

at, like that, and their sample of what they would want the President to say which I, of course, discarded immediately. But I studied 

everything that was in front of me, and there was one piece of 

paper in that big stack of papers of things to look at that jumped 

out at me. And it was that there were negotiations going on about 

3

the Red Sea to Dead Sea project that had just started at that time 

which was 1981 and so I looked at this and I said this is really a 

significant thing, that we have people who are politically so separated who are willing to sit down at a table because of how important water is and work together to try and find a solution. Perhaps 

we can use this as an example of the type of cooperation we should 

encourage. 

And so I decided I was going to write that into the President’s 

speech myself. And I had no idea that I could when I was hired 

on as a speechwriter that I would have this type of personal contact with the President of the United States. And it finally dawned 

on me when they said well, sure if you have got a good idea put 

it in there and we will see what the President says. And of course, 

he liked it very much and it was part of his welcoming remarks. 

But at that point, I really found out I had a pretty good job after 

all. 

We can take a look at what has happened, however. It has taken 

all of these years to come to an agreement. And I will say this, we 

should all encourage this process between Jordan, the Palestinians, 

and the Israelis because it might take long, but it is symbolic, as 

Ronald Reagan noted in his welcoming remarks to King Hussein, 

it is very symbolic of what can be accomplished by people even 

when they have other disagreements of how they can work together. 

The situation involving the basin countries in the Nile River, for 

example, deserves watching and we need to look at this very closely because the Nile, of course, flows through ten different countries 

and Egypt is one of the final ones and basically Egypt views the 

Nile as its primary national security and economic lifeline. So with 

so many countries upstream, that is an area we have got to look 

and try to work with these powers to make sure that there are 

again efforts made for cooperation, rather than confrontation. 

This subcommittee held a hearing in July of last year on the dam 

controversy between Tajikistan and Uzebekistan and that was a 

controversy that is now at the high level international conference 

of water cooperation which opened up in August. The Uzbeks are 

arguing that the proposed Rogun Dam in Tajikistan would cost 

them some $600 million a year. Since this issue has not been resolved, we will continue to monitor it closely but that shows you 

again how significant just an idea of how we are going to control 

the flow of water can be. Six hundred million dollars to 

Uzebekistan means, I would imagine, it has more—whether their 

kids are going to get educated, whether they are going to have a 

proper healthcare system in that country is being challenged by the 

fact that water is being controlled. 

One positive story deals with our border relations with Mexico. 

The United States and Mexico in 1944 signed a water treaty that 

has allowed us to resolve most of our border water issues relative 

to the Rio Grande and Colorado River. And let me note for the 

record that I have been—being from California, I have studied 

the—not studied as much as some of our witnesses have, I am 

sure—the history of water between California and the other border 

states and Mexico. And I think we have played pretty hardball 

with the Mexicans on this. And I think there have been very legitiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Apr 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\011614\86300 SHIRL
4

mate complaints on the part of Mexico in the past that the United 

States was not operating with them with the same type of sincerity 

and the same type of respect that we should have been doing to 

a country that is our neighbor that we wanted to maintain a peaceful relationship with. The 1944 agreement has gone a long way to 

try to clear up some of those problems that were around for a long 

time and we still have some issues of water that we need to work 

out with Mexico. 

Water is a significant issue and a potential geopolitical threat to 

much of the world. Our witnesses are a distinguished group of witnesses today. Jeremy Sharp is a specialist in Middle East affairs 

with the Congressional Research Service. Gordon Chang is an author and a lawyer who lived in China for many years and has traveled regularly there since. David Goodtree at the Symposium for 

Water Innovation from Massachusetts is certainly a guest of our 

ranking member. We are looking forward to his testimony. And like 

most Americans, I have a great admiration for our witness’s father, 

and Maura Moynihan’s dad was, of course, Senator Daniel Patrick 

Moynihan who my generation of Americans looked up to tremendously. He sometimes gave the Reagan White House a few fits and 

I remember those as well, but his opinions were always respected 

and he had a major influence on political thinking in the United 

States. He was, of course, in my way of thinking, he was a heroic 

champion of human rights at the United Nations and as well as an 

Ambassador to India. Ms. Moynihan, of course, was with him in 

India and has done a great deal of work on her own in terms of 

the issue of Tibet and China and we are very happy to have her 

today to share her understanding of maybe the threat that we face 

with China still occupying Tibet after 60 years. 

So again, with unanimous consent I put the rest of the—insert 

into the record a bio of all of our witnesses. So ordered without 

hearing an objection. And I turn to Mr. Keating for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this timely and important hearing. I am also pleased that 

Mr. Blumenauer is able to join us today. Mr. Blumenauer and our 

fellow subcommittee member, Mr. Poe, have done an awful lot of 

work together on global water security, both in terms of increasing 

access to clean water and in promoting mitigation of conflicts stemming from water scarcity. 

I would also like to join the chairman in thanking our witnesses 

who are appearing today, particularly Mr. David Goodtree. It is a 

pleasure to see him. Almost as great a pleasure to see the cap that 

he has brought with him and placed on the desk of the Boston Red 

Sox. For those of you on the panel and in the room, that is the 

world champion Boston Red Sox and thank you for that thoughtfulness as well. Mr. Goodtree is the co-chair and founder of the Symposium on Water Innovation in my home state of Massachusetts, 

an association of water technology industry executives focused on 

bringing clean, abundant water to global markets through technology created in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Mr. Chairman, it is clearly in the U.S. interest to work and reduce tensions caused by water scarcity and promote access to clean 

water around the entire world. In 2011, the national intelligence 

5

estimate, the U.S. intelligence community reported that over the 

next 10 years, many countries important to the United States will 

experience water shortages, poor water quality, floods, and other 

water problems that will risk instability and even state failure. It 

will also increase tensions between neighbors and distract partners 

from working with the United States on important policy objectives. 

While disagreements over water are inevitable, the good news is 

that the international community has an impressive track record 

of resolving water tensions through negotiation and cooperation. In 

the last 70 years, there have been 37 reported incidents of water 

conflicts involving violence. During that same period, roughly 300 

international water agreements were negotiated and signed. Indeed, recent history shows that the peaceful resolution of water disputes can be a useful diplomatic tool for building trust and cooperation. 

Looking forward, the key will be to find ways to promote cooperation between countries in cases where water is or has the potential 

to become a source of tension. Admittedly, this is not easy. Most 

countries view water as a sovereign issue and there are many cases 

where outside intervention is not warranted at all. Moreover, water 

problems are often connected to a broader set of political, developmental, and financial challenges. In the future, international efforts to increase access to clean water and promote sanitation will 

be just as important. 

According to the State Department, nearly 800 million people 

around the world do not have access to clean water. More than 1.5 

billion still lack access to improved sanitation facilities. Each year, 

more than 4 billion cases of diarrhea caused 2.2 million deaths. 

Most are in children under the age of 5. In addition to the lives 

lost, the total economic losses associated with inadequate clean 

water supply and sanitation is estimated at more than $250 billion 

annually. The scarcity of clean water and sanitation disproportionately affects women and children. In many countries, women and 

young girls bear responsibility for meeting the water needs of the 

entire family. Collecting water can consume up to 5 hours a day, 

time that could be spent in school or improving their families’ livelihoods. 

Addressing water problems is a daunting challenge, but the 

international community’s successful track record and the growth 

of new and innovative technologies give us even greater reason to 

hope. As such, I am interested in hearing our witnesses’ views on 

the effectiveness of U.S. diplomatic and development efforts to promote dialogue, capacity building, and the development and use of 

new water technologies, but also welcome our witnesses’ view on 

the role that regional initiatives could play in promoting cooperation, thereby reducing water-related tensions. 

One example is the new Silk Road initiative which aims to improve energy and trade linkages between countries in Central and 

South Asia. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back and again, 

thank all of you for being here. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Mr. Marino. Colonel 

Cook. And I would welcome remarks from Mr. Blumenauer and 

again, appreciate the leadership that he is showing on this issue, 

6

not only Republicans and Democrats, trying to get us focused on 

this issue. Your leadership, I think, has inspired me and the ranking member to call this hearing today. So thank you very much for 

being with us. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I deeply appreciate the courtesy of the subcommittee for being able to join you. 

I guess it is obligatory in a water hearing at some point somebody 

has to quote Mark Twain that ‘‘whiskey was for drinking and water 

is for fighting.’’ And your willingness to focus on water as an area 

of conflict, threat to the United States and others, is deeply appreciated. As I appreciate the support that you and the ranking member have given to the latest legislation that Judge Poe and I have 

introduced, the Water for the World Act which, if enacted, would 

help in some way address some of these issues. 

It is too often a hidden issue in foreign policy and the detail that 

you went through, both of you went through a moment ago, I think 

is very important and I wish somehow that it got more attention 

here in Congress. And this subcommittee meeting is moving in the 

right direction. 

The threats go beyond the shared river basin. As my friend, 

ranking member pointed out, in terms of the instability and threat 

by the staggering number of people that still, despite intensive efforts over the last 20 years, almost 1 billion with safe drinking 

water, more than 2 billion without access to sanitation, and the ripple effects that that can have. And I think it is so important to 

focus on the impact of families in these areas. And I do appreciate 

Mr. Keating talking about the fact that this is primarily a burden 

that falls on women and girls in families. There will, today, because of that up to 5 hours spent globally, 200 million hours will 

be spent by women and girls gathering water and putting by the 

way often themselves at risk as they go from the village. 

The spotlight on China I think is so important and is welcome, 

as well as the—I didn’t realize the long history of this Red to Dead, 

but it is an example of where these can be positive. What we are 

seeing in Syria today, the experts tell us, is in no small measure 

a result of sustained drought that drove almost 1 million farmers 

to migrate to urban areas, hungry, jobless, and was a flash point 

for that initial protest against the regime as Assad had no interest 

or ability to deal with it. 

Over the next 20 years, we are going to see more urban instability due to population increase, disease, poverty, and social unrest. We have been working with the United States and international partners making some progress, but we risk reversing that 

progress that we have made due to the explosive population growth 

that is going to occur in sprawling urban slums which is difficult 

and expensive to provide sanitation, quickly leading to pollution 

and disease. 

It was exciting yesterday to see our friends in the appropriations 

committee in a difficult budget climate responding to the challenge 

that a number of us have been working on with a 20 percent increase to give leverage to the State Department. I hope that the 

hearing will help spotlight what we might be able to do with the 

passage of the Paul Simon Water for the World Act which is also 

moving its way through the Senate. Elevate the existing position 

7

of the State Department to better coordinate diplomatic policy; develop a coherent policy framework that will drive our policy in the 

right direction; build the capacity within the 

State Department to handle both the bureau and mission level 

issues and make sure that water sanitation and hygiene is reflected in broader development and strategic planning documents. 

The leadership of this subcommittee is deeply appreciated. It is 

timely and it is an opportunity for us to take an important step to 

encourage some of the related committees, appropriations, defense 

authorization, as well as foreign affairs, to refine our policies and 

protect our progress. 

As you pointed out in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, it 

is not only a threat, but it is potentially a solution and I look forward to this discussion. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I appreciate that opening statement. And I 

also appreciate the mentioning of Senator Paul Simon who worked 

so hard when Mr. Moynihan was known for his work on human 

rights, but Mr. Simon was a person who saw the water issue as so 

significant. I remember when I was a young freshman, a long time 

ago, I got a call from Paul Simon when I mentioned that I thought 

water was an important issue and he took time to call me up and 

talk to me on the phone about how he thought that I had some insights that would be useful and be very important to follow up on 

on those insights. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Begging your leave, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And both those gentlemen were charter members of the Senate bow tie Caucus. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right, with that I would ask the witnesses 

if they could condense their testimony to about 5 minutes and then 

we will ask questions. We will have panel dialogue and some questions afterwards. 

Mr. Sharp, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JEREMY M. SHARP, SPECIALIST IN MIDDLE EASTERN AFFAIRS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENSE, AND 

TRADE DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Mr. SHARP. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating, 

and other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for 

inviting CRS here today. I will provide an overview of the so-called 

Red-Dead Canal and its potential implications for U.S. policy. 

To the surprise of many outside observers, just over a month ago, 

the World Bank Headquarters here in Washington, Israeli, the 

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon, and the Palestinian Authority 

signed a tri-lateral Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU. This 

MOU outlines a series of water-sharing agreements which includes 

the initial phase construction of what has been informally referred 

to as the Red-Dead Canal. The Red-Dead Canal is a decades-old 

plan to provide fresh water to water-scarce countries in the surrounding area while simultaneously restoring the Dead Sea, which 

has been shrinking at an alarming rate. The original Red-Dead 

concept was to pump water from the Red Sea and desalinate it for 

use by the participating countries. The leftover brine would then be 

8

gradually channelled to the Dead Sea, helping restore the sea’s receding water levels. 

Regional environmentalists have long criticized plans to restore 

the Dead Sea using Red Sea water. They warn that the transfusion 

of water from the Red Sea into the Dead Sea could have serious 

ecological consequences that would negatively impact both Dead 

Sea tourism and industry. In 2005, the World Bank sponsored 

what became an 8-year-long feasibility study of the Red-Dead 

Canal concept. Almost a year ago to the day, various media outlets 

reported that construction firms involved in the feasibility study 

had declared that the project was technically feasible, although it 

would come with a steep price tag, costing at least $10 billion and 

take years to construct. 

