Inter Linking of Rivers: How to kill rivers, the Gujarat way
Having worked on linking Gujarat’s rivers, of course, sans any concern
for socio-ecological impacts of such mega projects, state chief
minister and BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate is now promising a
revival of the controversial Inter Linking of Rivers project at the
national level.
After having contributed to one of South Asia’s two biggest planned
disasters through Sardar Sarovar Dam which can never be justified if
cost-benefit ratio in economic terms and environmental and human cost
is taken into account, a totally indefensible and megalomaniac project
to link all the major rivers of India has been promised by BJP.
BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate is arguing that “In Gujarat, we have
inter-linked 20 rivers and the agriculture growth is 10 per cent.”
This claim seems to be misleading because government’s statistics
reveals that agriculture in Gujarat is largely dependent on ground
water for irrigation. As to the adverse consequences of linking of 20
rivers in Gujarat, there is an urgent need for independent teams to
examine it. If there is truth in Narendra Modi’s claims the
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) reports of these link projects in
Gujarat should be put in public domain for public scrutiny. South
Asia’s other disaster being drainage congestion crisis in Kosi basin.
Modi has suggested the same medicine of linking rivers for the victims
of development of Kosi region as well.
In their bid to outwit the resistance to such projects the proponents
have a Plan A and a Plan B. The state’s proposal and projects are part
of Plan B and Plan A is the national interlinking of rivers (ILR)
programme. The ILR programme is estimated at an aggregated cost of Rs
1, 25, 342 crore at 2002-3 prices. It is aimed at creating additional
storage facilities and transfer water from water-surplus regions to
more drought-prone areas through inter-basin transfers. It is claimed
that it will provide additional irrigation in about 30 million
hectares and net power generation capacity of about 20,000 to 25,000
MW.
These claims have been debunked by several experts who have examined
its self contradictory claims and environmental costs. The
interlinking of rivers is a misnomer. It is actually an exercise aimed
at diversion of rivers from their centuries old courses. This project
is caught in time warp. It is an outdated project that belongs to an
era when climate crisis was not a reality. This entails unprecedented
amount of land use change and massive rupture of ground water
aquifers. This program proceeds in a colonial framework which deemed
flow of rivers being akin to flow of water in the pipelines.
It is noteworthy that National Council of Applied Economic Research
(NCAER) did a study on “Economic Impact of Interlinking of Rivers
Programme” in April 2008. The Foreword to the study admits, “Economic
impact of certain benefits such as mitigation of drought and floods to
a certain extent, increased revenue/income from fishing, picnic site
and amusement park are not taken into consideration.” It is clear from
the NCAER report itself that livelihood aspects have not been
considered by the project proponents.
As to mitigation of flood and drought to a certain extent, fishing at
dams and reservoirs, they are mentioned in passing as “fringe benefit”
of the programme. Thus, all claims of drought proofing, flood proofing
and dilution of pollution through linking rivers as is being argued by
its proponent’s of ILR programme are insincere, an exercise in
sophistry and totally misplaced.
This is the study on the basis of which claims are made that the ILR
project is viable. The fact is that the premise that the ILR project
would lead to drought proofing and flood proofing of the country is
based on the assumption that there is consensus among the states for
this project. It has been found that both these premises do not exist.
The study feigned ignorance about the relevant recommendations of the
two volume report of the National Commission for Water Resource
Development set up by the Union Ministry of Water Resources that was
submitted in September, 1999. Volume-I of the report says: "The
Himalayan river linking data is not freely available, but on the basis
of public information, it appears that the Himalayan river linking
component is not feasible for the period of review up to 2050." The
report underlines that the problems are in the entire plan of linking
the Himalayan rivers.
With regard to the Peninsular river component, the National Commission
for Integrated Water Resources Development states, "there is no
imperative necessity for massive water transfer. The assessed needs of
the basins could be met from full development and efficient
utilisation of intra-basic resources except in the case of Cauvery and
Vaigai basins. Some water transfer from Godavari towards the south
should take care of the deficit in the Cauvery and Vaigai basins."
Unmindful of the above recommendations of the High Powered Commission
headed by Prof S R Hashim, Feasibility Studies of the links in the
Peninsular Component of the Interlinking of Rivers project has already
been prepared by National Water Development Agency (NWDA), Government
of India. These links include: 1. Krishna (Almatti) Pennar Link, 2.
Inchampalli Nagarjunasagar Link, 3. Inchampalli Pulichintala Link, 4.
Ken Betwa Link Project, 5. Nagarjunasagar Somasila Link, 6. Parbati
Kalisindh Chambal Link Project, 7. Srisailam Pennar Link, 8. Cauvery
Vaigai Gundar Link, 9. Damanganga Pinjal Link, 10. Mahanadi Godavari
Link Project, 11. Pamba Achankovil Vaippar Link, 12. Par Tapi Narmada
Link, 13. Pennar Palar Cauvery Link and 14. Polavaram Vijayawada Link.
