The
interlinking of rivers is being presented as an acceptable solution to all of
India
’s water problems. Planners and advocates of interlinking of virtually
all major rivers in the country, with a phenomenal array of dams, bunds, canals,
waterways, power projects etc., are saying that the mind-bogglingly gargantuan
project will supply 34,000 megawatts (MW) of hydropower and irrigate an
additional 35 million hectares of land via approximately 40,000 kilometers of
linkways.
India
has an average annual flow of 1,869 billion cubic meters (bcm) of water. By
2050, it is expected that the country’s need for water will swell to 1,300
bcm. That, then, is the simplistic justification for an issue that has complex
environmental and economic dimensions to it.
What
Are We Interlinking?
 |
The idea is to transfer waters from ‘surplus’ eastern rivers to ‘deficit’ rivers in the central, western and southern regions of India.
Click here for a larger version
|
The
general idea is to transfer waters from ‘surplus’ eastern rivers to
‘deficit’ rivers in the central, western and southern regions of
India
. The proposal in its present, albeit nebulous, form has two main
components: namely the Himalayan Rivers component and the Peninsular Rivers
component.
The
Himalayan component envisions a number of links, including some within the Ganga
river system (Kosi-Ghagra, Gandak-Ganga, Ghagra-Yamuna, Sarda-Yamuna and so on);
some between neighboring rivers in the Brahmaputra system
(Manas-Sankosh-Teesta); a couple between those two systems (Teesta-Ganga and an
alternative Brahmaputra-Ganga link); one long link from Sarda to Sabarmati
through the Yamuna and Rajasthan; one from the Ganga to Subernarekha via Damodar
and then on to Mahanadi; and a few others.
The
peninsular rivers component again involves a number of links, of which the most
important would be those connecting
Mahanadi
,
Godavari
,
Krishna
, Pennar and Cauvery rivers. The idea is to transfer the surpluses estimated to
exist in the
Mahanadi
and the
Godavari
to the deficit southern basins (Cauvery, Vaigai). Other links in the peninsular
component would include Ken-Betwa, Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal, Par-Tapi-Narmada
and Damanganga-Pinjal. Another idea is the partial diversion of certain rivers
flowing into the
Arabian Sea
eastwards to link with rivers flowing into the
Bay of Bengal
(Bedti-Varda, Netravati-Hemavati, Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar).
Stop!
Think!
Cautionary
voices point to the fact that the government of
India
was not thinking of any river-linking project until recently. Experts
warn that the huge costs involved in the linking of rivers and long-distance
water transfers will make the water at the receiving end very costly indeed.
There is hardly any possibility of recovering even a fraction of those costs
from the users, who will doubtless argue that this is infrastructure development
and that the state must bear the cost.
Why
and Why Not
Those
‘for’ in the great divide on the interlinking issue recommend it on four
basic grounds: that it will control floods, eliminate drought, generate large
quantities of electricity and provide employment to thousands.
But
Dr. Bharat Singh, member of the National Commission for Integrated Water
Resource Development Plan (NCIWRDP), has stated categorically that, “any water
resources engineer will immediately discard the idea of the inter-linking of
rivers as a flood control measure. It is not practically possible.”
It
is also pointed out that inter-basin transfers require large quantities
of energy (for lifting, tunneling and pumping water long distances).
Ramaswamy V. Iyer,
India
’s former secretary of water resources, now honorary research professor at the
Centre for Policy Research, says that it is not clear how a project of this kind
will be a net generator of upwards of 30,000 MW of electric power.
Next,
interlinking is supposed to prevent droughts. But, as Iyer says, “In the first
place, river-linking is no answer at all to the needs of areas unserved by
rivers.” The transfer of water from river A to river B may at best
provide some additional water to areas already served to some extent by river B.
Iyer
adds, “That is not the nature of this project. The second and complementary
point is that fortunately no such transfer is necessary. As Rajendra Singh in
Alwar District and Anna Hazare in Ralegan Siddhi have shown, as NGOs and the
government in Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh have shown, through rain harvesting, restoration and conservation works,
the primary answer to drought has to be local.”
A
‘Natural’ Disaster
Like
many of his contemporaries, Iyer worries that this will be a massive
intervention in nature; an ambitious attempt to alter
India
. It amounts to nothing less than the redrawing of the geography of the country.