The Kingdom of Jordan has vigorously pursued the Red-Dead 

Canal concept. Jordan is one of the most water-deprived countries 

in the world and is constantly searching for new water resources. 

The civil war in neighboring Syria is exacerbating Jordan’s water 

crisis as over 1⁄2 million Syrian refugees have fled to Jordan increasing the population by 9 percent within just 2 years. 

In August 2013, the Jordanian Government announced its intent 

to construct a scaled-down version of the canal entirely on Jordanian territory. In terms of scale and cost what the Jordanians 

have announced and agreed on with Israel and the Palestinian Authority is far less ambitious than the initial Red-Dead concept. Estimates suggest that construction of the desalinization plan and 

pipeline under the new MOU may cost between $450 million to $1 

billion. However, it is unclear who will pay for the new project. 

In essence, under the new MOU, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to a water swap. Half of the water 

pumped from the Red Sea will be desalinated in a plant to be constructed in Aquaba, Jordan. Some of this water will then be used 

in southern Jordan. The rest will be sold to Israel for use in the 

Negev Desert. In return, Israel will sell fresh water from the Sea 

of Galilee to northern Jordan and sell the Palestinian Authority 

discounted fresh water produced by existing Israeli desalination 

plants. The other half of the water, or the leftover brine, pumped 

from the Red Sea will be channeled to the Dead Sea where its environmental impact will be monitored by an international consortium 

of scientists. 

So what are the implications for U.S. policy and issues for Congress? With the Obama administration and Secretary of State John 

Kerry engrossed in seeking an Israeli-Palestinian final status 

agreement, the timing of the MOU could complement overall U.S. 

peace-brokering efforts, though the agreement was between the 

parties themselves with reportedly minimal U.S. involvement. According to Silvan Shalom, Israel’s Water and Energy minister, 

‘‘This is a historic agreement that realizes a dream of many years. 

The agreement is of the highest diplomatic, economic, environmental, and strategic importance.’’

For Jordan, the MOU could be considered a major diplomatic 

achievement. Though the current plan is a scaled-down version of 

the original concept, the Kingdom will receive additional fresh 

water resources at a time of heightened scarcity, owing to the Syrian civil war. Nevertheless, as the title of this hearing suggests, seVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Apr 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\011614\86300 SHIRL
9

curity and political challenges remain. Arab cooperative infrastructure projects with Israel could be possible targets for extremist violence as has been the case in Egypt, where gas pipelines traversing 

the Sinai peninsula to Israel and Jordan have been repeatedly sabotaged by terrorists. 

In the water-scarce Middle East region, water sharing agreements in the absence of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace 

may be considered risky. But there are also risks associated with 

doing nothing. If living conditions in Jordan deteriorated further, 

one could argue that the stability of a dependable Arab partner for 

the United States and reliable peace partner for Israel would be 

jeopardized. It is possible that Congress could be asked to consider 

appropriating funds to support the implementation of the Red-Dead 

Canal. Lawmakers could pose the following questions among others. To what extent will the project address water needs in Jordan, 

Israel, and the West Bank? What are the security risks and costs? 

Is the cost of the project on target? How will scientists monitor the 

environmental impact? And is the project scalable beyond the initial construction? 

Thank you. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharp follows:]

10


86300a-1.eps

TESTIMONY OF JEREMY M. SIL\RP 

SPECL'\LlST IN MIDDLE EASTERN AF~:,\IRS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

"WATER AS A GEOPOLITICAL THREAT" 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014- 10:00 A.M. -2172 RAYRURNHOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUR COMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EUR,\SIA AND EMERGING 

THREATS 

Chairman Rohrabachcr. Ranking Member Kcating. othcr distinguished Membcrs of the Committee. thank 

you ror inviting CRS to testiry here toclay. I will provide an overview or the so-called "Red-Dead Canal" 

and its potential implications for U.S. policy. 

To the surprise of many outside observers. just over a month ago at the World Bank headquarters, Israel, 

rhe Ilashemire Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestinian AUThority (PA) signed a trilateral Memorandum of 

Understanding (ofiicially referred to as the Memorandwll 01' UnderManding on the E.>IaiJlishment 01' the 

Red Sea-Dead Sea FirM Phase, and on Wilter Solutions for the Region). This MOU outlines a series of 

water-sharing agreements, which includes the initial phase construction or what has heen inrormally 

referred to as the Red-Dead Canal. 

The Red-Dead Canal is a decades-old plan to provide rreshwater to water-scarce countries in the 

surrounding area while simultaneously restoring the Dcad Sca, which has bcen shrinking at an alarming 

rate. TIle original "Red-Dead" concept was to pump water rrom the Red Sea and desalinate it ror use hy 

the participating countries. The leftover brine would then be gradually channeled down the canal 1,870 

feet to the Dead Sea. helping restore the sea's receding water levels. Hydroelectricity generated from 

water coursing down this gradient would power the desalination plants. 

Regional enviromllentalists have long criticized plans to restore dle Dead Sea using Red Sea water. They 

warn that the u'ansfusion of water from dle Red Sea into the Dead Sea could have serious ecological 

consequences, including large scale growth or algae and rormation or gypsum that would negatively 

impact bodl Dead Sea tourism and industry. Some of these environmentalists propose instead that 

countries should stop diverting water rrmn the Jordan River, which reeds into the Dead Sea. 

In 2005, the World Bank sponsored what beeamc an eight-year-long feasibility study of the Red-Dead 

concept ([orlllally known as the Red Sea-Dead Sea Water COl1veyal/{'e Study Program). Almost a ye'tr agll 

to the day, various media outlets reported that construction firms involved in the feasibility study had 

declared that the project was technically "feasible," though it would come with a steep price tag costing at 

least $10 billion and take years to construct. Despite tllese challenges, in one key passage of a draft report, 

some authors of one of the feasibility studies wrote that there are few alternatives, noting: 

"Whilst there arc on-going negotiations lor a redistribution of existing waler resources there is apparently no Plan "B" 

for the provision of a badly needed new source of fresh water for either Jordan or the Palestinian Authority. It therefore 

CIJ!1gressiunar. Rt!.'.eardz SenJiH? 7-5700 
11


86300a-2.eps

C011gressional Researc1t Servia 

seems inevitable that if the proposed project proves to be not feasible there \vill he a significant delay in addressing the 

serious water budget deficit in the region:'] 

The Kingdom of Jordan has vigorously pursued the Red-Dead Canal concept. Jordan is one of the most 

water-deprived countries in the world and is constantly searching for new water resources. The civil war 

in neighboring Syria is exacerbating Jordan's water crisis, as over half a million refugees have fled to 

Jordan, incrcasing Jordan's population by 9'7" within just two years. In August 2013, the Jordanian 

govel11ment announced its intent to construct a scaled-down version or the canal entirely on Jordanian 

territory. 

In terms or scale and cost, what the Jordanians have announced and agreed on with Israel and the I'A is rar 

less ambitious than the initial Red-Dead concept. In the end, the original plan lacked international 

financing cOIllnutmenb, Apparently, potential investors were unsure of what would resull if brine was 

pumped into the Dead Sea heyond a certain level. The new plan does not include a hydroelectric 

component. Estimates suggest that construction of a desalination plant and pipeline under the new MOU 

may cost between $450 nullion and $1 billion, However, it is unclear who will pay for the new projectthe hraeli or Jordanian governrnent~, private companies inve~ting in desalination, the World Rank, or 

other international donors, The reduced price tag presumably has a better chance of attracting 

international iinancial support. 

In essence, under the new MOll, Israel. Jordan, and the Palestinian AUThority have agreed to a water 

swap, Half of the water pumpcd ii-om the Red Sea will bc desalinated in a plant to be constructed in 

Aqaha, Jordan, over the next three years, Some or this water will then he used in southern Jordan. The 

rest will he sold to Israel ror use in the Negev Deser!. In retul11, Israel will sell rreshwater rrom the Sea or 

Galilee to northern Jordan and sell the Palestinian Authority discounted ii-eshwater produced by existing 

Israeli desalination plants on the MeditelTanean, The other hair or the water pumped rrom the Red Sea 

(or possihly the lenover hrine rrmtl desalination) will he channeled to the Dead Sea. 

In the first phase of the plan outlined in the MOIL a limited infusion of Red Sea water will be channeled 

t!nough the canal into the Dead Sea, where its environmental impact will be Illonitored by an international 

consortium of scientists, According to the World Dank, "Ibis phase is limited in scale and designed to 

accomplish two objectives: to provide new water to a critically water Sh011 region; and the opportunity, 

under scientific supervision, to hetter understand the consequences of mixing Red Sea and Dead Sea 

waters," 

So what are the implications for U,S. policy and issues for Congress? 

With the Oharlla Administration and Secretary or State John Ken'y engrossed in seeking an IsraeliPalestinian iinal status agreement, the tinling of the MOU could complement overall U.S peace brokering 

efforts, though the agreement was between the parties themselves with reportedly minimal U,S, 

involvement. According to Silvan Shalom, Israel's water and energy nunister. "Tins is a lustoric 

agreement that realizes a dream of many years .... The agreement is of the highest diplomatic, economic, 

environmental and strategic importance," 

jior Jordan, the MOLl could he cunsidered a major diplomatic achievement. Though the current plan is a 

scaled down vcrsion of the original concept, the Kingdom will receivc additional ii'eshwatcr resources at a 

lhttp://sitereSOllrces.worldhank.org/TNTRnDSEADnADSnAlResourcesfTieasibllity_Study_Report_Summary_EN.p 

df 
12


86300a-3.eps

C011gressional Researc1t Servia 

lime of heighlened scarcily owing 10 Ihe Syrian civil war, and Jordanian workers also may henefil 

economically from thc creation of new infrastructurc projects in thc kingdom. 

Nevertheless. as fhe title of this hearing suggests. security and political challenges remain. Arab 

cooperative inirastrucrure projects wifh Israel could be possible targets for extremist violence. as has been 

the case in Egypt, where gas pipelines traversing the Sinai Peninsula to Israel and Jordan have been 

repealedly saholaged hy lerrorisls. 

Moreovcr, any uptick in Israeli-Palestinian contlict could jeopardize the project. Israeli opponents of the 

deal could argue Ihallhe Israeli governmenl could acl unilalerally 10 parlialiy reslore Ihe Dead Sea 

without thc necd to send additional water resources to hrad's neighbors. Palestinians who reject 

coopcration with Israel could opposc moving the canal project forward wifhout a contlict-cnding 

agreemenl wilh Israel in place delinealing Ihe lerrilOlial and riparian righlS some of Ihem claim regarding 

Ihe Dead Sea and ils shore. 

Tn 1he water-~carce Middle Ra<.,,1 region, water-sharing agreemen1s in the ah~ence or a comprehensive 

Israeli-Palestinian peace may be considered risky, but there are also risks associated wifh doing nothing, 

such as potential instability in a water-deprived Jordan. Ifliving conditions in Jordan deteriorated fruiher, 

one could argue that tile stability of a dependable Arab patiner for tile United States and a reliable peace 

partner for Israel would be jeopardized. Over the past few years. rural southern Jordan has witnessed 

repeated protests coming from witllin tribal communities tllat serve as the bedrock of the monarchy. These 

areas require econonlic development if they are to remain stable. 

It is possihle that Congress could he asked to consider appropriating funds to suppOli the implementation 

of Ihe Red-Dead Canal. I.awmakers could pose Ihe following l(ueslions. among 01 hers: 'I" whal exlenl 

will the project address water needs in Jordan. IsraeL and the West I3ank? What arc the security risks and 

cosb? Is fhe cost of the project on target'! How will scienthts monitor tile environmental impact? And is 

Ihe prujeci scalahle heyond Ihe inilial conslruclion? 

TIlank you. I look forward to your questions. 
13

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Ms. Moynihan. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MAURA MOYNIHAN, AUTHOR & ACTIVIST 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Thank you so much. I have prepared a 

PowerPoint. First of all, I want to thank Congressman Rohrabacher for your kind remarks about my late father, Senator Moynihan, and the distinguished panel. It means a lot. He was, of 

course, a great supporter of the rights of the Tibetan people and 

he took me to Communist China in 1975 during the Cultural Revolution when Mao was alive after we had lived in India. So I had 

a unique perspective on the nature of the Chinese state. And I 

have always believed if you really want to understand the nature 

of Communist China, study Tibet. And so I will proceed with the 

PowerPoint. 

Next. This is a NASA astronaut photograph of Tibet. One great 

success of Chinese propaganda is to persuade the world that Tibet 

is insignificant, that it is a lot smaller than it is, but it wasn’t until 

the 20th century, the era of armed warfare, airplane, and the tank 

that Tibet could be conquered. Even Ghengis Khan failed. 

So here is another NASA astronaut photograph of the Tibetan 

Plateau which is considered the third pole. It is the third largest 

ice mass concentration on planet Earth after the North and the 

South Pole. And in Asian folklore, it is known as the western treasure house because it is also one of the world’s largest suppliers of 

minerals. 

Next slide. This is a 1920s British map of independent Tibet and 

as you can see in the insert just how large the Tibetan Plateau is. 

