Task Force on River Linking constituted as a consequence of the above order based on assumed “consensus" among states is engaged in “Devise (ing) suitable mechanism for bringing about speedy consensus amongst the States as per its Terms of Reference of the Government of India Resolution.
R G Subramanyam says, "while in the Brahmaputra basin it is 10,000 cubic metre (cu.m), it is as low as 300 cu.m. in basins like the Sabarmati" and concludes that Brahmputra is surplus. In reality this oft-repeated statement by the proponents of river linking that there is surplus water in the Brahmaputra River is just a myth. It is no doubt correct that the Brahmaputra River discharges 629 cubic km a year of water on the average into the sea every year. The high temporal variability of rainfall and surface runoff in the river and the steep slope of land allow not more than 24 cubic km a year of water utilizable. Non-availability of suitable sites for reservoir construction has so far allowed creating a live storage of just 1.1 cubic km. Leave alone transferring the Brahmaputra waters to the neighbouring basins, there is urgent need to tackle the water shortages of the basin in the dry months, rightly argues Dr. R. Jagadiswara Rao, Former Professor of Geology, Sri Venkateswara University.
Subramanyam says, "while the Brahmaputra, its tributaries, the Ganga and several other rivers ravage the lands with recurrent floods every year, many parts of the country suffer on account of acute water scarcity" having us believe that since there is flood in Ganga it must be surplus. This assumption of Ganga being surplus is again a myth.
This has been very well illustrated by Dr Jagadiswara Rao in his paper "Groundwater Development in the Riverbeds through Subsurface Dams - a Viable Alternative to Linking of Rivers in India". India built Farakka barrage across the Ganga River close to the Bangladesh border in 1974 to maintain a minimum flow of 40,000 cusecs and thereby make Kolkata an all-season port. This created uproar in Bangladesh as people living on subsistence agriculture and fishing were denied water during summer. The two countries entered into a new treaty in 1996, as per that, India gets 40,000 cusecs when the flow is more than 75,000 cusecs; Bangladesh gets 35,000 cusecs when the flow is between 75,000 and 70,000 cusecs; and the two countries share equally when the flow is less than that.
Although the new accord helped Bangladesh to get more Ganga water than what it was getting before the construction of the barrage, Kolkata to have an all-season port was defeated. The proposal of India to solve the problem through Brahmaputra-Farakka link was opposed by Bangladesh, while the proposal of Bangladesh to augment water supplies to the Farakka barrage through construction of upstream reservoirs was not acceptable to India, Nepal and Bhutan.
When a relatively small issue of maintaining enough river flow to keep Kolkata an all-weather port could not be so far achieved, how can anybody believe that the Ganga waters could be imported to other basins?, asks Dr Jagadiswara Rao.
Subramanyam rightly says, Dr K L Rao’s proposal of 1972 was found technically infeasible and economically unviable and Dr Dastur’s Garland Canal of 1977 was also found to be technically infeasible. But his contention that the proposed transfer of flows envisaged to be done mostly by gravity ((tunnelling through mountains) or by lifting across natural barriers) as a significant improvement over Dr K L Rao’s proposal needs to be put in right perspective.
In the talks with Bangladesh over river waters in the seventies, India proposed a gigantic (100,000 cusecs) Brahmaputra-Ganga gravity link canal taking off from Jogighopa in India, passing through Bangladesh, and joining the Ganga just above Farakka. The proposal was rejected by Bangladesh for many reasons, which remain valid.
There was this thought of diverting the Brahmaputra waters to the Ganges entirely through Indian territory (the Siliguri chicken-neck) but found that topographic needs would require and involve large lifts which be both unviable and also questionable.
The Kerala assembly resolution calling the proposed linking of three rivers - to divert waters from the Pamba and Achankovil rivers of the state to the Vaippar river in Tamilnadu - discriminatory and unconstitutional also needs to be borne in mind.
It would be wise to revisit the *assumptions* and *claims* of the proposed project in the context of the fact that Supreme Court has asked the Task Force for a report on Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link after Kerela rejected the Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar link and Uttar Pradesh rejected the Ken-Betwa link. Its first assumption is “Rivers can be clearly classified as water-surplus and water-deficit, and they can be equalized through water transfer.” The second one is: “River water that flows into the sea is water wasted.” Both these assumptions have been debunked.
Of course, meeting water needs of arid areas in the country is extremely important. Already, the money required to complete ongoing and spill over projects is Rs 70,000 crore in the Tenth Plan and another Rs 110,000 crore in the Eleventh Plan. In a situation where there is an inability to allocate these amounts for schemes that have been fully examined and accepted, how can this investment of Rs 5,60,000 Crore for mega schemes like river linking and Kalpasar project in Gujarat (Rs 56,000 Crore) be deemed wise?
The political class is totally divided on the issue and majority are against this mega project. The state governments of Kerala (Congress-ruled), Punjab (Congress-ruled), West Bengal and the Left parties, the Samajwadi Party, Shiromani Akali Dal, Asom Gana Parishad and the civil society in general are opposed to the river-linking programme. Almost all seminars, and workshops in our sub-continent have rejected this project as ecologically disastrous.
Gopal Krishna
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN PERSPECTIVE
Inter-linking of rivers
The benefits of inter-linking rivers are so immense that our welfare state should
find ways of making it a reality
BY R G SUBRAMANYAM
With several mighty rivers criss-crossing the country, India has bountiful supplies of utilisable fresh surface waters to the extent of 690 billion cu.m (b.cu.m).
