2025 China Fellowship
Reconstructing the Power Order of the “Human-Water Relationship” Along China’s Grand Canal

Historical Logic: The Paradigm Evolution from “Priority of Water Transport” to “Diversified Competition”

After the Grand Canal was completed in the Sui and Tang dynasties, the allocation of water rights revolved around the needs of water transport for grain tribute. During the Ming and Qing dynasties, the “official river and civilian canal” system, based on the “Prohibitions of the Grand Canal for Water Transport,” gave absolute priority to water transport in the main waterway. Water use for irrigation in branch canals was restricted, resulting in a situation where the canal area thrived while the surrounding basins remained impoverished.

During the planned economy era, the “supply based on demand” model was implemented. Water rights were rigidly divided by province and industry. In Jiangsu, agricultural water use accounted for a high proportion, while in Shandong, irrigation quotas were compressed due to industrialization, leading to ecological disasters. Currently, although the “Water Law” has introduced total quantity control, the definition of water rights is ambiguous. For example, Yangzhou’s protests due to the lack of cross-regional water transfer compensation highlight the conflicts between property rights and interests.

Practical Dilemmas: Allocation Failure under Multidimensional Conflicts

The Grand Canal spans across eight provinces and municipalities. The contradictions between the upstream and downstream regions are prominent. Upstream provinces demand high water levels for shipping and tourism. Midstream agricultural provinces compete for irrigation priority during the dry season. Downstream urbanization squeezes the ecological base flow. The case of Xuzhou’s excessive industrial water intake causing the failure of Suqian’s paddy fields is a vivid example.

Competition among industries is intense. Agriculture, due to inefficient irrigation, has to cede water rights. Industry monopolizes quotas. Ecological water demand is sacrificed. More than one-third of the canal sections have poor water quality, and biodiversity has sharply declined. The fragmentation of departmental responsibilities, lack of monitoring and public participation mechanisms, exacerbate the chaos in water allocation.

Institutional Innovation: Establishing a Coordination Mechanism of “Stratification-Transaction-Compensation”

To solve the water rights dilemma, it is necessary to reconstruct the “state-river basin-user” power-responsibility system. The state sets the annual allocable total based on the ecological flow red line. The river basin establishes the “Grand Canal Water Rights Exchange.” Half of the initial quotas are allocated to each province according to population and cultivated land, and the other half is used as a strategic reserve. Users clarify their rights and interests through water rights certificates, and surplus quotas can be traded, drawing on the experience of the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia.

Market-based mechanisms introduce price levers, derivative tools, and green credit. For example, a paper mill in Shandong benefits from the reuse of reclaimed water. Ecological compensation explores cross-border payments, the water bank system, and carbon-water coupling transactions, breaking the regional zero-sum game and promoting the rational allocation and sustainable utilization of water rights along the Grand Canal.

Conclusion: Moving Towards a New Paradigm of “Resilient Water Rights”

The essence of the water rights allocation of the Grand Canal lies in reconstructing the power order of the human-water relationship. In the future, it is necessary to go beyond the “disputes over allocation” and shift towards “symbiotic governance”: on the one hand, release the value of resources through the securitization of water rights, and on the other hand, safeguard the rights and interests of vulnerable groups with the concept of ecological citizenship rights. Only by upgrading the canal from a “water conveyance project” to a “carrier of water civilization” and exploring the innovative path of “boosting the city’s development with water” under the constraint of “determining the city’s development based on water resources” can we achieve the dialectical unity of the sustainable development of the river basin. This is not merely a one-dimensional innovation in technology or system, but a systematic transformation involving the political ecology, economic model, and cultural cognition.

My life path is closely intertwined with the Grand Canal. As a native of Nantong who grew up by the canal ferry, I personally witnessed the evolution of water township settlements as they changed with the rise and fall of shipping. During my university life in Suzhou, I have become increasingly concerned about the relationship between humans and water in the evolution of water township spaces. When the coastal areas transform from freight hubs to cultural tourism landmarks, can the lifestyle of waterfront communities be passed down through generations during the renewal process? As excessive modernization has damaged the original structure of the canal, how can we mitigate the problems of siltation and water shortage in some sections? I hope to sort out the context of these issues; the canal is not just a geographical watercourse, but also a link that connects regional identity, economic forms, and cultural genes. The significance of the China Fellowship lies in providing me with the opportunity to conduct this research. I will explore how we should reconstruct the power order of the human-water relationship along the Grand Canal under the impact of modern production, so as to move towards a new paradigm of resilient water rights.
Lu Ming

China and The Netherlands