Tibetan Plateau is a unique geomorphic entity with 46,000 glaciers 

comprising the world’s third largest ice mass, but what is significant about this in the age of water scarcity is that it is the source 

of the great rivers of Asia, the Yangtze, the Yellow, the Indus, the 

Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Chenab, the Sutleg, the Salween, 

and the Mekong which flow through 11 nations, nourishing 3 billion people from Peshawar to Beijing. They all rise in Tibet. And 

the preservation and the management of Tibet’s glaciers and the 

rivers they sustain is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century because Asia is the most populist nation and 

industrial development and population growth is projected to double within the next 50 years. The combined effects of rapid development, decertification, and water scarcity has already create cycles 

of droughts and flood, food shortages and pandemics. But what is 

China doing about this? Shrinking glaciers, depleting aquifers. 

I am going to skip over some of this in the interest of time, but 

it will be available. Asia is now facing a very serious water crisis. 

Let us move to—today, all of Asia’s rivers except one, the Ganges, 

are controlled at their sources by the Chinese Communist party. 

There are very few international agreements that exist for sharing 

data and coordinating usage of these rivers. As developing nations 

manage water supplies as an economic commodity in the age of 

scarcity, water rights and laws must be appraises. However, China 

has refused to engage in any negotiations with the downstream riparian nations on the use of Tibet’s waters. 

Here is a map which shows where the major rivers come from. 

There is four that come from eastern Tibet and four that come from 

14

western Tibet from Mount Kailash. Again, the Ganges originates 

just a few kilometers outside of control of the Chinese Communist 

Party. 

Now, most maps will only show U-Tsang Province which is in 

yellow as being Tibet, but in the 1950s and into the early 1960s, 

the Chinese partitioned Tibet as it moved from east to west. Amdo 

Province, Kham Province have all been partitioned into Quinghai, 

into Ganze, into all these other provinces, but this is historical 

Tibet, so you can see how large it is. It comprises almost one third 

of Communist China’s land mass. 

As you can see, this is another important map. It shows China’s 

grip on Asia and the occupation of Tibet gives China an enormous 

strategic and resource advantage. This is a map I got next from a 

Japanese Web site which—next slide, which shows the major ethnic regions. And of course, China learned a lesson from the collapse 

of the Soviet Union which my father predicted would happen 

through the forces of ethnicity. China is, in fact, a multi-ethnic 

state. The one star of the Han and the four stars of the other 

groups declares that it is a multi-ethnic state. And as you can see 

in yellow that is East Turkestan, the Uighur people; Tibet, Inner 

Mongolia, and Manchuria. So there is potential for ethnic conflict 

also again over exploitation of resources. 

There are the three main faces of the Chinese Communist occupation of Tibet. Phase 1, 1960s, military invasion. And that is when 

the deforestation, especially of eastern Tibet began. Millions upon 

millions of acres of first-growth forest were destroyed at this time 

which had for many centuries functioned also as a barrier to prevent flooding into Southeast Asia and Southwest China. Phase 2, 

the death of Mao, the rise of Deng and these are details you can 

go into later when you have more time. 

Now we are into Phase 3 which is mines, dams, and war games. 

In Phase 2, a lot of military roads were built across Tibet. I have 

traveled over Tibet several times. As my friend and colleague, Paul 

Berkowitz said, it is very, very remote and you can see that there 

is no one to stop the Chinese. There will be no NATO. There will 

no NATO troops. There will be no U.N. peacekeeping forces. They 

control the roof of the world. And now because of the population 

transfer of Han Chinese onto the Tibetan Plateau, and the military 

infrastructure that they installed, they have been able to now in 

Phase 3 build thousands upon thousands of hydro-electric dams 

and mines and military airstrips and military garrisons. 

In 2000, China launched a vast development project called Xi Bu 

Dai Fa, opening a development of the western regions of Xizang 

and Tibet which together comprise half of Communist China’s land 

mass. And to date, at least 131 people inside Tibet have self-immolated to protest Chinese Communist assaults on their land and culture. 

Could we move to the next? Some images manage to reach the 

Internet, but Time Magazine described the self-immolation in Tibet 

as the most under reported story of 2013. Next phase, here is a 

farmer that has self-immolated. What is one of the sources of this 

conflict? It is not just assaults on Tibetan culture and the Buddhist 

faith, it is the desecration of Tibet’s ancestral lands. 

15

Go to the next. Here is a hydro dam on the Sengye Kabab which 

means mouth of the lion. Before these were Chinese rivers, Indian 

rivers, they were Tibetan rivers and there is an enormous body of 

folklore and mythology associated with all these rivers. Sengye 

Kabab means mouth of the lion. This is the Indus which flows 

through India and Pakistan. This is one of the many, many—okay, 

this is one of the most serious sources of conflict between Communist China and democratic India which is diverting the Yarlung 

Tsangpo, a Tibetan name, which is the Brahmaputra in the northsouth water transfer program. The Chinese are building a tunnel 

to divert the waters of the Brahmaputra to northern China which 

has been suffering from extreme drought conditions for many, 

many years. And it is through an earthquake-prone zone. There are 

many complications. Chinese scientists have also said they——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could you please repeat where you said the 

water is being diverted from where to where? 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. From the bend in the Brahmaputra as it flows 

down into northern India and into Bangladesh. That is where they 

are building this very, very long tunnel project. The Chinese are 

building tunnels so fast, mostly with Canadian engineers and I can 

go to the next. Here is some more of the dams. We can go into that 

more in detail. Here is a dam on the Mekong. There are over seven 

hydro-electric dams on the Mekong which is the main source of 

fresh water for all of Southeast Asia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that actually affecting the amount of water 

that flows into Southeast Asia then? 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Absolutely. Water flows on the Mekong are said 

to be down 40 to 50 percent and fish stocks have also declined dramatically. And I met with several Thai senators who were flown by 

the Chinese Government to northern Tibet to look at the dam 

projects of which they are very proud and the Thai senators——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that water is going to be used in China? 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Pardon? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The water then, rather than flowing into the 

Mekong which is a very wide river, now you say the water is being 

diverted from there to and it is staying in China then? 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Yes. It is being used to create reservoirs that 

mostly serve southern Tibet and southwestern China and to create 

hydro-electric. And in the interest of time we will continue. Here 

is another power station on the Brahmaputra. We skipped ahead. 

That is okay. 

This is a very important map created by my friend, Michael 

Buckley, whose Web site meltdown in Tibet, I encourage everybody 

to visit. This shows some of the hydro dams on the Drichu, the 

Zachu, and the Gyalmo Ngulchu which are the Mekong, the 

Salween and the Yangtze. Just look how many hydro-electric dams. 

There are dams that are 10 to 15 feet high and the tallest dam in 

the world is on the Mekong. The widest dam is at Three Gorges 

on the Yangtze. But you can ese this is creating a looming environmental crisis in all of South and Southeast Asia. 

Next slide. China has over 300,000 dams. It is the world’s number one dam builder. You can see most of the concentration of dams 

are in Tibet, the four rivers of eastern Tibet. Tibet was always 

called in the nation’s folklore the western treasure house because 

16

of the mineral, oil, gas, and salt deposits. Again, you can study 

these maps in detail. 

Another important issue is the decline of permafrost in Tibet 

which will release methane gas and the shrinking glaciers are also 

of tremendous concern. If we go to the next, there is the map of 

the melting permafrost. 

Next slide. This is a glacial lake created near the Rongbuk glacier on the northern side of Mount Everest in Chinese-occupied 

Tibet. In the last 90 years, the glacier’s tail has lost 90 vertical meters in depth. 

Go to the next slide. This was an exhibit at the Asia Society 

called ‘‘Rivers of Ice’’ by the famous American mountaineer David 

Breashears. You can see since the 1930s when the top photograph 

was taken how much ice mass has been lost on the north face of 

Everest. Here are some more images. I encourage you to go to the 

Asia Society Web site. You can see more. 

Now why is this one of the most under reported stories in the 

world? China spends so much time attacking the Dalai Lama, the 

distinguished Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has lived for almost 

55 years in exile in India. What has this done? It confused diplomats, but it subverts all discussions of the exploitation of Tibet’s 

resources. My dad always said the Chinese have a perverse obsession with the Dalai Lama, but it works because it diverts everyone’s attention to this strange obsession they have and we are not 

talking about what is going on in Tibet—next slide, please—because Tibet is a war zone. 

In 2012, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie said,

‘‘In the coming 5 years, our military will push forward with 

preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction. 

We may be living in peaceful times, but we can never forget 

war, never send the horses south or put the bayonets and guns 

away.’’

So the Chinese are not about to engage in any negotiation, which 

you see are possible in the Middle East and other conflict zones, 

about the use of Tibet’s waters. There is a map next of China’s 

military investment and expansion. Tibet is also a strategic launching pad for drones. The Chinese have stolen drone technology from 

American firms and an American State Department official went to 

an air show in southern China and was alarmed to see all these 

drones. And they have installed many of these drones in six new 

military airports they have built in southern Tibet. They can reach 

India. They can reach New Delhi in 20 minutes. 

The Chinese Communist Party, however, is facing a crisis of legitimacy at home and abroad. My colleague, Gordon Chang, can 

speak to this. 

Next slide. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We should probably move on to the next testimony. 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. This is my last slide. What is the price of appeasement? For six decades the People’s Republic of China has 

raped and pillaged Tibet without impediment or penalty, but the 

world will pay a high price for ignoring the Chinese Communist ocVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Apr 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\011614\86300 SHIRL
17

cupation of Tibet. Ghengis Khan is said to have uttered the famous 

phrase, ‘‘He who controls Tibet, controls the world.’’ Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moynihan follows:]


86300b-1.eps

CLIMATE CHANGE IN 

TIBET 

ASIA'S RIVERS AT RISK 

Maura Moynihan 01.15.14 
19


86300b-2.eps
20


86300b-3.eps

86300b-4.eps

British map of independent Tibet in the 1920's 

• 

" . , T 

. "-.' -;:'" , 

86300b-5.eps

TIBET: PLANET EARTH'S THIRD POLE 

The Tibetan Plateau is a unique geomorphic entity, its 

46,000 glaciers comprise the Earth's third largest ice mass. 

This "Third Pole" is a 

vital component of the planet's 

ecosystem, filled with minerals, timber and above all, water; 

Tibet is the fi)Unt of the Y;mbotze, 

Y

ellow, Indus, C;mges, 

Brahmaputra, Chenab, Sutlei, Salween and Mekong, which 

tlow through 11 nations, nourishing tJ,ree billion 

people from 

Peshawar to Beijing. 

The preservation and management of Tibet's glaciers and th

rivers they sustain is one of the greatest challenges facing 

humanity in the 21 st century. Tibet's waters flow through 

eleven countries, where population growth and industrial 

development is projected to double within 50 years. The 

combined effects of rapid development, desertification and 

water scarcity has already created extreme cycles of 

droughts and floods, food shortages and pandemics. 

86300b-6.eps

SHRINKING GLACIERS, DEPLETED AQUIFERS 

• In 2009 the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on 

Climate Change 

reported that the glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau, the source of fresh water 

for a fifth of the world's population, are receeding at 

an 

alaoning rate. 

Temperatures in Tibetan are rising 7 times as faster than in 

China. 

Scientists predict that most Tibetan 

g lac iers could van ish by 2035 if presen

levels of carbon gas emissions are not reduced. Carbon emissions must be 

cut by 80% by 2030 to preserve the 

glac iers, of Tibet, the source of water 

for, China, India, Banglades

h, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and 

Laos. 

• 

• Asia is now facing a shrinkage of river-based irrigation water suppli es, 

w

hich wi ll disrupts gra in and rice harvests. Overpumping is swiftly 

depleting underground water resources in India and Ch ina. Water tables are 

rapidly falling in the North China Plain, East Asia's principal 

grainproducing region. In India, we lls are going dry in almost every state. 

• The United States international climate 

negotiator Todd Stern stated "the 

science is clear, and the threat is real. The facts on the ground are 

outstripping the worst case scenarios. 

T

he costs of inaction-or inadequate 

actions-are unacceptable." 

86300b-7.eps

Industrial Development in an Age of Scarcity 

70% of the world's irrigated farmland is in Asia. China and India, the world's 

most populous nations and largest 

grain producers, have millions of new 

irrigation projects that are rapidly depleting aqu ifers. Satellite images released 

in August 

2009 by the National Aerospace 

and Space Adm ini

stration (NASA) 

of the Un ited States show massive depletion of groundwater storage in 

Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana during the 2002-2008. Indian government data 

shows that major reservoirs have shrunk by 70% since 

2000. 

Deglaciation on the 

Tibetan Plateau, combined with depletion of under

ground 

water resources, could 

create "perman

e

nt famine conditio

ns", as described 

by 

the 

e

n

vironmental scientist Lester Brown in his 1995 Worldwatch Institute 

report "Who Will Feed China?" 

China's 

growth has pushed rivers system to a dangero

us tipping point. Two 

thirds of 

all cites in China are short of water, agricultural runoff from chemica

ferti lizers, industrial effluent and urban waste have poisoned reservoirs. 

China's Environmental Protection Administration reports that that 

environmental protests are rising 

by 50% a year. Since 1949, two-thirds of the 

Yangtze Va lley lakes have disap

p

eared, today the total surface area of lakes in 

the middle and lower Yangtze Va ll ey has shrunk from 18,000 square 

kilometers to 

7,000 in 50 years. 

86300b-8.eps

Today, all but one Asia's major rivers - the Ganges - are 

controlled at their sources by the Chinese Communist Party 

In a mere quarter century the People's 

Rep

ublic of 

Chi na 

has risen from 

poverty 

and isolation into the 21 sl century's emergent superpower. China's rise as an 

industrial and military super power has dramatically altered the global balance of 

power in the quest for 

w

hat remains of the planet's resources. 

