Extremely contrasting economic and environmental forecasts for the new “Ara Canal” between Incheon on the West Sea and Gimpo at the mouth of the Han River make it hard for the public to assess the project.

When the 18-kilometer waterway opened Saturday after on-and-off construction work over nearly two decades, the minister of homeland and marine affairs and the chiefs of Gyeonggi and Incheon provincial governments joined in celebrations. A cruise boat was launched with hundreds of curious sightseers.

Officials of the state-run Korea Water Resources Corporation responsible for operating the canal believe that it will help boost the local economy with its transportation and tourism functions. However, critics deny the possibility of any significant economic contribution while they fear serious environmental damage along the waterway as well as in the nearby wetlands. They claim that it will eventually turn into a “ghost waterway” where few freighters or cruise boats travel.

The waterway project started in 1992 as a flood control measure. Then in 1995, the government changed the project into a multi-purpose canal as officials believed that a safe, direct waterway was necessary south of the Han River estuary bordering North Korea to provide direct, safe access to the West Sea. Skepticism about its economic feasibility was continuously raised during the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun governments, but it was given a push with the inception of the Lee Myung-bak administration. A total of 2.25 trillion won or $2 billion was put into the construction work until last week’s dedication.

Korea Water estimates that up to 930,000 TEUs of cargo, 10 million tons of sand, 60,000 automobiles and 570,000 tons of steel products will be carried through the Ara Canal annually by 2030. It forecasts that the canal will create 25,000 jobs and add 3 trillion won to GDP. Skeptics point out that no huge production and consumption centers exist along the waterway to create transportation needs and that not many people will fork out for high-priced tickets just to see the parallel walls of the canal and an artificial waterfall.

It is quite frustrating that these controversies are almost in the same tune as the debates over the four-river development project, which nears its completion along the nation’s four major waterways. Claims that it is environmentally hazardous and economically unworthy of the high cost (of 22 trillion won) plagued the project for the past three years. Political opponents joined the critics threatening to block budget appropriation.

Proponents and opponents produce extensive data to support their respective assertions but judgment will be hard to reach until after some years of actually using the infrastructure facilities in question. The nation has witnessed quite a few public work projects, often led by local authorities, which failed to meet the original expectations ― such as new light railways with low transportation volumes and industrial parks with few occupants.

For the Ara Canal, the first of its kind in the nation, there is only one choice. The central and provincial government authorities need to work to maximize its use for industrial as well as leisure purposes. The new facility can stimulate establishment of new businesses with official promotion and support. One example is marinas for boating, an area with much potential in the burgeoning Korean leisure industry.

The controversy over the new canal also increases our conviction about the necessity of a powerful central government system to examine various kinds of infrastructure projects which are offered in the course of election campaigns. Without effectively preventing the births of white elephants here and there, the nation will have no money left for welfare and will eventually come to the brink of bankruptcy.