DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Interlinking Rivers of India – Is It Necessary

ABSTRACT

India is going to inter link all of its rivers. It’s one of the news in the talk from the

past few years. River interlinking is a project that is both visionary and controversial in

claiming to cure all of the country’s water problems. The goal is to link all the country’s

rivers together with the ultimate aim of diverting the surplus water available to the place

were it is not within the country. This also eyes on flood control, hydroelectric power

generation and many other similar benefits. However, Interlinking at the same time has

the potential to become another grand, large-scale project of the sort that creates more

problems than it proposes to solve. In this paper the authors deals with few of those

possible merits and demerits of this project. And why our neighboring countries like

Bangladesh oppose this project. Is interlinking is the only solution for the water problems

existing now in the country. If not so, then what are the other possible solutions to solve

this crisis. Is this project needs further analysis and considerations before

implementation. Finally, authors solutions for this as conclusion.

INTRODUCTION

“Some parts of the country are experiencing droughtconditions, when some other regions are flooded. This has

become a periodic phenomenon, lacking any predictability.Once again, this clearly brings out, the need for the

interlinking of our rivers for effective utilization of surpluswater in a balanced manner among all geographic regions with

enlightened cooperation between the States and the Centre.”

- President’s address, 60th Independence Day.

In recent times there has been a great deal of talk on interlinking of rivers right

from the north to the south and from the west to the east. The concept is very romantic.

Fancy some one in Tamil Nadu being able to drink the water of holy Ganga! The thought

is mind-boggling. But several questions of late are being asked. Is it really worthwhile to

interlink Indian rivers? Is the concept cost-effective? Is it economically viable? Is it

ecologically acceptable? The more such questions are asked, the more doubts are being

raised and current thinking in responsible quarters is that howsoever noble the aims of

our policy-makers, it is wisdom to go slow in pursuing a vain dream. This paper

addresses about the extremes of the project and the other options available to meet out the

problem.

BACKGROUND:

The idea of linking rivers for various purposes in the sub-continent is not new. The

historical background of this project extends back to nineteenth century as below:

Nineteenth century- Sir Arthur Cotton conceived a plan to link rivers in Southern

India for inland navigation. The project was partially implemented and dropped

due to the decline of water navigation in the face of rapid development of

railways.

1972- ‘Ganga Cauvery’link proposed by Union Minister Dr. K.L. Rao.

1974- ‘Garland Canal’ proposal by Captain Dinshaw J Dastur, a pilot. Both plans

rejected due to technical infeasibility and huge costs.

1980- Ministry of Water Resources frames the National Perspective Plan (NPP)

envisaging inter-basin transfer.

1982- The National Water Development Agency (NWDA) set up to carry out

pre-feasibility studies. These form the basis of the ILR plan.

1999 – A national commission (NCIWRDP) set up to review NWDA reports

concluded that it saw ‘no imperative necessity for massive water transfers in the

peninsular component’ and that the Himalayan Component would require more

detailed study.

Aug 15, 2002- President Abdul Kalam mentions the need for river linking in his

Independence-day speech, based on which senior advocate Ranjit Kumar filed a

PIL in Supreme Court.

Oct 2002- Supreme Court recommends that the government formulate a plan to

link the major Indian rivers by the year 2012.

Dec 2002- Govt. appointed a Task Force (TF) on Interlinking of rivers (ILR) led

by Mr. Suresh Prabhu. The deadline was revised to 2016.

THE PROPOSAL:

The current proposal is of two components- Himalayan component and peninsular

component. The Himalayan Component proposes fourteen canals and the Peninsular

Component sixteen.

In the Himalayan Component, many dams are slated for construction on

tributaries of the Ganga and Brahmaputra in India, Nepal, and Bhutan. The project

intends to link the Brahmaputra and its tributaries with the Ganga and the Ganga with the

Mahanadi River to transfer surplus water from east to west. The scheme envisages flood

control in the Ganga and Brahmaputra basins and a reduction in water deficits for many

states.

In the Peninsular Component, river interlinks are envisaged to benefit the states of

Orissa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Pondicherry, and Maharashtra. The linkage of

the Mahanadi and Godavari rivers is proposed to feed the Krishna, Pennar, Cauvery, and

Vaigai rivers. Transfer of water from Godavari and Krishna entails pumping 1,200 cusecs

of water over a crest of about 116 meters. Interlinking the Ken with the Betwa, Parbati,

Kalisindh, and Chambal rivers is proposed to benefit Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The

river link network envisages knitting together ten major rivers across the nation, unheard

of in human history.

