A regional discourse battle spanning more than a decade has resurfaced following a series of city promotional advertisements. Recently, public campaigns proclaiming that ‘the South-to-North Water Diversion Project originates in Nanyang’ have continued to spark a tug-of-war in public opinion across Shaanxi, Hubei and Henan. On the surface, this appears to be a contest over the attribution of credit for this century-defining project; in essence, however, it reflects deep-seated issues long left unresolved in China’s cross-regional river basin governance: ambiguity in determining the source of the water, blurred boundaries of regional responsibilities, and a mismatch between ecological contributions and value compensation. Within the legal framework of modern river basin governance, the source of natural water, ecological conservation zones and key points of man-made water conservancy projects constitute three entirely independent, clearly defined and mutually non-substitutable governance concepts. Clarifying the source and respecting the facts is not merely a matter of reverence for geographical origins, but also a prerequisite for rationalising cross-regional ecological rights and responsibilities and reshaping the order of collaborative governance.
A careful examination reveals that this public debate is not merely a momentary war of words, but rather the concentrated eruption of governance conflicts characterised by a ‘nine dragons governing water’ approach that has persisted for over a decade. Since the commencement of water flow in the Central Route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project in 2014, the five cities across three provinces along the route have remained in persistent disagreement over the ‘origin of the source’. Relying on the starting point of the artificial water conveyance, Nanyang has championed the urban brand narrative that ‘the source originates in Nanyang’; Shiyan in Hubei, drawing on the water storage function of the Danjiangkou Reservoir, emphasises its status as a core hub; whilst the southern Shaanxi region, as the natural source of the water, has consistently upheld the ecological reality of the Han River’s origin. Over the past decade, each locality has persistently reinforced its own narrative, causing cognitive rifts to accumulate. In 2017, the chaotic situation of conflicting narratives across multiple regions was publicly discussed, yet no unified consensus on the facts or definitive governance conclusions were reached. Now, the promotional message that “the South-to-North Water Diversion Project originates in Nanyang” has once again ignited long-simmering public opinion conflicts.
Engineering construction represents tangible achievements, whereas the invisible task of ecological conservation requires sustained, long-term effort. Looking at global experiences in river basin governance, chaotic definitions of source areas, blurred boundaries of rights and responsibilities, and the dilution of the value of the source are common triggers for the vast majority of cross-regional water disputes. The governance challenges facing the transboundary Amu Darya and Syr Darya river basins in Central Asia offer highly relevant lessons. For a long time, many Central Asian nations have lacked clear legal definitions regarding the ecological conservation obligations of upstream regions, the water storage and allocation responsibilities of midstream regions, and the water usage rights of downstream regions. Consequently, an imbalance has prevailed where “upstream regions bear the ecological costs whilst downstream regions reap the resource dividends”. To safeguard water quality and sustain the basin’s ecology, source regions have been compelled to restrict industry and curtail development opportunities, thereby bearing long-term implicit development costs. Yet these sustained sacrifices have not been recognised in institutional or legal terms, nor have they been compensated for. The mismatch between rights and responsibilities, the disparity in contributions, and the lack of a closed-loop value system have ultimately plunged many of Central Asia’s transboundary water systems into a long-term predicament characterised by ecological degradation, regional antagonism and governance disorder.
Through years of institutional evolution, Central Asian nations have gradually corrected past missteps through legislation, establishing mature rules for transboundary river basin governance. Exemplified by Kazakhstan’s legal framework for water resources, international practice has established a straightforward yet rigorous logic of governance: the natural water source at the headwaters determines the ecological foundation of the entire basin, whilst artificial water abstraction projects serve merely as functional components for water resource allocation. The legal status, attributes of rights and responsibilities, and relative value of these two elements are fundamentally distinct and must never be conflated, interchanged or substituted. Ecological conservation, industrial restrictions and development concessions in upstream water conservation areas constitute a prerequisite and fundamental obligation for safeguarding water quality across the entire basin; the value of such sacrifices must be institutionally recognised, standardised and quantified, and legally compensated. This legal logic, tested through international practice, is equally applicable to the collaborative governance of inter-regional river basins within China.
