The 1960's saw the beginning of construction of several high-head hydroelectric schemes in the Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union, viz., Charvak, Nurek, and ToktognL For river diversion during the construction of these hydroelectric schemes, large cross section tunnels were used, which operated unt.il 1972 to 1974. The experience gained during the extended service of these tunnels under different conditions, extending over six to severr years, permitted their operational features to be defined and recommendations to be formulated for more accurately defining design decisions for similar high capacity diversion tunnels.Descriptions of the diversion tunnels at the above-mentioned hydropower schemes are given elsewhere [1,2,3]. Presented in Tables 1 and 2 are, respectively, their principal engineering features and operational factors.Stage I and II tunnels of the Nurek scheme and the Toktogul tunnel were designed to pass only the construction floods. The Charvak diversion tunnel, after remodeling, was placed in permanent service. The service spillway is connected to it 480 m from its upstream portal.All the tunnels were designed to operate under free-and pressure-flow conditions. The Nurek I and Toktogul tunnels are unregulated; they were designed to operate only in the first stage of construction-flood diversion, before reservoir filling. The leaf gates installed in the Toktogul and Nurek I tunnels were designed for single closure for their isolation. The Charvak and Nurek II tunnels were used to pass the construction floods during both stages. During the second stage, i.e., reservoir filling for the commissioning and operation of the Stage I turbogenerator units, the flow through the Charvak and Nurek II turmels was regulated by radial (sector) gates. These gates were desigr~ed for a maximum head of 80 and 110 m, respectively.The Toktognl and Nurek tunnels have a flat-bedded cross section, the Charvak has a circular profile. The reinforced-concrete linings of all the tunnels were designed to prevent cracking.In connection with the high velocities in the tunnels (Table 2), certain design standard criteria were developed for the lining surfaces. However, even during the first stage of construction-flood diversion, a nonuniform erosion of the linings occurred, which resulted in local irregularities with dimensions significantly exceeding the design limits. This indicates the necessity for a secondary treatment of the concrete lining surfaces, in order to prevent cavitation damage during subsequent stages of tunnel operation. It should be noted that it was the first