Links Identified in Himalayan Component

1. Brahmaputra-Ganga 2. Kosi-Ghagra 3. Gandak-Ganga4. Ghagra-Yamuna 5. Sarda-Yamuna 6. Yamuna-Rajasthan7. Rajasthan-Sabarmati8. Chunar-Sone Barrage 9. Sone Dam-Southern tributaries of Ganga 10. Brahmaputra-Ganga 11. Kosi-Mechi 12. Farakka-Sunderbans 13. Ganga-Damodar-Subernarekha 14. Subernrekha-Mahanadi

Links Identified in Peninsular Component15. Mahanadi (Manibadra)-Godavari (Dowlaiswaram)16. Godavari (Inchampalli lowdam)-Krishna (Nagarjunsagar tail)17. Godavari (Inchampalli)-Krishna Nagarjunsagar)18. Godavari (Polavaram) - Krishna (Vijayawada)19. Krishna (Almatti)-Pennar20. Krishna (Srisailam)-Pennar21. Krishna (Nagarjunsagar)-Pennar (Somasila)22. Pennar (Somasila)-Cauvery (Grand Anicut)23. Cauvery (Kattalai)-Vaigai-Gundar24. Ken-Betwa25. Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal26. Par-Tapi-Narmada27. Damanaganga-Pinjal28. Bedti-Varda29. Netravati-Hemavati30. Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar

Proposed links

BUDGET AND COST ESTIMATES:

The estimated cost (in 2002) of interlinking rivers stands at Rs. 5,60,000 crores

(Goyal 2003)—equivalent to approximately $122.7 billion—with an annual outlay over

thirty-five years of Rs. 16,000 crores ($3.5 billion). Another estimate puts it close to 5,

56,000 crores ($121.8 billion), out of which Rs. 3, 30,000 crores ($72.3 billion) is

earmarked for linking the Himalayan rivers with the various peninsular rivers (Sharma

2003). The Central Government is estimated to need Rs. 20,000 crores ($4.4 billion) a

year to execute the project (Goyal 2003). Gujja (2003) estimates Rs. 5, 50,000 crores

($120.5 billion) as the cost of completing what would be the largest civil engineering

project ever in India. As a long term project, the actual inflation and potential cost

increases during such a long span are anybody’s guess. Long term planning and a sound

financial simulation are required to meet the standard of due diligence for such proposals.

Yet, the government seems ready to commit this huge expenditure mostly because of

popular sentiment.

Main Budgetary and Other Features of the River Interlinking Plan

EXPECTED BENEFICTS:

The following are few expected benefits of the project:

Agriculture - totally 35 million hectares will be irrigated

Power generation -34,000 MW of HEP is expected to be generated

Flood control in surplus areas

Drought control in scarce areas

Inland navigation

GDP growth, nearly 4%

Creation of employment activities

National unity and integration

EXPECTED ILL EFFECTS:

Submergence of large areas of forests, lands, and reserves

Displacement of large population

Increased Political pressures and conflicts

Change in climatic pattern

PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT:

Political consensus:

The linking itself demands cooperation and coordination between various states.

Not only between states, also between our neighboring countries like Bangladesh,

Pakistan, Nepal, China. But even within India we have unsolved conflicts between

surplus states and scarce states. For example Cauvery issue (between Karnataka and

Tamil nadu), Mullai Periyar issue (between Tamil nadu and Kerala). The states which are

having surplus water shows no interest over this proposal. Even few states like Kerala,

Punjab is against this project. Thus before the implementation all this issues should be

solved and a centralized law should be created for future control.

Financing :

The project needs huge amount of money for implementation. The estimated cost

according to 2002 is - 250% of the India’s entire tax revenues in 2002

- 1/4th of India’s annual GDP.

- More than twice the entire irrigation budget of India since 1950 .

But it will increase with years. India as a developing country cannot spend that much.

Even though World Bank, Asian bank, etc are ready to give loan we have to

consider it thereby not losing our independence. The additional cost to be spent for future

maintenance of canals and dams is also to be considered.

Flood period:

The basic idea of networking rivers is to convey unwanted floodwaters from one

place to another where it is deficient and needed. But this idea does not consider that the

period when it is surplus in the donor area (July to October in the Ganga-Brahmaputra

basins) is not the time when it is needed most in the recipient area (January to May in the

peninsular rivers). In such a situation, it will be necessary to construct enormous holding

reservoirs that will add to financial, social and environmental costs.