He criticizes the facile references that are being made to a ‘national water
grid’, as if interlinking of rivers was akin to a power grid or the linking of
road highways. He says this analogy is inapt and misleading.
Iyer
explains, “In a power-grid or a highway-link, the movement can be in both
directions, but that is not the case with a river-link; water will flow only in
one direction. Apart from that, highways and power lines are human creations and
can be manipulated by humans. Rivers are not human artifacts; they are natural
phenomena, integral components of ecological systems, and inextricable parts of
the cultural, social, economic and spiritual lives of the communities concerned.
They are not pipelines to be cut, turned around, welded and rejoined. In any
case, the project envisages only a number of discrete links and not a
‘national’ water grid.”
How
It Can Go Wrong
An
example of the potential for disaster is the diversion of two rivers that were
flowing into the
Aral Sea
in the former
Soviet Union
, resulting in an environmental catastrophe described as the greatest ever - the
virtual death of the sea. Experts also argue that the fact that the
government of
China
has been able to push the Three Gorges Project through does not prove that it
is a good project. Only the future can tell us whether it is a boon or a
disaster. They say that opposition to Three Gorges in
China
is muted because dissent is not easy in that country.
Other
Myths Destroyed
 |
| What the poor need is purchasing power, not more stocks of grain
|
Interlinking
is attractive, we are told, because it will meet the large demands of irrigation
and for eradication of hunger. Environmentalists question the rationale behind
bringing more and more land under artificial cultivation when the country has
virtual mountains of stockpiled grain. What the poor need is purchasing power,
not more stocks. In Iyer’s words, “The slogan of ‘making the desert
bloom’ is not necessarily a sound one.”
Another
touted benefit - that of generating employment for tens of thousands of people -
seems, as Iyer says, “a strange justification. Any large-scale construction
activity is bound to generate some employment, even if the construction itself
is completely pointless.” It is also pointed out that given the magnitude and
accelerated time frame of the project, it seems likely that advanced,
sophisticated technologies, probably from external sources, will be used.
What
the Authorities are Saying
When
asked what the official response would be if the project was found unfeasible,
Chetan Pandit, head of the Upper Yamuna River Board in the Water Resources
Ministry, said, “It is not a project. It is a concept, or a bouquet of 30
different projects. Each is evaluated individually. A separate pre-feasibility
study, a separate feasibility study, and a separate detailed project report, for
each one. And which ever one is found not feasible, of course it will not be
implemented.”
Unfortunately,
that is precisely what is happening. This ‘concept’ consists of some twenty
or thirty projects. A project has been announced and expectations raised in the
general public. The presumption is that the project or projects will be found
acceptable and cleared. This may reduce the whole process of examination,
evaluation and clearance to a mere formality, a mockery. The pressure on the
Central Water Commission, the Technical Advisory Committee, the Ministry of
Environment and Forests and its committees, and the task force that has now been
set up, to be ‘positive’, will be very great.
We
are told that the authorities have prepared feasibility studies for eight links,
and that these have been “ratified by engineers, sociologists and
economists”. If indeed there are feasibility studies of some of the proposed
links, they should be put into the public domain for engineers, geographers,
environmentalists, economists, agronomists, soil scientists, sociologists,
social anthropologists, financial analysts, and others outside the government to
examine and offer their comments. Iyer sums up simply, “This is too important
a matter to be left entirely to the internal processes of the government.”
Where’s
the Money?
Present
plan outlays are barely adequate even for the completion of projects already
undertaken. One estimate – that of the NCIWRDP in its 1999 report - of amounts
needed for completing spillover projects was Rs. 70,000 crores in the tenth plan
and Rs. 110,000 crores in the Eleventh Plan (Report, 1999). That leaves no scope
for new major projects, and necessitates a severe selectivity even in regard to
the continuance of what are called ‘on-going projects’. The rough figure
mentioned in the Supreme Court for the interlinking of rivers is Rs. 560,000
crores. At current levels, this is two and a half times
India
’s annual tax collection, double the country’s present foreign exchange
reserves and 25 percent of its GDP (Gross Domestic Product)!
*Lalitha
Sridhar is a Chennai-based freelance journalist keenly interested in
development issues. Your emails will be forwarded to her by contacting the
editor at: ScienceTech@islam-online.net