The map of the peninsular component is attached.
As to Himalayan Component, NWDA has completed the pre-feasibility
studies of fourteen links in the Himalayan component. These include:
1. Manas-Sankosh-Tista – Ganga (MSTG) link, 2. Jogighopa-Tista-Farakka
link, 3. Ganga-Damodar-Subernarekha link, 4. Subernarekha-Mahanadi
link, 5. Farakka-Sunderbans link, 6. Gandak-Ganga link, 7. Ghaghara
-Yamuna link, 8. Sarda-Yamuna link, 9. Yamuna-Rajasthan link, 10.
Rajasthan-Sabarmati link, 11. Chunar- Sone Barrage link, 12. Sone
dam-Southern tributaries of Ganga link, 13. Kosi- Ghaghara link and
14. Kosi-Mechi link. The feasibility Studies of Ghaghara-Yamuna Link
and Sarda-Yamuna Link has been prepared.
http://www.nih.ernet.in/rbis/
Besides the above, Union Ministry of Water Resources has approved to
identify Intra-State links in the States like Bihar and to prepare pre
– feasibility / feasibility reports of these links by NWDA. The
Government of Puducherry has send a proposal for one interstate link
namely Pennaiyar – Sankarabarani link instead of intra state link
proposal. The States Governments of Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat,
Orissa, Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu have proposed intra-state
proposals within their respective states. NWDA is preparing the pre –
feasibility reports of the intra state links.
In Bihar, the proposed links include: 1. Kosi – Mechi, 2. Barh –
Nawada, 3. Kohra – Chandravat (Lalbegi), 4. Burhi Gandak – None – Baya
– Ganga Burhi Gandak 5. Bagmati [Belwadhar]and 6. Kosi – Ganga. The
pre-feasibility report of Kosi – Mechi, Kohra – Chandravat (Lalbegi)
and Burhi Gandak – None – Baya – Ganga has been completed and sent to
the state government. It shows that centre and the state government
refuse to learn from the embankment disaster and drainage crisis in
the Kosi basin. Notably, Modi promised the false solution of ILR to
deal with the situation during a recent rally in Bihar.
In Rajasthan, there are two links proposed namely, Mahi – Luni link
and Wakal – Sabarmati – Sei – West Banas – Kameri link. Is it
irrational to suggest that centre and state government should learn
its lessons from the flash floods of August 2006 in the usually
drought prone Barmer district and desist from such endeavors?
In Jharkhand, the links include South Koel – Subernarekha, Sankh –
South Koel and Barkar – Damodar – Subernarekha. Their pre-feasibility
report has been completed and sent to the state government. The centre
and the state government have chosen to discard the lessons from the
failure of the hydro projects in the Damodar valley. In Tamil Nadu,
there is a proposal for Pennaiyar – Palar link.
In Maharashtra, there 15 links which include 1. Wainganga (Goshikurd)
– Nalganga (Purna Tapi) [Wainganga – Western Vidarbha & Pranhita –
Wardha links merged and extended through Kanhan – Wardha link], 2.
Wainganga – Manjra Valley, 3. Upper Krishna – Bhima (system of Six
links). 4. Upper Ghat – Godavari Valley, 5. Upper Vaitarna – Godavari
Valley, 6. North Konkan – Godavari Valley, 7. Koyna – Mumbai city, 8.
Sriram Sagar Project (Godavari) – Purna – Manjira, 9. Wainganga
(Goshikurd) – Godavari (SRSP). 10. Middle Konkan – Bhima Valley, 11.
Koyna – Nira, 12. Mulsi – Bhima, 13. Savithri – Bhima, 14. Kolhapur –
Sangli – Sangola and 15. Riverlinking projects of Tapi basin and
Jalgaon District. Clearly, centre and Maharashtra government has not
learnt its lessons from disrupting Mithi river in Mumbai.
In Gujarat, the proposal of Damanganga – Sabarmati – Chorwad link is
facing people’s resistance. Will Nareendra Modi pay heed?
In Odisha, the links included Mahanadi – Brahmani but its
prefeasibility study concluded that it was not techno economically
feasible. Other links in the state include Mahanadi – Rushikulya
(Barmul Project) and Vamsadhara – Rushikulya (Nandini Nalla project).
The tripartite Memorandum of Understranding (MoU) amongst the Union
Government, the State of Gujarat and the State of Maharashtra for
preparation of the Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) of Damanganga –
Pinjal Link Project and Par – Tapi – Narmada Link Project was signed
by the Union Minister for Water Resources, the Chief Minister of
Gujarat and the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on May 3, 2010 in the
presence of the Prime Minister. It was claimed that the agreement for
these two links is meant for providing benefits to the people of the
areas at the earliest.
