Interlinking India's Rivers – Insane or Incredible?

Indiahas 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 writer and editor based in New Delhi, India. She is keenly interested in development issues. Your emails will be forwarded to her by contacting the editor at: ScienceTech@iolteam.com.