Desertification:

Flooding is not undesirable because it results in deposition of alluvium

particularly in the delta areas of rivers to maintain the fertility of the land by

compensating loss of topsoil due to natural erosion. Any system that prevents or severely

reduces natural flooding (by diversion of floodwater) will cause land fertility to gradually

reduce over the years, thus desertifying the land. The greatest loss that land can suffer is

desertification by loss of topsoil. The land that will be so lost to cultivation is the most

fertile delta land, and therefore the impact of this on total food production needs to be

factored into the discussion. History tells us that entire civilizations have vanished due to

desertification.

Pollution:

Annual floods flush industrial and municipal pollution in the Ganga down to the

ocean. Reducing the flow in the Ganga by diversion will increase the concentration of

pollution in the river. A live example is the Yamuna, from which Haryana and Delhi

draw so much water that it barely flows after Delhi and the water quality at Delhi is so

poor as to be positively poisonous. It is relevant to note that the expensive project to

clean the Ganga has not succeeded even with annual flooding. This is not to argue that

pollution of river water is inherent and may never be checked at source, but that this

factor is yet another that needs to be included in the legitimacy check for the project.

Chance for disaster:

As this requires pumping and storing of large amount of water, any

malfunctioning in these components will lead to a huge disaster both by lives and

properties. It may be either due to nature, poor maintenance or human activity. Thus

security of the network will be an enormous load on security forces of Central and State

Governments.

Land acquisition and rehabilitation:

One cannot consider the acquisition of 8000 sq km of land when acquisition of

land even in acres is a vexed issue, which has taken years. Even if fresh legislation makes

it possible within a short period, its implementation will cause untold misery and injustice

to the displaced people in obtaining compensation due to systemic corruption. Besides,

land for resettlement is mostly not available.

From a humanitarian perspective, millions of people will be forcibly displaced by

this project. A sound rehabilitation and resettlement program for these people needs to be

put in place. It has been estimated that 21-56 million people have been displaced by large

dams over the past 50 years in India, 40% of them tribal people. Less than 50% of those

displaced were rehabilitated. In this situation this project demands 2 to 3 times of the land

required above.

Technology challenges:

This networking involves connection by three methods: pumping, canals, and

tunnels. The above requires suitable topography and technical feasibility. These

technological options envisaged have both economic as well as socio-environmental

consequences to deal with.

Experience from similar projects:

Large scale river diversions that have been attempted in other countries have proved to be ecologically disastrous and the benefits short-lived. These countries today spend billions of dollars in decommissioning dams and reversing damages.

Examples:

1) Aral Sea, Soviet Union

2) The Case of the Colorado, USA

3) Irtysh-Karaganda (Satpaev’s) Canal

4) The South-eastern Anatolia Project (GAP), Turkey

5) The Three Gorges and The North- South Transfer project

6) The Spanish National Hydrological plan, Spain

Though the conditions and population distribution pattern is entirely different

from above cases in our country, these conditions have to be considered before

implementation.

Other factors:

In spite of the above the coming factors also needs consideration.

Possibility for Increase in salinity,

Possibility for drying up of surplus rivers,

Possibility for Change in monsoon and climatic pattern thus spoiling our

entire plan,

Depletion of flora and fauna

IMPACT OF NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES:

Bangladesh:

Bangladesh receives its water mainly through Brahmaputra River which mixes

with sea there. The interlinking project requires a dam to be constructed at Bengal

to convert water to south. As the neighbor is located at the downstream the

diversion will reduce the water supply to them. If it is more then the countries

agriculture which mainly depending on this water will be a question mark. Even

our project has the tendency to desertify the entire Bangladesh. So Bangladesh is

strongly opposing this project. A mutual treaty is thus required before

implementation of the project. Now Bangladesh claims that India is flouting the

Ganges treaty, 1996.

Nepal, Bhutan :

Dams will need to be built in Nepal and Bhutan, in order to store the surplus

water and later divert it to deficit regions. Thus land has to be acquitted from

these countries. But this is not an easy task to carry with.

China :

China controls the flow of water in the Brahmaputra, Indus and Sutlej Rivers.

China is considering a proposal to build a dam on Yarlung Tsangpo (which

becomes Brahmaputra in India) which will generate 40000 megawatts of energy

(more than twice generated by the Three Gorges dam). If this project goes

through, the entire equation of ‘surplus’ and ‘deficit’ in India will change. This

project and other similar grand projects being planned by China have the capacity

to completely throw India’s plans off the mark.