T

he Chinese 

h'O\'Clllill

Cnl dismisses concerns of its 0\\-1 \ SCiCll lisls and lilose of tlcigllbo ring states, 

alarmed by a sudden dedi tiC ill waleI' levels and lish stocks, caused 

by 

h

ydro dams. 

Cllll la lIas il UTCilscd milililrizatioll of UIC Tibet,lIl Plateau ;1I1d strictly (:0I1[ro] 5 

journalisL", scientists and inlcmat10nai observers who seck to research conditions in 

Ti

bet. 

Few international agree

ments exist for sharing data and coordinating 

usage of these 

rivers. 

As developing 

nations manage water supplies as economic commodities in an age of scarcity, water ri

ghts and laws must be reappraised in the context of the 

climate crisis. The effects of receding glaciers and rivers choked 

by 

h

y

dro dams 

will 

be felt well 

beyond the borders of the Tibetan Plateau, with profound impacts 

over a wide area in 

Asia and 

great risks of increased povert

y, reduced trade and 

economic turmoil. Itllhe 1990's 

Chitla refused 10 sib'lllhe UN [realy 

olllralls- boundary ri\·crs. 

Since 

C

hainnan Mao in vaded Tibet in 1951, China has adm inistered a huge 

military infrastructure across the Tibetan Pl ateau, which 

gives 

China a continuous 

border with Tha iland, Burma, Bhuta

n, India, Ne

pa l and 

Pakistan, and is now filled 

with military airfields and PLA 

battali

o

ns. In the coming age of "water wars", 

C hina has a firm hand on the water tower of Asia. 
26


86300b-9.eps

IVI", '" "'-

"'I-

>z 

"'-

",0 

0'" ....,u 

<t'" 

~=> 

o 

VI 

86300b-10.eps

Chine

se Communist Conquest and 

P

artition ofTII3CT 

_c.._o:-_-..,_0:-.. 

O - TSANG 

CHIl\A 
28


86300b-11.eps

..... 

~ 

0:: 

~ 

, ..... 

b.() 

c 

.-

c 

~ 

0 

"-

0 

~ 

B 

c 

'" > 

-c 

v '" 

'-' '-

'" 0 

V '" 

~ 

-c 

c 

-.-

'-' °sn 

E c 

• ~ ~ 

~ 

• ~ ~ 

C/l • H 

• V ~ 

..c: 

f:-

86300b-12.eps

MAO'S ANNEXATION of TIBET, EAST TURKF.STAN and INNER MONGOUA 

doubled the size of the CHINESE COMMUNIST EMPIRE. Chinese officials are 

intensifying military assaults on minorities who resist Sinification, citing E11OOCIT'Y as 

a a large factor in the collapse of the fonner Soviet Union. 

I!!Ut.t1SoH!iiM 15.849-: 088 1 60-:91 

86300b-13.eps

THE THREE PHASES of the CHINESE 

COMMUNIST OCCUPATION of TIBET 

PHASE 1: 1950's - 1960's: MIllTARYINVASION 

From 1951..56, Khampa Warriors light back against Chinese a&greSlion. TIlE PIA send. reinforcements, 

thousands of survivors from Kham and Amdo;are driven into UtUDtl. 

ID 1957 I-nIDL and Paocheu Rinpoche go to Varanasi for BuddhaJayanti: I-lliDL asks Neluu for refuge to 

expose Chinese atrocities in Tibet. Cho F.nLIi tella Nehru to send mIDL back to Tibet. Two yean later, the ChU!lhi Gandruk deliven mIDL to Indian cmtody. Nehru's Hindi-Chini Bha.i-Bhai policy, which pve China control of Tibet, becomes one of the great bh.mden of the 2QIh cenurry. 

1959; HlIDL escapes to India. 1'1-.\ lroops slaughtcr T ibetan ci"ilians ami OOll l1 l1Cn CC looting and razing orowr 

6,000 mOna51c);cS. '1llC I'LA ad\"alICCS (0 Ihe honlcrs of Iml;a, Bhutan, Sikkilll, Nep,,1 ami 

In 1962 China invades India from the Tibetan PIa1eau 'lIId OCClIl"CS brgc swalhs of I"diall (cn;IOI)" h uii .. is 

d<:l'cal<::<I, China ('OllllllC""CS ils ",ililar), m"soli<i:oI;OI1 the plalcau, IIllhilHlcrcd. 

196a: Tibet is scaled behind Ihe Bamboo em'";,, ami callght ill Ihe c;do,slmphc of Ihe Creal Leap I'or"'anl, 

",herein 60-80 million peol,le die nnder 1>ho's adoplion of Ihe SOlie! 

model of tamllug. 1.2 

T ihelans, likd)' lIlore, al'e killed l111uII8h annL,,1 ('()]ltlid and f"mine. NO news of conditions inside China 

Tibet reaches international govemmenlll or media. US launches the Vietnam War to contlin Chinese 

expansionism, while millions in China are sWvWg In death. 

Chinese Engineers build a('fUSS and insialilllililary bases aud anned ellrallll"ll

ClIls acroSS Ihe 

T illelall I'bleau. :\1illiollS 

or ;,cres of 'irgill l'oresl is clear-ali ami shil'lICd 10 Ihe lIlaillblld. 

86300b-14.eps

CHINA IN TIBET: Phase 2: 1970-1980's: 

The DEATH of MAO and the rise ofDENG 

ORPHANS OFTIIE COLD WAR: The Tibetan people are imprisoned behind 

the Bamboo Curtain throughout the Culbmll Revolution, which is extremely vicious 

in Tibet 

1976 Mao Zedong dies. 1981 Deng Xiaoping comes to power. Deng launches the 

policy of "Refonn and Opening Up", China builds the Friendship Highway linking 

lllasa and Katlunandu. 

1980; Yu Habong visits Tibet and writes his famous White Paper condemning 

China's treabnent of the Tibetan people. The Deng regime relaxes restrictions on 

Tibetan religion and cu1ture. 1n 1981, China issues the first tourist visas to Tibet for 

western tr.lvelers. 

MILITARY ROADS built by the PIA across Tibet in Phase 1 of the occupation, 

allow massive population transfer of Han Chinese onto the Tibetan Plateau. 

The roads also facilitate a 2"'i exodus of refugees to escape from Tibet: since the 

1980's over 20,000 people have escaped from Tibet 1987: Anti-Chinese demonstrations break out in Thasa. For the first time since the 

Chinese invasion, tourists captw-e images of extreme military repression. 

'Ihese images reach the intnnational press; Tibetis at last EXPOSED - an

CHINA DECLAJ/ESMARTIALLA W 

86300b-15.eps

CHINA IN TIBET: Phase 3: 1990's 2000's 

MINES, DAMS and WAR GAMES 

• 1988-1989; MORE demonstrations in Lhasa are captured by tourist cameras. Chilla 

start" rcslJicLing " 'estern IOUlists by pe riodically hanning western IOlllisK 

• 1989: The Berlin vValt h'OCS dowll, but lhe TialJalllllCn Square :\hssanc follows: rill

death of Hu 

Yabong summons millions ofChillCSC 

m

Olllllcrs illto the streets of 

Beijing. Gorbachcv arrin:s ill 

Beijing, student" from Beijing u ni\'crsity laullch a 

hUllf,'c r strike ill SUppOIt o f dc mocmlic rclo nlls in 

China's h'O\'crnlllcnL 

Alte r a 

month-loll!,;" 

Deng orders PLA troops into the square to crush the 

protestors. Tll

OllSal](is of Ul lallllcd Cllincsc citizens arc slauglltcrcd. 

• In response to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, HH Dalai Luna is 

awarded the 1989 Noble Peace Prize. 

T

he true hislOI)' of the China's ra

pe ami 

pillage ofTibcl is exposed. BUTas China. cracks down 

ha.rrJer on the peopJe of Tibet 

• 1995: Despite pressure from the US congress and rights groups, 

US President Bill Clinton grants China MFN: Most Favored 

Nation Trading Status, removing all trade sanctiom imposed on the PRe after 

The Tiananmen Square Massacre. 

China implcmc nts thc Stlikc Hard" 

Poti(,),: 

ballIlillg all imab'Cs of I-IH 

Dalai L,lIna, cillo rcillg Communist 

Rc-cduG1Lioll al 

monastcli es, aggrcssi\'c supprcssion ofTihctan ethnic idc nLity. 

86300b-16.eps

CHINA IN TIBET: Phase 3: 1990's 2000's 

Mines, Dams and War Games continued .. 

• 2000: China is gmat:ed entry into the Wodd Trade 

Organization and launches XI BU DAI FA: "T

he Opening Up of the 

Western 

Rq,rJolls" a vast industrial 

dcvclopmcll l plan, to ex

ploit ami extract Tihc l's 

vasl llalural resources, !:lcililaLcd by rail and road

way cxpallsio n. 

2001: 9/ 11 strikes New York City. 

C

hina links from inlcrualiOlla\ attention ;U1 d 

S(Tutill)" alld accele rates ex

plo itation of Tibet's natural rcsoun:cs. Chinese cllhri llcc rs 

la

ullch (':O[ISLfLiCLioll of lmgc mill iug o

peratio

ns and 

h

ydro dams OIl Tibet's livers, 

w

hich now into So

uth ami Southeast Asia. 

• 2006: The Qinghai-Xizang railway OPENS in UIASA, bringing 

millions of tourists into Tibet The railroad also ]:Ici litatcs the Lranspolt of 

mi ncf<l]s, slolle and lumber from 

T ibet, and h rillh'S over 250,000 

Chinese c Ilhrillc c rs 

illlo Tibet. 

• 2010: China announces that it has built 6 military airlields in Utsang, 

and debuts a new fleet of drone aircraft, with tecimolO),,'y the US daims has 

heell stolell hy Cllillese spies. A 20 12 US 

Depl. of Dele llse reporlto COilgress on 

China's milit,1I1' capahilities 

no les 

Beijing's push lo 

develop lon/:,'Cr-ranb'C umnanlled 

aircraft, illcluding armed 

d rones, 'ex

pands C

hilla's optio ns ror long-range 

recollna iss,lIlce ,tlld strike." 

86300b-17.eps

In 2000 China launched a vast development project entitled "Xi 

bu dai fa". the "Opening and devel

opment of the Western 

R

egi

ons" 

of Xinjiang and Tibet, which together comprise half of 

China's land mass. 

I'O

P

UlA"'ION 'I'RA\'STEH: A inll\l.\: sClllcrs, and lort"cd 

relocation of llol1l;lds swillly followed. 

T ile Xizang railw;lY, which OPCllC(] ill 2006, Tibet

\'aSI supplies of millcmis, Slone and lumber 10 the 

mailllalld and brings in a Hood of Chinese 

engineers 0111(1 laborers who ha\"c buill al least 1 GO hydro dams across 

T ibel and hal"c plans for 

IllllHlrcds I1lorc. 

The Chinese govemment is aggressively re-settling 

Tibetan nomads and pastoralists into concrete 

housing complexes. Xinhua, the 

Chinese state run media, claims the resettlement is necessary 10 

protect the source area of key Chinese rivers in north-west China's Qinghai province. Dr. Andreas 

Schild, the Director General of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development 

said; "Mountains without mountain people will be not sustainable." 

.\'IP-IFS and I)A.\·IS: Chincse c nginccrs noll' opc mlc Iliultiple dams amilllincs all al;fOSS Tilx;l , 

polluling thc ri'·cI"S ill thcir sourcc - you can lind illlil!,'CS 011 Cooglc [.;u1h and Oil } lichacl Bucklcy

con lprcllcllsi rc " ·cbsilc Inn\' .lllchdoll"lli III ibcl.{:olll 

T he Chin ese mainland is also imperil ed: in April 2013, Yangtze River water flows were at their 

lowest level in record. Dams and industrial waste have caused Ihe Yellow River to dry up before 

reaches the sea. Large swaths ofnonhern 

China have had no snow or rain sinee 2008. Nearly hal

of 

China's wheal crop, covering of9.5 mi llion hectares, was amicted by drought. In 2008 

China 's 

State Counci l admitted: " By 2030, China will have exploited all ils avai lable water suppl ies to th

limit" . 

86300b-18.eps

To date. at least 131 people inside Tibet have self-immolated to 

protest of Chinese Communist assaults on Tibetan religion and 

culture and the desecration of Tibet's ancestral lands. 

There is another potent source of this explosion of Tibetan outrage, 

which receives negligible international coverage; the covert history of 

China's rape and pillage of Tibet's ancestral lands and waters. 

The elemental facts about Tibet's size, wealth of natural resources, and its 

strategic location on the Eurasian Continent, are not widely understood, bu

satellite images, maps and environmental studies of the Tibetan Plateau 

reveal the enonnous resource and strategic advantage gained by its capture. and explains why China refuses to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama, 

or sbare information with the nations of South and Southeast Asia about the 

exploitation lands and waters. 

CHINA'S OCCUPATION of TIBET bas created a looming 

environmental catastrophe for the nations of South and Southeast Asia, bu

China refuses to discuss its development plans with neighboring states. 

86300b-19.eps

71ME MAGAZINE states that despite the w.ove of selfimmolationsin Tibetis the "Mostunder-repoItL:d sfDryof2013 

DOljee, an 18 year-old Tibetan, self-immolated in Amdo, Tibet 

on March 5th, 2013, to protest Chinese rule. 