Together with the groundwater augmentation of 396 b.cu.m., the water availability to meet the increasing needs of the community should not have presented any problem, had the supplies been equitably distributed all over the country. Except the Himalayan rivers, all peninsular rivers are fed by rainfall. It is highly erratic
and unevenly distributed both in time and space. The annual precipitation takes place in just 100 hours during the four monsoon months. While the rainfall is as low as 100 mm in parts of Rajastan and Kutch, it is as high as 11,000 mm in the eastern parts. This highly uneven distribution of rainfall leads to a staggering variation
in the annual per capita availability of water in the river basins. While in the Brahmaputra basin it is 10,000 cubic metre (cu.m), it is as low as 300 cu.m. in basins like the Sabarmati. So, while the Brahmaputra, its tributaries, the Ganga and several other rivers ravage the lands with recurrent floods every year, many parts of the country suffer on account of acute water scarcity.
The first visionary
It was the late Dr K L Rao, former union minister for water resources, who first conceived in 1972 the idea of transferring surplus flows to deficient states in the south through an artificial river called the Ganga-Cauvery link canal. The proposal was found technically infeasible and economically unviable, as it involved pumping large volumes of water over a staggering height of 550 m, requiring huge blocks of power of the order of 5000 to 7000 MW. Another proposal made in 1977 by Dr Dastur known as Garland Canal was also found to be technically infeasible.
Keeping these studies in mind, the Ministry of Irrigation prepared a National Perspective Plan in 1980 to inter-link the rivers. This plan envisaged linking of the rivers under two distinct and separate components: (a) the Himalayan river component and (b) the peninsular river component. The transfer of flows is envisaged to be done mostly by gravity, which is a significant improvement over Dr K L Rao's proposal. Later the Government of India set up the National Water Development Agency in 1982 to prepare detailed plans for river linking. A task force was set up in 2002 to prepare action plans outlining time schedules, funding options and execution of various links included in the components.
The Himalayan river component envisages construction of (a) storage reservoirs on the Ganga and the Brahmaputra and their principal tributaries in India and Nepal, (b) Ganga-Brahamputra and Ganga-Mahanadi links to transfer surplus flows of the Kosi, the Gandak and the Ghagra to the west and a link connecting the Yamuna and the Ganga. The latter will benefit the drought-prone areas in Harayana, Rajasthan and Gujarat. With a total of 14 links, 140 b.cu.m. of water will become available to benefit 22 million hectare (m.Ha.) of land. Drought mitigation to 1.7 m.Ha. will also be possible. Other benefits include power generation of 30000 MW installed capacity in Nepal and India, augmentation of flows for the Farakka barrage, flood control, inland navigation and fisheries and so on.
The peninsular component having 16 links envisages construction of (a) terminal reservoirs on the Mahanadi and the Godavari, (b) link canals for transferring surplus flows to the Krishna, the Pennar and the Cauvery, (c) diversion of part flows of the west-flowing rivers of Kerala to the east, (d) inter-linking of small rivers south of the Tapi and north of Mumbai and (e) inter-linking of southern tributaries of the Yamuna like the Ken and Chambal. This peninsular river development would enable additional usage of 84 b.cu.m. of water to benefit 13m.Ha. of land in different southern States and also Madhya Pradesh.
At 2002 price levels, the estimated cost of the Himalayan development would be Rs. 3,75,000 crore and that of the peninsular one Rs.1,85,000 crore, the total estimated a whopping Rs.5,60,00 crore. If the period of implementation of this gigantic project takes 35 years the annual outlay would be Rs.16000 crore.
Broad consensus
There is a broad consensus amongst the political class in favour of the mega project. There are however a number of constraints. For executing the Himalayan development plan international cooperation and agreements with Nepal and Bhutan will be required. In our own country it will not be easy to enlist the cooperation of water surplus states. Land acquisition and the human problem of resettlement of a large number of affected people will be a very daunting task. Forest and environmental clearance may pose certain problems. Finding financial resources to fund the mega project may pose a great problem. But these are the challenges that a welfare state, wedded to improve the lot of the under privileged class of people, must face boldly and successfully.
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may112004/edst.asp With reference to Mr N Vittal's assumptions about benefits from riverlinking expressed in the recent issue of The Week, it seems quite far from reality. He says, Interlinking of rivers will overcome the problems of droughts and floods in many parts of the country, infact it will lead to desertification. Instead of recharging the aquifers the transferred waters, the water will get evaporated on the way. As to the generation of power, the NWDA says its 34, 000 MW but Mr Vittal says 40,000 MW of hydro power. The data is missing but claims are being made. Such notions of waterways is mispalced. His dismissive stance with regard to "consensus" is undemocratic since in issue such as this one which entails rewriting of country's geography-consenus is a must.
Competition Versus Consensus
Shri N. Vittal in his article titled “Competition Versus Consensus” that appeared in the “United Bharat”, of 15th June,2003, Cochin, expresses happiness over the political consensus achieved in announcing the project. He further states that judiciary has also stepped in with the Supreme Court fixing 2015 as the time limit by which action should be taken. Other important issues discussed in the article are presented below:
Interlinking of rivers will overcome the problems of droughts and floods in many parts of the country
·The transferred waters, when utilized, will help in recharging the aquifers
·There will be additional benefits like generation of 40,000 MW of hydro power
·Waterways can become an environment-friendly supplement to the country’s transportation system
·Instead of waiting for consensus, we should choose competition as the way forward
http://riverlinks.nic.in/press.asp?pageno=9 
Email::