Pakistan :

The Indus (known as Sindhu) is the principal river of Pakistan. Its source is

actually in Tibet; it flows through Kashmir coming out of the hills between Peshawar and

Rawalpindi. The remainder of its route to the sea is in the plains of the Punjab and Sind.

Passing by Hyderabad, it ends in a large delta to the south-east of Karachi that has now

been recognized by conservationists as one of the world's most important ecological

regions. India and Pakistan partition created a conflict over the waters of the Indus basin.

In 1960, after several years of arduous negotiations at the behest of the World Bank, the

Indus Waters Treaty was signed. Till date, this is the only agreement that has been

faithfully implemented and upheld by both India and Pakistan. In future if Pakistan has

any second thoughts in this then our project will become meaningless. Thus a lasting

peace with Pakistan is a must for development of the interlinking project.

OTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

As interlinking of rivers is not economically viable and in fact raises numerous

socio-political and environmental problems, the feasibility of many decentralized small

scale projects as an alternative to the centralized interlinking of rivers project or a

combination of the two needs to be assessed. Following are some of the structural and

institutional alternatives to the interlinking of rivers.

Rainwater and floodwater harvesting:

One possible solution to the water crisis being faced by the country is going back

to the old tried and tested methods of the past, those of rainwater harvesting. Rain is the

source of all water on the earth. If we capture rain where it falls, it will be sufficient to

fulfill the needs of that particular area. India receives an average of 100hrs of rain in a

year. The challenge is to capture this rain and use it over 8660hrs that make up the rest of

the year. The method of capture and the amount of capture varies from one region to

another, depending on the topography, amount of precipitation, type of soil, etc. For this

purpose India can be divided into various ecological regions and the harvesting

techniques accordingly implemented. Few successful methods are already in use in India,

like –

1) Kuis/Beris –Rajasthan

2) Bamboo Drip Irrigation – Meghalaya

Similar suitable methods can be adopted to improve efficiency.

Rooftop rainwater harvesting

In urban areas where a lot of open space is not available for harvesting rain water,

rooftops can be utilized for this purpose. This does not require very high capital

investment or restructuring of existing building. It can facilitate recharging of

groundwater, which is major issue in urban areas having a high percentage of

impermeable surface area. Rooftop water harvesting can also helping reducing the

pollution caused in the surface water bodies by urban water runoff. For large scale

implementation, governmental support will be required in terms of providing incentives

to the citizens to do so or by making it a national policy. It has been made mandatory for

all government building in Chennai and other big cities to meet their demands of water to

certain extent.

Improving efficiency of already existing infrastructure

Improving the efficiency of the water already available to us and the structures

that already exist is the other possible way. Investment of our limited resources in these is

likely to be fruitful. Expanding the irrigated area, getting more water will be useful only

in tandem with efforts to build highly efficient new structures and improvement in

efficiency of what we already have.

CONCLUSION:

Every project needs complete assessment before implementation. Thus this needs

a thorough feasible study before implementation. The studies and research done by the

government agencies have been kept strictly confidential. Information regarding this

project should be made available to the scientific community and the public so as to

enable them to judge, comment and if required contest the project that has the potential to

change their lives and the lives of the future generations dramatically.

According to our point of view, India as a developing country is not in a position to

undertake such a huge experimentation which has the tendency to turn the clock around.

Thus as a first step, few links which are not having much conflicts and problems, and

independent can be tried first before implementing the entire proposal as it is. If that

proved to be fruitful we can slowly move on to complete networking. During this testing

period we should try to solve the conflicts within state and with our neighbors. Till that

we can follow any of the above other solutions either alone or as a combination to meet

out our water demand. No doubt that we will become the extreme power of this world in

case of success of this project.

REFERENCES:

Agarwal, A., S. Narain, and I. Khurana. 2001. Making water everybody’s

business. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.

Goyal, J.2003. Is interlinking of rivers viable? Chandigarh: The Tribune (March

13). http://tribuneindia.com/2003/20030313/science.htm#1.

Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. 1980. The national

perspective. New Delhi.http://wrmin.nic.in/interbasin/perspective.htm.

Articles on - The Hindu, New Indian Express, Frontline.

http://www.riverlinks.nic.in (Task Force on Interlinking)

Dev Goel, Florida State University, Interlinking Indian Rivers: Bane or Boon?

http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/undergrad/132

Google search engine