86300b-20.eps

Sonam Dhargyal, a 44-year-old farmer, shouted for the return of His 

Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tibet before setting himself on fire in 

Rongbo in the morning of 17 March, 2012 
38


86300b-21.eps

-:t 

U 
39


86300b-22.eps
40


86300b-23.eps
41


86300b-24.eps

86300b-25.eps

Manwan Dam, Mekong River, Yunnan 

Capacity 1,750 MW, wall-height 132m 

86300b-26.eps

HYDRO-DAMS in on the Drichu, Dzochu and Gyalmo Nyulchu ... 

Drichu (Yangtze), Zachu (Mekong) and Gyalmo Ngulchu (Salween) Hydropower Projects 

" Province 

Country !a!l"..... 

-

.... , 

"'" 

.. 

r 

I! 

• Autono(TlOUS Region 

I I 1[' :m 

..... 

--

Qinghai 

.. a.._ 'foIWt. __ .... ___ _ 

-= 

........ _., 

Yunnan 

.. _-- -' .. ,,..,. 
44


86300b-27.eps

..: 

.l:J , 

'S 

.<:J 

I ,.: . 

, 

~ y 

-0 ., " 

..... 

"" • 

-0 <-l 

l ,;,:" 

.£ d • 

• 

,;; .1 ' 

~ I'.1 , 

< 

z • • 

0 • 8 u 

• .' 0 

g ~ , " - · ~ 

, · m : .... • z , -* "'" 5 . ~ . ,-, 

• • .. ... ,I!, II ~ " • ~ z 

Q • 

• ,Hi! II ~ • I 

rJ 5 

1····'*. 

= • . ~, I · ,lll' " . i 

..<:: , .. hi.",,' 

• • 

• • . ! 

< 

~ 0 .' 

,111:1111 

• II- . 

.... 

:I: 

u 
45


86300b-28.eps

g) 

~ ! 

0 

• i 

~ 

~ ]I II 

1= 

" 

• • 

. ~ 0 

I 

~ 

~ 

j , • 

~ 

• • • 

Z ~ 

I I J 

~ 

~ I Ii ~ IJ~ I ! I ~ 

c 

I I I 

• 

.; 

~ ~ 

• • ~ Jf" f 6 ~ I ~ I ~ " 

E-< • • 

~ •

~ • • • • 

I 

rt' 

!;i I 

~ I . l,gj hldt.!:: ~, ;;",. 
46


86300b-29.eps

, . f ,' . 

~ 

~ 

0 

~ 

~ 

c 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

c 

~ w 

~ ~ 

~ ~ 

z 

E=: c 

r ~ .S ' ! 

~ 

.... I 

Ii ! '" 

~ E 

'

r j II It (1) 

ill I 

0-

, '0 

§< 

::E 

86300b-30.eps

NEW lakes caused by glacial melt near Rongbuk Glacier, north 

side of Mt Everest, Tibet In the last 90 years the glacier's tail has 

86300b-31.eps

TIBET'S MELTING GLACIERS: EVEREST over 50 YEARS, from 

David Breashears' exhibition 

"River of 

Ice" at the Asia Soc iety 
49


86300b-32.eps

86300b-33.eps

CHINA'S ATTACKS on the DALAI LAMA SUBVERT DISCUSSION o

the EXPLOITATION of TIBET'S 

RESOUCRES 

China has succee

ded in its mission to isolate and discredit the Dalai Lama by 

punishing heads of state who meet with the Tibetan leader and threatening any 

institution that invites him to speak, thereby stifling any discussion of China's 

oppressive and destructive governance of Tibet. 

A swdy from the University of Gottingen in Germany of countries whose top leadership 

met with the Dalai Lama, showed that they incurred an average 8.1 percent loss in 

exports to China in the two years following the meeting. Called the 'Dalai Lama Effect,' 

the found the negative impact on exports began when HuJintao took office in 2002. 

Chin a's obsessive 

demonization oflhe Dalai Lama, the distinguished Nobe l Peace 

Prize Laureate 

who has lived in exil e in India since 1959, has succeeded in subverti

ng 

all rational and increasingly urgent discussion of 

China's exploitation of Tibet's 

resources, and how Chinese mining and hydro dams projects across 

Tibet have created 

a looming environmental catastrophe in Asia, the world's most populous continent. 

Despite irrefutable evidence of the dangers of over-exploiting Tibet's water resources, 

the Chinese government will not mod ify or downscale plans for dams, tunnels, 

railroads and highways across the Tibetan plateau. Of all the countri es wh ich depend o

Tibet's waters, the People 's Republic of 

Chin a alone, can flnance any project it choose

without recourse to international lenders. 

86300b-34.eps

TIBET IS A WAR ZONE 

In 2012, Chinese Defense Millistcr Liang Guanglic staled: "Ill the coming live years, our 

rnilit:lI}' 

will push fo rward preparatio ns lor militalY conllie! in 

C\'CI)' slralq ,ric 

direction ... \Vc may 

be li \'ing in 

pcacclu[ times, 

b

ut we can 

never lo rgel war, never send 

the horses south or put the baro nets and gu

ns away." 

In 2009, comp

uter analyst Greg \", .. holl examined computers in the Dalai 

L.ama's 

PI; vatc Olliee in Dharamshala and Llllcovcrcd "Ghost Net", a massive Chinese cy

bcrespionage hacking s

ystem which 

penetrated 103 co ulltries, as 1:11" as the pcrsonalla

plop o

US Dclc nsc SCCrClal1' Robe rt Gates. Sec. of Defense Robert Gates stated that "Chinese 

cyber espionage intrusions into US defense networks is nothing less than an act of war". 

Towists who have visited Tibet provide witness: A physiciall from 

Boston 

who wcnlto Tibct in Nov. 201 3, obscrve

d ; "The Tibe tan 

people appeared totally 

dominated 

by a chilling 

dq, .. rce of militari;;ltion and repression. I did not sec any ways or 

means by 

w

hich !lIe Ti

bctans could fight hack againsl such ovcrwhelming force. I could 

see peo

ple wanted to talk to me but lI"ere too ali·aid .. .1 have never seen such a ruthless, 

cruel and effective police state in my life." 
52


86300b-35.eps

z 

o 

_i 0 

• " • . g 

:; 

o 

o o 

• • 

86300b-36.eps

The Chinese Communist leadership is facing a 

crisis of legitimacy, at home and abroad 

The 

Chinese economy is in decline. For decades CCP propaganda has been highl

effective in promoting China as the new military and economic super power of the 

21 51 century, but financial analysts arc concerned about bad debt, a real estate 

bubble and declining exports. 

There are violent uprisin gs in 

China EVERY DAY : in 2010 over 100,000 " incidents" occurred. The CCP propaganda machine is weaken ing. 

Chinese 

neti zens arc subverti

ng Xinh ua and censorshi

p: images of police brutality are now 

wide ly circulated. 

China's " Peaceful Rise" is now seen as a threat to global stability. China has 

installed a formidable military-industrial infrastructure across the hi

gh 

ground of the Tibetan Plateau, with military roads, airfields, army bases, 

dams, mines bordering Burma, Bhutan, Nepa l, India, Pakistan. At the 

ASEAN Confere

nce in 

Bali in Nov. 20 II, representatives from Vietnam and 

Cambodia ve

hemently criticized 

Chinese aggression in Sout

heast Asia and asked 

for American protection from the "Chinese Threat." 

In 2013 

Chinese Troops made over 200 incursions into Indian territory from 

TIBET. 

Chin ese soldiers planted the 

Chinese flag in three regions of Bhutan 

that border Tibet, and are now claiming sovereignty over "Southern Tibet", al

Tibetan cultural zo nes in India, Nepal and Bhutan. 
54


86300b-37.eps

86300b-38.eps

THE PRICE OF APPEASEMENT 

For six decades the People's Republic of 

China has raped and pillaged Tibet 

without impediment or penalty 

But the world will pay a high price for 

IGNORING the Chinese Communist occupation 

of Tibet. ... So goes the old saying: 

HE WHO CONTROLS TIBET 

CONTROLS THE WORLD 
56

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chang. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GORDON G. CHANG, AUTHOR 

Mr. CHANG. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating, 

and distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much 

for the opportunity to appear before you today. My testimony will 

focus on how in a very unexpected way China’s water problems are 

affecting the United States. 

The People’s Republic of China, over the course of decades, has 

mismanaged and misused its lakes, rivers, and streams and the resulting fresh water crisis has, in the words of senior Beijing leaders 

created doubt about the future of the Chinese state. As a former 

Chinese water minister has recently said, ‘‘To fight for every drop 

of water or die, that is the challenge for China.’’

Beijing officials, unfortunately, have been fighting their neighbors over water. As Chairman Rohrabacher noted in his opening 

statement, China is the source of river water for more countries 

than any other nation, controlling the headwaters needed by almost half of the world’s population. 

People’s Republic of China has 14 land neighbors, 13 of them coriparians and as Ranking Member Keating has noted there are 

hundreds of water-sharing agreements in the world. China, however, is not a party to any of them, even refusing to begin negotiations. The Chinese have commandeered Asia’s great rivers by 

building on average one large dam a day since 1949. And now Beijing is seeking to harness the river resources of a neighbor, Burma, 

for its own benefit. 

Since 2009, China has been building the Myitsone Dam, located 

at the headwaters of the Irrawadday River. It will be the first dam 

on that vital waterway, part of a seven-dam cascade, a $20 billion 

undertaking. 

Myitsone has been called China’s attempt to export the Three 

Gorges Dam, and it is more unpopular in Burma than that massive 

project is in China. The country’s former military government negotiated the deal with China without public consultation. So therefore, those who dislike the junta and that was the overwhelming 

majority of people in Burma, dislike the dam. The project has also 

become a symbol of China’s exploitation of Burma. Now the Burmese junta renamed the country Myanmar. In a power-starved nation, about 90 percent of the electricity produced by the dam will 

be exported to southern China. 

Now the Burmese believe that Myitsone is unpopular also for 

other reasons. It will displace tens of thousands of the ethnic 

Kachin minority. It will flood historical and cultural sites, including what is believed to be the birthplace of Burma. It will destroy 

one of the world’s important biodiversity hot spots. It will rob the 

river of crucial sediments that therefore threaten the livelihood of 

downstream rice farms and it will sit near a major fault line. It 

would be hard to design a project that would be more unpopular. 

So it is no surprise that in September 2011, President Thein Sein 

suspended work on the dam. 

So why do we care? Well, within days, Beijing found somebody 

to blame. And that somebody is the United States. People’s Daily, 

57

which is the Communist Party’s flagship publication started the attack by suggesting that the United States and other Western countries had pressured the Burmese Government to suspend work on 

the dam. Beijing has a general view this anti-China sentiment that 

was bubbling up in Burma not as something that was indigenous, 

but was something that was a conspiracy in the West between our 

governments and certainly between pro-Western NGOs and we 

were all doing this, China believes, to undercut Beijing’s national 

interests. 

Unfortunately, the Chinese have not changed their views since 

then.

‘‘Following its opening up, Myanmar has become a main battleground for the world’s major powers, and the Myitsone project 

has become a bargaining chip in the resulting geopolitical 

struggle.’’

This came from People’s Daily on September 2, 2013 of last year.

‘‘Some analyses point out that Western countries, like the 

United States and Japan, will first have to ruin the SinoMyanmar relationship in order to expand their influence in 

Myanmar and demonizing the Myitsone project is an opening.’’

The Chinese have still not figured out that they are operating in 

a new context in Burma. Instead, they see the U.S. lurking in the 

shadows causing it misery. Now, of course, the Myitsone project, 

despite what People’s Daily tries to say, is not an American issue, 

but what is important for us though is that Beijing’s first instinct 

was to blame the United States for its own failings in Burma. That 

certainly affects us and it is a warning that as long as the Communist Party rules China, it may not be possible to have good relations with the Chinese people. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chang follows:]

58


86300c-1.eps

Statement of 

Gordon G. Chang 

Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats 

of the 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Water as a Geopolitical Threat 

January 16,2014 

Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee: 

It is a privilege for me to appear before you today, and I thank you for this opportunity. 

My name is Gordon Guthrie Chang. I am a writer and live in Bedminster, New Jersey 

worked as a lawyer in Hong Kong from 1981-1991 and Shanghai from 1996-2001. 

Between these two periods, 1 frequently traveled to Asia from California. 1 regularly go 

there now. 

I am the author of lhe Coming Collapse CifChina (Random House, 2001) and Nuclear 

Shuwduwn: Nurth Kurea Takes On the Wurld (Random House, 2006). 1 write regularly 

about China's relations with its neighbors and the United States. 

China's Water Crisis 

The People's Republic of China, over the course of decades, has grossly misused and 

mismanaged its lakes, rivers, and streams. The resulting freshwater crisis, in the words of 

senior Beijing leaders, even threatens the existence of the Chinese state. As Wang 

Shucheng, a former water minister, tells us, "To fight for every drop of water or die: that 

is the challenge facing China." 

Beijing officials, unfortunately, act as if they believe their overblown rhetoric and are 

now fighting their neighbors for water. China, the world's "hydro-hegemon," is the 

source of river water to more countries than any other nation, controlling the headwaters 
59


86300c-2.eps

2 

needed by almost half of the world's population, in Central, South, and Southeast Asia as 

well as Russia. 

