Three years ago, on June 6, 2023, Russian forces destroyed the Kakhovka HPP dam, located near the temporarily occupied city of Nova Kakhovka in the Kherson region. On June 18 the Kakhovka reservoir effectively ceased to exist.
According to the prosecutor’s office, 80 settlements ended up in the flooded area at that time. 16,000 people were left homeless.
The Russian war crime caused catastrophic consequences for the environment, made it impossible to carry out agriculture, and will also have a negative impact on Ukraine’s economy and demography. One way to overcome it is to restore either the entire complex of structures (the HPP and the reservoir) or only the reservoir.
But scientists’ and experts’ opinions differ. Some experts see in these events a chance to return the natural ecosystems of the Velykyi Luh (Great Meadow), while others emphasize the need to restore the artificial water body.
In March 2024 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a ban on changing the designated use of the lands of the Kakhovka reservoir.
Why it needs to be restored
Researchers at Kherson State Agrarian and Economic University believe that a refusal to rebuild could cause long-term environmental, social and economic problems for southern Ukraine.
In 2024 researchers Vitalii Pichura, Larysa Potravka and Pavlo Kutishchev in the articles “Kakhovka Reservoir: Before and After the HPP Dam Explosion” and “The Impact of Russian Armed Aggression on the State of the Waters of the Dnipro-Buh Estuarine System and the Black Sea” published research in which they concluded that refusal to restore the Kakhovka reservoir would have severe consequences for the natural environment, and would also negatively affect the economy and the overall quality of life of about one million people.
The researchers noted that the Kakhovka reservoir was created in the mid-20th century as one of the key elements of the water management system of the southern USSR. Despite significant land losses and the resettlement of a large number of people, the reservoir became the foundation for providing water to the region, and for the development of agriculture, energy, navigation and fisheries.
It was thanks to the reservoir that water supply operated for more than 140 settlements, where more than a million people lived. It also fed the largest canals of southern Ukraine, on which the irrigation of hundreds of thousands of hectares of land in the arid steppe zone depended.
The largest share of water from these canals was consumed by industry – 71.15 – 73.56%. Irrigation used 18.04 – 23.60%. For population needs – 4.89 – 7.98%. For other needs – 0.36 – 0.42%.
The reservoir was also used for navigation. Without it the port of Nikopol cannot operate.
In addition, the Kakhovka reservoir provided 22% of the freshwater fish catch for the Ukrainian market.
According to the researchers, the explosion of the Kakhovka HPP caused not only a large-scale humanitarian and environmental catastrophe, but also disrupted the integrated system of managing the region’s water resources. After the disappearance of the reservoir, problems arose with water supply to cities, industrial enterprises and agriculture. This was felt particularly acutely in irrigated farming, which traditionally was one of the foundations of the southern regions’ economy.
The loss of the reservoir also means reductions in fish populations, deterioration of navigation conditions and risks for many enterprises whose operations are impossible without consumption of large amounts of technical water.
After the water was drained, new natural ecosystems began to actively form on the former bottom of the reservoir. This argument is often used by opponents of restoring the water body. At the same time, scientists at Kherson State Agrarian and Economic University emphasize that the issue cannot be considered exclusively through the prism of local nature restoration. It is necessary to take into account the entire complex of changes in the Dnipro basin and the adjacent territories.
In their assessment, the long-term retention of the territory without the reservoir could lead to land degradation, deterioration of the water balance and further desertification of the southern steppe. Areas where natural moisture reserves are insufficient for stable farming remain especially vulnerable.
The scientists emphasize that the problem goes far beyond energy. The Kakhovka HPP produced on average about 1.42 billion kWh of electricity per year – less than 1% of Ukraine’s total consumption; the power plant provided the energy system with so‑called maneuvering (peaking) capacity to balance peak loads, and also supplied electricity to systems that ensured the operation of the Zaporizhzhia NPP.
In 2025 the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky said that rebuilding the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant would require about €2 billion.
And the Kakhovka reservoir, according to the scientists, was critically important for water supply and irrigation, and supported the operation of industrial enterprises, the agricultural sector and municipal infrastructure.
Ihor Pylypenko, Dean of the Faculty of Biology, Geography and Ecology at Kherson State University, Doctor of Geographical Sciences, Professor, believes that the most serious consequences of the Kakhovka HPP explosion are long-term changes in the economy, the natural environment and the life-support systems of the southern regions. The scientist says that these processes will determine the true cost of the tragedy in the coming years.
According to Ihor Pylypenko, refusal to restore the reservoir will over time turn a significant part of Kherson region into an analog of the “grain belt” in the USA: “There are territories there with a population density of seven people per square kilometer, because almost all the land is arable. Imagine: the entire Kherson region is de-occupied, and Ukraine refuses to restore the Kakhovka reservoir, on which hundreds of thousands of people depend. Where will we put them?”
“In the areas of Kherson region where vegetable growing developed on irrigated lands,” the scientist says, “the number of inhabitants in one village or settlement ranged from 730 to 1,300 people. In areas with low irrigation rates, where cereals were the priority crops, the number of inhabitants in a single rural settlement was from 280 to 325 people, with the average village size for Kherson region being 650 people.”
Why the Velykyi Luh should be preserved
The discussion about the future of the Kakhovka reservoir today essentially comes down to finding a balance between ecological restoration and the socio-economic needs of the region.
Ivan Moisiienko, a board member of the Ukrainian Environmental Group, professor, and head of the Department of Botany at Kherson State University, considers the ecological component to be the priority.
“I hope,” the scientist said in a recent comment to journalists, “that there (on the site of the Kakhovka reservoir, – MOST) will be the largest floodplain forest in Europe. That would be very good. Because we can talk about millions of tons of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere that are emitted into the atmosphere due to the war. Therefore the Velykyi Luh is very much needed. This ecosystem is very productive, it grows quickly and accumulates a lot of carbon dioxide. This reduces the negative impact of the war on our territory. The system stabilizes. It is clear that every year there will be some changes. But at least part of the former Kakhovka reservoir should become a national natural park.”
In 2025 scientists studied 11 sites on the former water body and found record willow growth. In some places individual specimens reach 7 meters in height; they also studied thickets of branched tamarisk in the vicinity of the village of Maryinske.
In addition, members of the expedition found a number of plants that had not been previously recorded on the reservoir bottom, in particular Chondrilla juncea (rush skeletonweed), Euphrosyne xanthiifolia (Euphrosyne xanthiifolia), Atriplex micrantha (small-flowered orache), Atriplex tatarica (Tatar orache), Juncus gerardi (Gerard’s rush).
The Ukrainian Environmental Group also calls for an extremely cautious approach to the ecological component.
“Significant parts of populations of certain species of flora and fauna were destroyed. Some have almost completely disappeared. In order not to lose these species altogether, it is necessary to urgently preserve the remnants of the populations of these species. The only reliable way to preserve the remnants of species that have now become even rarer is to create new protected areas. Both in already liberated territories and in temporarily occupied ones. Otherwise these species may disappear in the process of post-war reconstruction due to plowing, construction, reclamation,” the group’s appeal says.
Some experts allow for the possibility of partial restoration of the water body and returning part of the territories to nature, while others emphasize the critical role of the HPP and the reservoir for the economy and life-support of southern Ukraine. What both camps share is recognition of the scale of the challenge and the need for a comprehensive scientific analysis of the situation after the de-occupation of Kherson region.