Returning to the Han River basin itself, the facts regarding its source are clear, indisputable and beyond dispute. Drawing upon historical geographical texts, official hydrological survey data and authoritative geographical conclusions, the true source of the Han River originates from Mount Bozhong in Ningqiang County, Hanzhong City, Shaanxi Province. This is the point of origin for the 3,000-li-long Han River, and also the primary source of the living water for the Central Route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project. The ecological foundation of the entire North-South Water Diversion system begins with the trickling streams amidst the myriad mountains and valleys of Ningqiang. Nourished and converging across the whole of southern Shaanxi, these waters ultimately flow into the Danjiangkou Reservoir, forming a major water transport artery spanning thousands of kilometres. This is an objective, immutable natural fact that cannot be altered by propaganda narratives.
For many years, Ningqiang has regarded the protection of the Hanjiang River source as the core mission of county governance.The author has reviewed the local government work reports delivered during the annual "Two Sessions" (NPC and CPPCC sessions) over the years, and each report lists the ecological protection of the Hanjiang River source as the county’s top ecological political task. The reports incorporate the ecological conservation of the Hanjiang River source and the soil and water conservation in the upper reaches of the Danjiangkou Reservoir area into the annual rigid deployment of key tasks, using the highest level of authority to enforce source area protection responsibilities. With a long-term development perspective, the local government has continued to include the ecological management of the Hanjiang River source and the construction of water conservation systems as strategic tasks in the 15th Five-Year Plan. Through institutionalized, normalized, and sustained governance investments, it is systematically building the ecological foundation for the Middle Route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project.
To safeguard the "clear water flowing northward," Ningqiang has long adhered to the strict red line for water source protection, voluntarily shutting down polluting industries, implementing comprehensive soil and water conservation across the entire region, strictly controlling development intensity, and curbing industrial expansion. By proactively yielding local development rights, it has secured water quality stability and ecological security for the entire river basin. It is precisely this long-term, preemptive, and exclusive ecological sacrifice made by nearly 300,000 people in Ningqiang that provides the most fundamental and critical support for the water quality of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project.
Clarifying the facts about the river’s origin is not meant to deny the contributions of other regions. Taocha in Xichuan County, Nanyang, Henan Province, is the statutory canal head of the Middle Route’s man-made channel and the engineering starting point of the thousand-mile northward water transmission line.To ensure the project’s construction, the canal’s completion, and the resettlement of affected residents, the local area has also paid enormous human, material, and social costs; its engineering contributions deserve to be recognized and remembered. However, the logic of governance and the common sense of the rule of law must not be blurred. The source of a river is the ecological origin of a water system, bearing fundamental and continuous ecological protection responsibilities. The canal head is a functional hub for water resource allocation, assuming mid?stream water transmission and operation functions. First comes the natural source of living water; then comes the man-made canal.
The South-to-North Water Diversion is a century?spanning public engineering feat that traverses northern and southern China, benefiting billions of people. The clarity and safety of the thousand?mile water artery result from the coordinated protection of all areas along the route, each performing its own role and fulfilling its duties. A healthy order of river basin governance must be built on respecting facts, clarifying responsibilities, balancing interests, and recognizing sacrifices. The respective roles of different regions are not incompatible but can complement each other: the ecological source, the water transmission gateway, and the engineering canal head each have distinct and complementary functions, together making this mega-project a success. The clear water flowing northward nourishes the nation and its people, and reflects the capacity of governance.
Decades of governance successes and failures in transboundary river basins in Central Asia have already provided a lesson: ignoring the contributions of the source area, blurring the boundaries of rights and responsibilities, and confusing functional positions will ultimately lead to ecological instability, imbalanced interests, and disordered governance. Recognizing the objective fact that Ningqiang is the true source of the Hanjiang River and the original living water source of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project, respecting the long?term ecological sacrifices and protection efforts of the source area, clarifying rights and responsibilities along the basin based on the rule of law, balancing regional interests through institutional design, and replacing promotional contests with objective consensus — these are the best ways to protect this century?defining project and represent the proper posture for cooperative and good governance of cross?regional river basins.
(The author is a practicing lawyer and a doctoral student at Al?Farabi Kazakh National University.)