The People's Republic has 14land neighbors-13 of them co-riparians-but is a party to 

no water-sharing treaties, refusing to even begin negotiations on water-sharing with other 

capitals. "No other country has ever managed to assume such unchallenged riparian 

preeminence on a continent by controlling the headwaters of multiple international rivers 

and manipulating their cross-border flows," notes Brahma Chellaney in Water, Peace, 

and War: Confronting the Glohal Water Crisis. As the noted water expert reports, the 

Chinese have commandeered Asia's great rivers by completing on average one large dam 

a day since 1949. 

Until recently, those dams were located inside China's borders. Now, however, Beijing 

is seeking to harness the water resources of one of its neighbors, Burma, for its own 

benefit. As it does so, it is encountering local resistance there, and as it encounters local 

resistance it is blaming the United States for its deteriorating relationships with that once 

pliant neighbor. The tendency of Chinese leaders to hold us responsible for their own 

failures can only worsen our ties with them in the years ahead. 

The Myitsone Dam 

In 2009, a Sino-Burmese consortium controlled by China Power Investment, a Chinese 

state-owned entity, began work on the Myitsone Dam, located at the headwaters of the 

Irrawaddy River. It will be the first dam on that vital waterway and a part of a seven-dam 

cascade, a $20 billion undertaking. 

Myitsone has been called Beijing's attempt to export the Three Gorges Dam, and it is 

even more unpopular in Burma than that massive project is in China. The Burmese 

version has been called "a showcase" for the country's former military government, 

which signed the deal with China without public consultation. Therefore, those who 

disliked the junta-an overwhelming majority in the country-came out against the dam. 

And to make matters worse for Myitsone's Beijing backers, the project became a symbol 

of Chinese exploitation of Burma, which the junta renamed Myanmar. It does not help 

that, in a power-starved nation, 90% of the dam's electricity will be exported to southern 

China. 

The Burmese have condemned Myitsone for other reasons as well The dam is located in 

Kachin State, a minority area, and the Kachins have been uniformly against it, not just the 

tens of thousands who have been or will be forced to move to avoid the waters. The dam 

will Hood historical and cultural sites, including what is considered to be the birthplace of 

the country. The area that will be lost has been called one of the world's "top 

biodiversity hotspots and a global conservation priority." Downstream rice farmers 

expect that Myitsone will rob the river of crucial sediments. The dam is about 60 miles 

from a major fault line, and ifit failed, it would Hood Myikyina, the largest city in 

Kachin State. Says Ah Nan of Burma Rivers Network, an environmental group, "People 
60


86300c-3.eps

across the country have already clearly spoken, and said that the Myitsone dam is 

unacceptable." 

It would be hard to design a project less popular than Myitsone, and so it should be no 

surprise that on September 30,20 II President Thein Sein, deferring to "the aspiration 

and wishes of the people," issued a statement in Parliament suspending work on the dam. 

Beijing's Reaction 

Burmese across the country were relieved at news of the suspension, but ot1icial China 

was angry. Within days Beijing found someone to blame: the United States. People's 

Daily, the Communist Party's flagship publication, started the attack by suggesting that 

the U. S. and other Western nations pressured the Burmese government to stop work on 

Myitsone. As Yun Sun, now at the Stimson Center, wrote as early as the month 

following the suspension, "China has viewed anti-China sentiment bubbling in Myanmar 

as a conspiracy stirred up by the West and pro-Western nongovernmental organizations 

to undercut China's national interests." 

Unfortunately, the Chinese government has not changed its views since then. "Following 

its opening up, Myanmar has become a main battleground for the world's major powers, 

and the Myitsone project has become a bargaining chip in the resulting geopolitical 

struggle," stated i'eaple 's Daily on September 2,2013 in an article entitled "China's 

Enterprises Demonized on the Myanmar Hydroelectric Project, Sudden Suspension 

Causing Great Loss." "Some analyses point out that Western countries, like the U ni ted 

States and Japan, will first have to ruin the Sino-Myanmar relationship in order to expand 

their influence in Myanmar and demonizing the Myitsone project is an opening. 

Wikileaks disclosed that the United States has provided assistance to groups that oppose 

the Myitsone dam project." 

Similarly, the website of China Power Investment, the dominate partner in the project, 

now carries an August 14, 2013 piece from Fa Kung i'aa, the Hong Kong newspaper that 

often acts as a mouthpiece for Beijing. The paper, reinforcing the Communist Party's 

conspiratorial narrative, suggests that the Burmese government suspended Myitsone to 

curry favor with the West. 

The Chinese, says Kelley Currie of Project 2049 Institute, "still haven't really figured out 

that they are operating in a new context" in Burma. They see the U.S lurking in the 

shadows and believe it is determined to undermine their plans. "The Chinese," she points 

out, "are still holding on to this idea that we're stirring up trouble and causing problems 

for them and if they can just get to the right people and throw money atthe problem they 

can fix it." 

The perceptions of Beijing ot1icials show how much they misperceive what is happening 

just next door to them. There has indeed been a change in context, they have failed to 

take into account "local sensitivities" in Burma, and they have fixated on the United 
61


86300c-4.eps

States as if Washington was the cause of their misery. Beijing's views show how out of 

touch authoritarian systems can be. 

America's Hopes for China 

4 

For more than four decades the United States has sought to engage the Chinese and bring 

them into the international system, yet after all this time we are still incorrectly perceived 

to be an enemy. The Myitsone dam episode, therefore, suggests that America's 

fundamental approach to the People's Republic may be failing and that it may not be 

possible for authoritarian states to maintain good relationships with democratizing 

societies, like Burma's. 

Of course, the Myitsone dam, despite how hard People's Daily tries to portray it, is not 

an American issue. What is important for us, however, is that Beijing's first instinct was 

to blame the United States for its own failings in Burma. That certainly affects us and is 

a warning sign that we may never have good relations with China as long as the 

Communist Party rules. 

Tn short, the Myitsone fiasco suggests that China's problem is not just water; it is also its 

authoritarianism. 
62

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Goodtree. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GOODTREE, CO–CHAIR AND 

FOUNDER, SYMPOSIUM ON WATER INNOVATION 

Mr. GOODTREE. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member 

Keating, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify before you today on about global 

water security. 

Is the mismatch between fresh water supply and rising demand 

inevitable and eternal? Or can it be brought into better balance, 

thereby reducing a primary reason for water conflict? 

While it is often taken as a given that water supply is unchangeable and that per capita demand can only increase, neither is true. 

Today, I would like to share with you an example of where both 

the supply and the demand curves for water have been bent. This 

new approach successfully changes the paradigm of water relationships from the historic approach of dividing up scarce resources to 

a new approach which achieves water independence, fosters ongoing cooperation, and enables mutual economic empowerment. 

The solution I am describing is water technology or watertech. 

Watertech is biology, chemistry, physics, mechanical engineering 

and information technology deployed in novel ways to increase the 

supply and manage the demand of water. Watertech is a multi-billion dollar industry in my State of Massachusetts that serves global markets. I would like to speak about how our industry and countries like Israel use watertech to increase international security. 

Israel has remarkably changed the supply and demand curves of 

water for itself and for its neighbors. Recognized as the world’s 

leading watertech innovator, the modern state of Israel was founded in a land of sand and swamp. Famously, Israel made the desert 

bloom through novel water management and the creation of drip 

irrigation. Today, Israel exports carrots to Russia because it can do 

so cheaper and with less resource consumption than Russia can 

itself. But Israel’s rapid economic growth continued to tax its limited natural water sources, while demand from its neighbors for the 

same water remained a serious source of conflict as mentioned by 

the chairman today and my distinguished fellow panelists. 

Israel made the decision to satisfy all its water needs by changing the rules of supply and demand through the deployment of 

multiple forms of technology. Today, Israel is the world’s number 

one recycling country, reclaiming 75 percent of its water. Number 

two country, Spain, reclaims 17 percent. In desalination, 85 percent 

of Israel’s domestic consumption is supplied by turning Mediterranean sea water into drinking water and I can tell you it tastes 

great. 

Here is the bonus of this transformation which accrues to international relations. Just last month, as ably described today, Israel, 

Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority announced an agreement to 

exchange fresh water, saltwater and desalinated water from where 

it exists or can be built to where it is needed. This Red Sea-Dead 

Sea Canal improves the lives of Jordanians, Palestinians and 

Israelis. There were two key enablers, going back 30 years, and 

more recently the will to get it done and the other enabler, 

63

watertech. Notably, it was arranged by the principals primarily 

themselves without the glare of international mediators, albeit 

with important project finance from the World Bank. Watertech 

has enabled Israel to satisfy its water needs, diminished conflict, 

and enabled to form agreements with its neighbors based on opportunity, not just avoiding hardship. 

Here is a second bonus of Israel’s success that goes well beyond 

its borders. Israeli companies are now bringing their demonstrated 

expertise around the world, changing the supply-demand balance 

globally: Using desalination in California, drip irrigation in India 

and China, smart water network installations on four continents. 

Israeli water technology is increasing availability and quality and 

reducing demand, while removing the remote cause of water conflict. 

A particular favorite technology of mine is that the water in most 

bottles of Coca Cola in Europe is purified by an Israeli-invented 

treatment and we know that Coca Cola is necessary for global 

peace. 

In Massachusetts, we bring our state’s strength in innovation: 

Our multi-billion dollar watertech industry, academic research, and 

dozens of watertech startups to meet the needs of a thirsty world. 

We believe, in Massachusetts, that watertech is both good business 

and a strategically important national export. In the Q and A, I 

will be happy to identify some non-budgetary means that Congress 

can consider to enable water technology in service of global security 

interests. 

It has been appropriately noted that the American export of social media has enabled open communication among oppressed people and thereby fosters freedom. In a similar vein, I submit today 

that water technology sustains life by creating clean and abundant 

supply while enabling economic opportunity and diffusing one of 

the most enduring sources of human conflict. 

Distinguished members, let us bend the water curve of supply 

and demand in the interest of peace and prosperity. Thank you for 

your interest. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodtree follows:]

64


86300d-1.eps

Statement of 

David Goodtree 

Co-Chair & Founder, Symposium on Water Innovation in Massachusetts 

Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats 

ofthe 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Water as a Geopolitical Threat 

January 16, 2014 

Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating, and Distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on 

about global water security. 

The Symposium on Water Innovation in Massachusetts is an association of 

industry executives focused on bringing clean, abundant water to global markets 

through innovative technologies created in the great state of Massachusetts. 

The Water Supply-Demand Imbalance 

Natural sources of water are limited and in fixed supply. Less than 3% of the 

earth's water is fresh water, and most of that is ice. Just 0.3% of the earth's 

water is surface water, the most accessible form available for human use. 

Yet, worldwide demand for water is accelerating due to: 1) rising population; 2) 

faster growth in diets rich in proteins that depend on agricultural production, and; 

3) expanding consumption of goods that contribute to standard of living, but 

which require water in their production, like your iPhone. This supply-demand 

mismatch is continually widening. 
65


86300d-2.eps

With fixed natural supply and widening demand, conflict is common. War is the 

most extreme result, but other serious and damaging events include border 

disagreements, property rights disputes, economic harm, environmental harm, 

and other consequences which are destabilizing at a minimum, affecting longterm relationships and trust within nations and between nations. These conflicts 

have taken place across the globe - between Malaysia and Singapore for 

example, or Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - and closer to home in the "Tri-State 

Water Wars" of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, which remains unresolved to this 

day despite Congressional action, or the recent Supreme Court review of the Red 

River Compact between Oklahoma and Texas, or hundreds of other examples 

which have been well-documented by the State Department, UNESCO, and the 

Pacific Institute. 

Depending upon the strength of each party in a water dispute, their aim may be 

to control the greatest share of water, or when addressed more amicably, to 

divide a finite pie fairly. Regardless, because supply is usually insufficient to 

meet demand, often no one is happy with the outcome. So the source of the 

conflict is not resolved. It comes back again another day, metastasized, while 

infiltrating other issues regarding political power, economic vitality, health, and 

even homeland security. 

Can the supply and demand mismatch be brought into better balance, thereby 

reducing a primary reason for water conflicts? 

Water Tech: Bending the Water Supply & Demand Curves 

It is often taken as a given that supply is fixed, and demand can only increase. 

Neither is true. Today I would like to share with you two examples of where both 

the supply and the demand curves for water have been bent. This new approach 

Statement of David Goodtree 2 
66


86300d-3.eps

is successful in changing the paradigm of neighboring water relationships -- from 

the historic approach of dividing up scarce resources -- to a new approach which 

achieves water independence, fosters ongoing cooperation, and enables mutual 

economic empowerment. 

The solution I'm describing is water technology, or "water tech." 

Water tech is biology, chemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, and 

information technology deployed in novel ways to increase the supply 

and manage the demand of water. 

These two words together are not part of an everday vocabulary, because 

historically we look only to negotiations and agreements and dams and 

allocations of fresh water to solve our global water challenges. But water tech 

brings new tools to the table that serve thirsty populations, enable economic 

development, and ameliorate crises. 

Water tech is a multi-billion-dollar industry in my home state of Massachusetts 

that serves global markets. I'd like to speak with you today how our industry, 

and notably Singapore and Israel use water tech to increase international 

security. 