The proposed Par – Tapi – Narmada and Damanganga – Pinjal links are
two Inter Basin Water Transfer links concerning Gujarat & Maharashtra.
While Par – Tapi – Narmada link is for claimed benefits in Gujarat
State, Damanganga – Pinjal link is expected to benefit Maharashtra
State according to the project proponents.
The origin of these projects can be traced to a study by Government of
Gujarat in 1973 that contained a proposal to inter-link the rivers of
the state and the “National Perspective for Water Resource Development
-Master plan of Gujarat for utilisation of surplus water of west
flowing rivers south of Tapi” of 1981. The proposal envisaged a link
canal interconnecting the Damanganga, the Tapi and Narmada rivers.
Those were times when Barmer like incident had not happened and
climate science was not adequately developed.
In order to comprehend the claims of rivers being “surplus” take the
case of Ganga which is deemed as a "surplus" trans-boundary river from
which water is planned to be removed to relieve flood by means of
barrage-canal works for transfer to
Subarnarekha-Mahanadi-
rivers’ flow during monsoon flood is at the average rate of 50,000
cumecs. This will create an ever present disaster. If the flood is to
be relieved, water in substantial quantity needs to be removed by
means of the link canals that will "be 50 to 100 m wide and more than
6 m deep", according to government's website explaining the modus
operandi of "benefits." When a 10 m deep 100 m wide lined canal can at
most carry about 1,500 cumecs of water, that would relieve flood only
to the extent of 3 per cent and that too only downstream of the canal.
This is the landscape in which water from so called “surplus” rivers
is to be transferred to so-called deficit rivers.
The Par – Tapi – Narmada link envisages the transfer of surplus water
from west flowing rivers north of Damanganga upto Tapi to water
deficit areas in North Gujarat. The scheme is located mainly in
southern Gujarat; but it also covers part of the areas, north of
Mumbai on the Western Ghats in Maharashtra.
Damanganga – Pinjal link envisages the transfer of surplus water of
Damanganga basin available at the proposed Bhugad and Khargihill dam
sites to Pinjal reservoir for augmentation of water supply to Greater
Mumbai city. All the three reservoirs will be connected through
tunnels i. e. Bhugad – Khargihill (length 16.85 Km) and Khargihill –
Pinjal (length 25.70 Km) for the transfer of about 909 Million cubic
meter of water annually.
The unintended consequences of fiddling with river’s ecosystem have
not been factored in. In the case of Gujarat’s Par – Tapi – Narmada
link project consists of 7 proposed reservoirs on these rivers and a
395 km long link canal. This link would submerge tribal lands and
forests in south Gujarat. These proposed reservoirs include Jheri,
Mohankavchali & Paikhed on Par River, Chasmandva on Auranga River,
Chikkar and Dabdar on Ambica River and Kelwan on Purna river and a 401
km long link canal connecting these reservoirs. Four of these
reservoirs namely, Jheri, Mohankavchali, Paikhed and Chasmandva will
submerge territory and property in Maharashtra. Jheri reservoir is
completely in Maharashtra whereas other three reservoirs submerge the
areas in both the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra. The MoU does not
reveal as to whether people of Maharashtra would agree to submergence.
There is strong people’s opposition to the link since 1990s. The
resistance opposition has been officially noted. The project
proponents claim that the reservoirs envisaged as part of the river
link project will provide flood relief to the people residing in
downstream areas. These claims are not verifiable because information
about existing floods, flood damages and the impact of the project on
floods has not been factored in.
Since the days of Indira Gandhi efforts have been made by some lobbies
to undertake these link proposals as part of inter basin and intra
basin transfer of water mentioned in the national water policy.
It is abundantly clear that short-term and long-term impact of such
failed ideas has not been taken into account. People’s movements and
environmental groups in India in particular and South Asia in general
are opposed to this project because it will lead to Aral Sea like
ecological disaster and will endanger the life of rivers for good. It
is a case of refusing to learn from the diversion of two Siberian
rivers led to drying up of Aral Sea. Will Modi consider paying a visit
to Aral Sea to witness the outcome of his promise? Has the far
reaching implications of the project on relations with neighboring
countries in the Himalayan region been factored in?
