The dam is considered the largest hydroelectric project in Africa and the eighth largest in the world. It was designed to produce 6000 megawatts of electricity. The reservoir can absorb more than 70 billion cubic meters of water, which is almost equivalent to the fluidity of the Nile in a year. It points this out because it shows that London does not want to unfairly exploit Cairo in the management of « reserved points », and in particular Sudan. Egypt can be literally called « the river that is Egypt, » which means the country formed by the annual flood of the Mud Nile. In this fertile region, it rarely rains. The Nile is his life. Deprive it of the waters of this river and it would immediately become a desert. Britain therefore considered that this « free discussion and friendly accommodation on both sides », referred to in the declaration of 28 February 1922, required that the issue of irrigation be resolved before the « reserved points » were examined. The elected body presented its report on 25 August 1920. It was unanimous, unless there was any discussion of allocating the increased water supply provided by the Nile projects and allocating the costs of the proposed work. The President and the Cambridge candidate felt that the problem of allocating the waters of the Nile is not new. It is very complicated and he has been in a chronic shower state for a few years.
In a note of 10 January 1920, the Council of Ministers of the Egyptian Government approved the appointment of a commission to report on the projects to fight the Nile. The objectives are: c) Egypt has 1,900,000 hectares still waiting for water and plow; In dealing with the major problem, which depends on the general terms of the agreement, it is worth recalling that the first agreement was reached between Great Britain as a colonial power in East Africa and Egypt. Cairo has been favoured over other riparian countries as an important agricultural asset. In addition, the Suez Canal, managed by Egypt, was essential to British imperial ambitions. The Egyptian government agrees that a settlement of these issues (irrigation issues) cannot be delayed as long as the two governments (Britain and Egypt) manage to agree on the status of Sudan, but at the conclusion of this regulation, they explicitly reserve their full freedom in the negotiations that might precede such an agreement. The essence of the agreement is therefore clearly the safeguarding of Egypt`s « natural and historical rights in the waters of the Nile. » This river has been the river since the beginning of Egypt`s history. The recent agreement tends to perpetuate this relationship. It plans to allow Sudan to source quantities of Nile water that would not affect this traditional prerogative or violate Egypt`s « agricultural expansion requirements. » Muhammed Mahmoud Pasha speaks of « Egypt`s natural and historical rights in the waters of the Nile and its requirements for agricultural expansion. » Lord Lloyd`s answer is adapted to the same note. It says in part that my argument is that the strength of agreements made in modern times and Egypt`s threats to use military force are questionable for two reasons.