Case Studies: Singapore, Israel 

Singapore became independent of Malaysia in 1965, but its dependence on 

Malaysia for water continued, which was made indelibly memorable when the 

Prime Minister famously threatened to cut Singapore's water supply. Without 

sufficient fresh water sources, and a growing economy, Singapore made a choice. 

It would engineer its water independence by increasing supply and managing 

demand through a program named "Water for All." It used "four taps" to do so: 

Statement of David Goodtree 3 
67


86300d-4.eps

imported water, new reservoirs, and two technology taps: recycled water and 

desalination. Singapore's national commitment to these technologies of recycled 

water and desalination changed its position within a decade from dependence, 

constraint, and conflict, to abundance and the absence of conflict due to water 

disputes. The biggest drivers of the change were the adoption of these two 

technologies, which now supply 40% of all Singaporean water. An extra 

outcome of perhaps equal significance is that Singapore has used its success to 

become a global hub for water industry, attracting capital and a parade of 

international leaders to learn its methods. 

Israel has not only bent the water supply-demand curve for itself, but also for its 

neighbors. Israeli is recognized as the world's leading source of water tech 

innovation. The modern state of Israel was founded in a land of sand and 

swamp, and famously, Israel made the desert bloom through novel water 

management and the creation of drip irrigation. Today, Israel exports carrots to 

Russia - because it can do so cheaper and with less resource consumption, 

despite the fact that Russia borders the world's largest lake. 

Israel's rapid economic growth however continued to tax its very limited natural 

water resources, while demand from its neighbors for the same water sources 

remained a serious source of conflict. Israel made the decision to satisfy all its 

water needs - and restore its lakes -- by making a national commitment to 

desalination and recycling. Today, Israel is the #1 water recycling country in the 

world, reclaiming 75% of its water, with #2 Spain coming in at 17%. And in 

desalination, 85% of Israel's domestic consumption is supplied by turning 

Mediterranean Sea water into drinking water - and I can tell you it tastes great. 

Statement of David Goodtree 4 
68


86300d-5.eps

Now here's the kicker. Just last month, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian 

Authority announced an agreement to exchange fresh water, salt water, 

desalinated water, and brine (the byproduct of desalination) from where it exists 

or can be built, to where it is needed. This project, known as the Red Sea - Dead 

Sea Canal, improves the lives of Jordanians, Palestinians, and Israelis. There 

were two key enablers - the will to get it done and energy-efficient desalination. 

Notably, it was arranged by the principals themselves, without the glare of 

international mediators, although the World Bank played an important role in 

project finance. 

Israeli innovation in drip irrigation, scaled-up desalination, water recycling, smart 

water networks that cut water loss, novel water treatment methods, and other 

water tech is satisfying its water needs, diminishing a source of conflict, and 

importantly, enabled it to form new agreements with it neighbors based on 

opportunity, not just avoiding hardship. 

In my written testimony, I call your attention to a Wall Street Journal editorial 

from this week which thoughtfully addresses this specific topiC. 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SBl0001424052702303345104579282062737273526 

With its great success bending the curves of water supply and demand, Israeli 

companies are bringing their water tech expertise around the world, changing the 

supply-demand balance globally. For example, the largest desal plant in the 

Americas, a $lb project in California, is being designed by an Israeli firm (with 

project finance from a Massachusetts company), which will lessen conflict 

between southern California and its neighbors. And, the top drip irrigation 

companies are Israeli, bringing abundant food production to parched places 

around the world. The best regarded smart water network company, with 

installations from Europe to South America to Australia, is Israeli. And, the 

Statement of David Goodtree 5 
69


86300d-6.eps

water in most bottles of Coca-Cola in Europe is run through a treatment process 

using Israeli technology. And we know that Coca Cola is necessary for global 

peace. 

In my state of Massachusetts, we see water tech as a way to solve the problem of 

inexhaustible demand and fixed supply of water. We bring our state's 

characteristic strength in innovation, and our billion-$ water tech companies, and 

dozens of water tech start-ups to meet the needs of thirsty global buyers. We 

believe that water tech is both good business, and a strategically-important 

national export which creates water security by bringing supply and demand in 

sync. 

Enabling Water Tech to Serve u.S. Global Security Interests 

What can Congress do to enable water tech to serve our global security interests? 

The US is a tough market for new water tech to succeed, and as a result, we lag 

behind other nations in attracting water tech and exporting water tech to help 

ameliorate water security crises. Here are four methods that enhance our ability 

to use water tech as a tool of advancing US foreign policy interests: 

1) The overall US partnership with Israel around R&D is an enormous benefit 

to our economy, and to advancing our interests globally. HR 3683, The USIsrael Energy Cooperation Enhancement Act, expands the existing 

collaboration in energy R&D to now include water. The more we can 

leverage cooperative advances with Israel in water tech to correct supplydemand imbalances, the more we can defuse global water conflict. The bill 

was approved last month by voice vote in the Energy & Commerce 

Committee, and both the House and Senate version awaits a floor vote. 

Statement of David Goodtree 6 
70


86300d-7.eps

2) The Clean Water State Revolving Fund, administered by the EPA, has been 

enormously successful helping states to build and maintain water 

infrastructure. But the loan terms are understood by the states to 

discourage the use of new technology because penalties are assessed for 

approaches that fail. Without risking the water supply, terms can be made 

less onerous so that states will be more likely to choose new approaches 

that have better results, versus sticking with inefficient methods. Once 

proven in the US, water tech has a better chance of succeeding abroad in 

water conflict hotspots. 

3) EPA review of new technology is a necessary to protect public health and 

the environment, but often the agency is unable to approve new technology 

because it does not have the processes to evaluate it. As a result, the US is 

often seen as a less desirable place to invent or deploy new water tech. To 

rectify the situation, EPA evaluative mechanisms can be streamlined to keep 

up with advancements that meet our needs at home, while being promoted 

abroad to increase water independence globally. 

4) The Export Import Bank is an essential credit source for exporting American 

goods, but water tech is not identified as one of its eight key industries, and 

the key countries it targets do not correspond closely to where water 

conflict is occurring. Congress can engage the Bank to align its programs 

with US foreign policy interests around defusing water disagreements. 

If water tech is to be seen as a worthy instrument in our foreign relations toolbox 

to address global water security, then leveraging U.S. R&D funds, global 

partnerships, project finance mechanisms, and regulatory process is essential to 

addressing water supply-demand imbalances and defuse crises. 

Statement of David Goodtree 7 
71


86300d-8.eps

It's been appropriately noted that the American export of social media has 

enabled open communication among oppressed people, and thereby fosters 

freedom. 

In a similar vein, I submit today that water tech sustains life by creating clean 

and abundant supply, while enabling economic opportunity, and defusing one of 

the most enduring sources of human conflict. 

Tha n k you for you r interest. 

Statement of David Goodtree 8 
72

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much and thanks to all the 

witnesses today. 

This has been very thought-provoking testimony and it is the 

Chair’s intent to have 3 minute questioning of our witnesses and 

then we will have a second round. Votes were scheduled in about 

15 minutes. 

Ms. Moynihan, could you tell us what impact does China’s occupation of Tibet and thus the control of this water, how does that 

impact on India and India-China conflict? 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Well, the north-south water diversion program 

that you had questioned, saw the slide, would be an absolute catastrophe for the people of India and Bangladesh because the Brahmaputra is one of the main sources of fresh water for eastern Indian 

and for all of Bangladesh. The Chinese, as Gordon also noted, refused to engage in any negotiations. They refused to sign any treaties for water sharing. India and Pakistan have for many years had 

a treaty on sharing of the Indus River. But China won’t engage and 

they continue to demonize the Dalai Lama and I forgot to mention 

over 200 military incursions into India in 2013 from Tibet. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And Mr. Goodtree, just to note that in Orange County, California, we have one of the most sophisticated, 

technologically sophisticated water companies, water commitments, 

public and private, but we reclaim our water and use it nine times 

before it actually goes into the ocean. That type of reclamation, is 

any of that going on in Jordan or any of these other places that 

we have been talking about? 

Mr. GOODTREE. There is water reclamation certainly going on 

throughout the world. It requires an investment, but to your point 

it is reused over and over and over again. So in essence it is called 

new water. Singapore is a particularly excellent case that has used 

reclamation as one of its four taps or sources of water to reduce its 

dependence and separate itself from Malaysia in terms of conflict. 

So yes, reclamation is growing significantly. For example, in Spain, 

Singapore and places throughout the world including Southern 

California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Mr. Keating? 

Mr. KEATING. You have covered so much ground. I just want to 

hit on a couple of points. 

Mr. Goodtree, you mentioned that the U.S. can be of assistance 

in non-budgetary ways. I am curious about that and also to our 

panelists, I am concerned, too, two of the panelists referenced natural disasters, earthquakes. Can you comment on what some of 

those—the results of those would be. So if I could quickly have the 

answers to those questions. 

Mr. GOODTREE. Thank you, Congressman Keating. The U.S. is a 

tough market for new water technology to succeed at home. And as 

a result, we lag behind other nations in attracting water technology 

entrepreneurs and exporting water technology to help ameliorate 

water security crises. Briefly, here are four methods that can enhance our ability to use water technology as a tool to advance U.S. 

foreign policy interests. 

First, the overall U.S. partnership with Israel around R&D is an 

enormous benefit to our economy in life sciences, information technology and social media, but not yet in water. HR 3683, the U.S.-

73

Israel Energy Cooperation Enhancement Act expands the existing 

collaboration in energy R&D to include water. The more we can leverage cooperative advances with Israel in watertech to correct 

supply-demand imbalances around the globe, the more we can diffuse global conflict. The bill was approved last month by a voice 

vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and it awaits 

a floor vote. 

Second, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, SRF, administered by the EPA, has been enormously successful helping states 

to build and maintain water infrastructure. But the loan terms discourage the use of technology because penalties are assessed for 

approaches that fail. Without risking the water supply, terms can 

be made less onerous so that states will be more likely to choose 

new approaches that have better results versus sticking with inefficient methods. Once proven in the U.S., watertech has a better 

chance of succeeding aborad in water conflict hotspots. 

Third, EPA review of new technology is necessary to protect public heath and the environment, but often the Agency is unable to 

approve new technology because it does not have processes to 

evaluate them. As a result, the U.S. is often seen as a less desirable place to invent or deploy watertech. To rectify the situation, 

EPA evaluative mechanisms can be streamlined to keep up with 

advances that meet our needs at home while being promoted 

abroad. 

Fourth, and finally, the Export-Import Bank is an essential credit source for exporting American goods, but watertech is not identified as one of its eight key industries and the key countries it targets do not correspond closely to where water conflict occurs. Congress can engage the Bank to align its programs with U.S. foreign 

policy interests regarding water security. 

Mr. CHANG. Ranking Member Keating, the Myitsone Dam is just 

upstream from the largest city in Kachin state. There have been 

various estimates about the number of people who would be inundated and killed in a dam burst, somewhere to 100,000. I don’t 

know if the numbers are reliable, but we do know that, for instance, the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province was undoubtedly 

caused by the water in reservoir very close to the fault line and 

that was absolutely devastating. So people expect the same thing 

in Burma if the dam is allowed to proceed. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And from the testimony we have just had, we 

see that China is obviously being perhaps reckless in their location 

of these dams, much less reckless in terms of the international 

peace, but also for the safety of the people who live near the dams. 

Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chang, whereas I 

am not an expert on China, I have studied China most of my life, 

been to China. China is a very wealthy country. It has wrapped its 

arms around capitalism and loves it. Still a dictatorship, a brutal 

country. Constantly violates human rights, has no concern for the 

environment. Possesses one half of the U.S. outside debt, spending 

money all over the world, investments we should call them, building its military at an unbelievable rate and buying gold up by the 

boatloads. 

74

Given all that, it is 1.3 going on 1.4 billion people, the Communist Party is still very strong and I think that in my lifetime 

I will not see that change. What do we do, what does the United 

States and its allies do to at least curtail the activities of China on 

a wide variety of bases? 

Mr. CHANG. That is a very important question. It goes to the core 

of American foreign policy because right now the United States almost doesn’t have a China policy. We are reacting to the belligerence that we have seen in Beijing over the last 21⁄2 years, especially the last 3 or 4 months. But essentially what I think goes to 

the core of what we should be doing is to reassess our policy and 

approach to China because for more than four decades we have 

tried to engage the Chinese and bring them into the international 

system. 

Mr. MARINO. But can we do that alone? I think not. And given 

the fact that the trade that goes on around the world, the United 

States is one of the biggest importers of Chinese products. I am at 

a loss at this point other than total non-trade with China to have 

any impact whatsoever and I don’t see that in the future from the 

U.S.’s perspective. So what do we get down to—let us get down to 

the nitty-gritty, let us get down to the basics as to how do we approach this with China? 

Mr. CHANG. I think we need to reassess and understand that our 

fundamental policies just have not been working. On a broad array 

of issues, there are specific things we should be doing and I would 

be more than pleased to work with your staff on what I think 

needs to be done. But certainly, we need to reassess things because 

China is moving in directions that are extremely troubling and 

have not been predicted by the architects of America’s China policies. 

Mr. MARINO. They are like the bully on the elementary playground. They are twice as big as everyone else. They really do not 

care and there is no one who can at this point step up to them and 

se them back. 

Mr. CHANG. We can do that if we have the will. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate 

your courtesy. I am wondering just taking a page out of the conclusion of the chairman’s opening remarks, and Mr. Marino’s appropriate concern about China and what you all have said, if there 

would be an opportunity for the United States to focus on water 

technology and international agreements in South Asia that whether it is what we do with the World Bank, it is what we do in terms 

of initiatives through the United Nations, through bilateral and 

multi-lateral efforts that we try and focus more aggressive on 

water solutions, that we could work, again globally, on the panoply 

of threats, not just with climate change, but seismic events we 

have seen throughout the region. 

Is there a way that we could just sort of zero in in a cooperative 

way with the partners, if as Ms. Moynihan pointed out, if India 

and Pakistan, for heaven’s sakes, can have an agreement on the 

Indus River, is this an area that we could deal with the Mekong, 

that we could promote more cooperation and thoughtfulness and let 

75

the force of the ideas and about 2 billion people outside China who 

depend on this resource to be able to build some momentum? 

I welcome comments from any of you in this regard. 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. The problem is that the Chinese refuse to discuss Tibet. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I want to be clear. I am not talking about 

China at this point. I am talking about moving with India, with 

Pakistan, with Thailand, with Vietnam to try and develop both 

the—refine the factual elements that you talked about in terms of 

threats and opportunities and build some momentum and some understanding in the region and the world stage. 

Mr. CHANG. I think the one thing that we can do is certainly 

work with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, because ASEAN has been trying to find issues upon which it can cooperate. And this is one issue that affects most of them. Of course, 

the big country outside of ASEAN that is affected by these watersharing issues is India, but it would be very easy for ASEAN to 

form a partnership with India and the United States, just as 

ASEAN has formed what is called ASEAN plus three which is 

ASEAN, China, Japan, and South Korea. So there is precedent for 

ASEAN to do this. It is the organization that I think is in place 

and is perhaps the most willing to take up issues of this sort. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We will continue probably until the vote is 

called which should be within the 15 minutes, so we will proceed 

with a second round of questions. And first of all, we have noted 

here that India and Pakistan have been able to reach an agreement. Thank you. India and Pakistan have reached an agreement. 

The Palestinians, and Jordanians and the Israelis—if we can have 

countries with that deep a difference and that long-term conflict 

that has existed between these people reach agreement, that is a 

comment, that itself is a comment on the challenge we face with 

China who has been unwilling to reach any agreements with any 

of these countries that we are talking about. That is a comment on, 

I believe, the government and the attitude of the ruling clique that 

runs Beijing. 

About technology—well, first of all, let me ask Mr. Sharp, how 

much water actually—fresh water, will be provided by the Dead 

Sea to Red Sea project in proportion, is it 10 percent of the water 

needs for Jordan and Israel? What are we talking about here? 

Mr. SHARP. Mr. Chairman, all the information that I have been 

to glean about this project has been from open sources. The actual 

agreement has not been publicly released just yet. In essence, Jordan will be desalinating about 80 million cubic meters, using 30 of 

it in its own country and sending 50 to Israel. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What is that in reference to the entire water 

consumption of Jordan? 

Mr. SHARP. I don’t know. I would have to get back to you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Are we talking about 5 percent or 1 percent? 

Mr. SHARP. I don’t think it is insignificant, but I don’t think——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You can get to me on that. I think it would 

be important for us to know that, if it is a significant amount. 

And Mr. Goodtree, in terms of technology development and the 

availability of water, Lockheed Corporation, I believe it was, anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Apr 22, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\011614\86300 SHIRL
76

nounced several months ago of a breakthrough of water desalinization technology. It is a new type of material that can serve as part 

of the membrane in water desalinization process. Have you looked 

at that at all and what impact do you think that will have on some 

of these issues? 

Mr. GOODTREE. There is enormous development going on in 

membrane technology which enables higher through-put when the 

water goes through to filter out impurities. There is a number of 

multi-billion dollar companies in my state, Lockheed is not one of 

them so I am not familiar with its research. And in particular, one 

of the most exciting new technologies, there are a few of them. One 

is called forward osmosis which is a different form of desalination 

which is being created in my state by a company called Oasis 

Water. And also nanomaterial membranes, a lot of great research 

and some commercialization out of MIT is making a huge difference. 

I would like to just state, if I can comment on Mr. Blumenauer’s 

last question which was the idea about neighbors around China. It 

is not about the agreement with the Chinese or let us say whatever 

country is holding on to or hoarding that resource, but it is establishing water independence through establishment of new sources 

of water through technology, new water, which is whether desalination or recylination or lowering demand through technology 

again such as drip irrigation. So it is about establishing, we think, 

about oil independence. This is water independence through independent sources and basically break that link between the hoarding country and the needy country. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, if you can, obviously, producing more 

wealth is something that at least from the Chair’s perspective better than the idea of trying to distribute a lack of wealth. 

Mr. GOODTREE. Exactly. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And let me just note, I am the vice chairman 

of the Science Committee and water is one of my top priorities in 

terms of my own personal priorities as you can see in this hearing. 

Mr. GOODTREE. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just, Mr. Keating, you may proceed. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, we are up against a rollcall, but I wanted to 

just give you a chance to comment on one aspect that has been 

touched upon, but it is very important behind this. And that is the 

fact that a lot of these dams that were there, they are also sources 

of energy, the hydro power and with the difference in technology 

available in our production and use of energy, could this have an 

effect, too, in terms of independence of these other countries? Because it is not just the water purity, it is also a source of power 

that this creates problems and instability in other countries. If you 

would just like to comment on that aspect, the energy aspect of 

this. 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Well, of course, the hydro dams do produce reservoirs and energy and in Chinese-occupied Tibet, most of that is 

going to industrial development. And there is one issue I wanted 

to mention is that China is also rapidly building mines at the 

source of a lot of the rivers so they are creating long-term pollution 

that will go downstream to the other riparian nations. And that 

could be a whole other hearing. 

77

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But that is very relevant, extremely relevant 

in the discussion of water in terms of countries that are permitting 

that type of pollution which then again eliminates that as a source 

for their neighbors and thank you for bringing that up. I think it 

is important. 

Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chang and anyone else who wants to enlighten 

me on this, let us say for example we do—are able to convince 

India and Pakistan and Vietnam and Laos and Burma to coalesce 

and understand the fact that we have to have some effect on China 

in order to resolve this Chinese issue. What would we do collectively? Would we say we are not going to trade with you any more 

which I don’t think is going to be too devastating to China. If you 

could name one or two facts or entities as to what specifically we 

could do with China? 

Mr. CHANG. I think that if you had all of the countries in the region including India and the United States have a unified stand, 

maybe China would listen, but I really doubt it. Because what we 

have seen so far on a number of issues, some critical to the national security of the United States that we have not been able to 

move the Chinese in better directions. If we can’t do it on those 

issues, it is very unlikely that countries in the region can do this 

with respect to China. 

Right now, you have a Chinese political system in distress. You 

have a lot of intense in-fighting at the top and I am not so sure 

that Beijing can maintain good relations with other countries including the United States. So at this point, I think that basically 

we have to just sit by and watch 

You have got to remember that the indisagreement between 

India and Pakistan was because India made a decision that it 

wanted peace. China has yet to make that decision. And until it 

does so, there is all sorts of things we can try, but I am sure that 

they will be ineffective. 

Mr. MARINO. With my visits there and conversations with leaders 

and people in the government, they are not going to—those in control are not going to relinquish control. I mean they would take—

it would take a massive civil war within China to make that 

change, if it could be made which I think it cannot. So my position 

is if and until communism is defeated in China, there is no answer 

to the solution. 

Mr. CHANG. I agree. 

Ms. MOYNIHAN. I agree. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just a note for my friend that those of us 

who spent a considerable part of our life fighting communism, I 

don’t know any of us who predicted that the communist regime in 

Moscow would crumble either. Nobody thought that would happen 

and——

Ms. MOYNIHAN. Senator Moynihan predicted it in 1979. Left a 

long paper trail. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well said, well said. And he was making it 

happen, too. But it was something that many of us, I should say, 

if not most of us would never have predicted. When President 

Reagan launched what I considered to be the strategy that won 

that victory in the Cold War which was helping those people who 

78

were struggling for freedom, rather than just depending on American military might to deter the leaders of the Soviet Union, we actually began supporting in a big way the Lech Walesas of the 

world, but also the mujahideen, also the contras in Latin American 

which drained all of the willpower as well as the resources from 

Moscow and I would suggest that perhaps a strategy of helping 

those people in China who are struggling for democracy may well 

be the best strategy and that we should put that same kind of emphasis that Reagan put on it for breaking down the Soviet Union. 

Mr. MARINO. Would the chairman yield for a second? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly would. 

Mr. MARINO. I would like to see that happen, too, but we are 

talking about two different ideologies between the then Soviet 

Union and China, the numbers of people, the numbers of 

uneducated people, the resources available, and the access to outside information to the Chinese people which really doesn’t exist at 

this point. And given the fact that you had the right people at the 

right time, you had Reagan, you had several leaders in Russia, at 

least leaning in that direction. I see no indication of the hierarchy 

or the military leaders of the government leaning in any direction 

other than to take more control over natural resources, minerals, 

oil, gas, you name it, and the land is the primary goal. I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We will have a long talk about that some 

time. I am actually more optimistic because of my experience with 

Russia and again, just total surprise that we were able to achieve 

that goal in that short a period of time when President Reagan put 

that strategy down. 

Let me just close here with a very—first of all, Mr. Keating, 

would you like closing statement? 

Mr. KEATING. I am fine. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Marino, would you like a closing statement? 

Mr. MARINO. I am fine. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me thank the witnesses today. We have 

heard a great deal of information coming at this issue from different perspectives and Mr. Goodtree, I certainly appreciated, you 

added a whole new flavor to this and we appreciate Mr. Keating 

inviting you and of course, Mr. Sharp, your detailing of the Dead 

Sea to Red Sea project is invaluable. This subcommittee will be 

going very shortly on a trip to Israel and that information will be 

invaluable to us. 

And as far as Ms. Moynihan and Mr. Chang, you have detailed 

for us and provided us information that I hope that every Member 

of Congress could hear because it really does exemplify the horrific 

challenge that we face with this regime in Beijing that is running, 

bullying its neighbors, running roughshod over early concerns like 

how much water is going to be and even to the point that they are, 

as you point out, Ms. Moynihan, they are not only consuming the 

water and preventing their neighbors from having this, it is sort 

of an act of aggression, but they are also polluting the water without remorse. These are things that we need to focus on and we 

need to deal with them in a tough way so we can make some 

progress in this area. But the most important thing, the world will 

79

be a better place when we have water and energy that will uplift 

all of mankind and these challenges with China and elsewhere, we 

need to make sure that we are increasing the supply of water for 

humankind and the availability of clean water to people so they 

can live healthy lives and that so many resources are not sucked 

out of a system to take care of the health of people whose health 

is being dragged down by improper water and by water that is not 

well. 

I appreciate all of your insights today and this hearing is now 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(81)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

82

f


86300n.eps

SlJBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Europe, Enrasia, and Emerging Threats 

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Chairman 

January 14,2014 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs to be held by the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats in Room 2172 

of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available on the Committee website at 

\vwvli.foreignaffairs.gov): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday, January 16, 2014 

10:00 a.m. 

Water as a Geopolitical Threat 

Ms. Maura Moynihan 

Author & Activist 

Gordon G. Chang 

Author 

Jeremy M. Sharp 

Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs 

Foreign AfJairs, Defense, and Trade Division 

Congressional Research Service 

Mr. David Goodtree 

Co-Chair and Founder 

Symposium on Water Innovation 

By Direction of the Chairman 

1111,; Committe,," lID FOfv'1gn AiTairs sCoJb to maki,; its facilili..:s accoJ~sibt..: 10 p"Tsons with disabiiiti..:;s. If YOLI an; in lloJOO of sp0Ciai 

accommodations, please ca11202·'225-5021 at least four business days in advance o1'thc event \\hCllCvcr practicabk. Questions '''1th regard to 

sp"cial accommodations in g<:md"al (induding availability o(To11l11liLLce materials in altel11ati\·e J(mllaLs and assi~tive li~kning deviccs) may be 

dirlJchxi 10 thG C'milluilk..:. 
83

Æ


86300m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF SUBCOMMlT'I'EE ON _____ E_,u_l'o-'-'P~e,'__E_'u_"'_lS_ill'__, l_"_'d_E_"_w-'r"'--ilcc'K'__T_ll_l'e_'''_t.\' _____ HEARING 

Day_--''l:coZ!.!ll,,",,'s''-da''-v'---_Date Januarp 16, 2014 RooIll ___ -'2"'1'-'7-"2'---__ 

Starting Time 10-11 a Ul Ending Timc 11:22 a.lIl. 

Recesses L-to __ l L-to __ l L-to-l L-to __ )L-to __ ) L-to-l 

Presiding Member(s) 

Rep. Rohrabaclter 

Clteck all of lite following Iltal app(l': 

Open Session [ZJ Executive (closed) Session 0 Televised [Z] 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Wale}' as a Geopolitical Threat 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Rep, Marino, Rep. Keating 

Electronically Rccord<:!{tapcd) [Z] 

Stenogl'aphic Record D 

NON-SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBF,RS PRESENT: (Mark wilh an * iflhey are 1101 members a/filii cOl1lmillee.) 

*Rep. Blumenauer 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting nolice attached? Yes m No D 

(f( "no", please lisf helow and include title, agency, department, 0]' organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submitted/or the record.) 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED _____ _ 

Subcommittee Staff Direc!or