MP CM too is on the prowl
In a highly controversial act, the so-called river-linking project
that claims to solve the problem of water scarcity in Malwa region as
part of the Narmada-Kshipra link project has been completed and
inaugurated without Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and
Environmental Clearance. Narmada's water has been lifted to 350 metres
and through pipelines spread over almost 49 kilometres to Kshipra
river in Ujjain, about 15 kilometres from Indore. The first phase of
the project has been completed in 14 months. It was inaugurated by L K
Advani in February 2014. Modi’s absence from the program and its
advertisements was quite conspicuous. The project has three more
phases which will connect river Ganga to three rivers - Gambhir,
Kalisindh, Parvati. Malwa region. Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan
claims, "When all phases of the project are complete 3,000 villages,
72 towns will get drinking water and water to irrigate 16 lakh acres
of land."
It has been claimed that the project will provide drinking water to
Dewas and Ujjain cities, over 250 villages along Kshipra river, supply
water to Ujjain, Dewas and Pithampur and also recharge groundwater.
But 25% of the 362 MLD water to be pumped under this scheme is going
to be transferred to Pitampur industrial area in Malwa under an
agreements that has already been signed with Delhi Mumbai Industrial
Corridor. This is revealed in an elaborate note titled “Hype vs
Reality of Narmada Kshipra Pipeline Project” published by South Asia
Network on Dams, Rivers and People. This leaves the question- Who will
get how much water-unanswered. This information is not in public
domain.
This pipeline project involves pumping through 47 km long pipes that
would raise the elevation of water by about 348 m from Sisliya (228 m)
to Ujjaini (576 m) through pipelines of 1.8 m diameter. This involves
use of at least 27.5 MW of power. The power bill of this project would
be Rs 118.92 crores per year.
Notably, about 4 lakh liters of polluted water is entering the Kshipra
river from Dewas city and industries, affecting villages of Ujjain,
Dewas and Indore and Hirli dam and even groundwater. The pumping of
pipeline water into the polluted Kshipra water will generate more
quantity of polluted water.
Interestingly, Kshipra river is part of Ganga basin under the ILR
programme is a so-called surplus basin and Narmada is a so called
deficit basin, which is supposed to get water from Gujarat’s Par and
Tapi rivers. It is evident that there an unbridgeable gulf of
communication between Modi, Chouhan and Advani. The MP project by
default reveals that the assumptions about ‘surplus’ and deficit which
is the basis of ILR project is totally flawed.
Two Questions
Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal recently asked Narendra Modi
some questions. Two of them pertain to Gujarat’s river water
management and agricultural growth.
1. 1. You claim that agriculture growth rate in Gujarat is 11%,
but by your own government's estimates in 2006-2007 agricultural
production in the state was Rs. 27,815 crore. In 2012-2013,
agricultural production fell to Rs. 25,908 crore. This means
agricultural production has fallen in Gujarat during your tenure and
the annual agricultural growth rate is -1.18%. How do you then claim
agriculture growth rate is 11%?
2. 2. The height of Narmada Dam was raised in 2005 to provide
water to the people of Kutch for drinking and farming. But, even eight
years later, the people of Kutch have not got water. This water was
given to some of your favourite industrialists. Why this
discrimination against the people of Kutch?
Gopal Krishna
This article has been published in ECO magazine from page no. 36 to 39 at
http://ecoearthcare.com/e_
Having worked on linking Gujarat’s rivers, of course, sans any concern
for socio-ecological impacts of such mega projects, state chief
minister and BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate is now promising a
revival of the controversial Inter Linking of Rivers project at the
national level.
After having contributed to one of South Asia’s two biggest planned
disasters through Sardar Sarovar Dam which can never be justified if
cost-benefit ratio in economic terms and environmental and human cost
is taken into account, a totally indefensible and megalomaniac project
to link all the major rivers of India has been promised by BJP.
BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate is arguing that “In Gujarat, we have
inter-linked 20 rivers and the agriculture growth is 10 per cent.”
This claim seems to be misleading because government’s statistics
reveals that agriculture in Gujarat is largely dependent on ground
water for irrigation. As to the adverse consequences of linking of 20
rivers in Gujarat, there is an urgent need for independent teams to
examine it. If there is truth in Narendra Modi’s claims the
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) reports of these link projects in
Gujarat should be put in public domain for public scrutiny. South
Asia’s other disaster being drainage congestion crisis in Kosi basin.
Modi has suggested the same medicine of linking rivers for the victims
of development of Kosi region as well.
In their bid to outwit the resistance to such projects the proponents
have a Plan A and a Plan B. The state’s proposal and projects are part
of Plan B and Plan A is the national interlinking of rivers (ILR)
programme. The ILR programme is estimated at an aggregated cost of Rs
1, 25, 342 crore at 2002-3 prices. It is aimed at creating additional
storage facilities and transfer water from water-surplus regions to
more drought-prone areas through inter-basin transfers. It is claimed
that it will provide additional irrigation in about 30 million
hectares and net power generation capacity of about 20,000 to 25,000
MW.
These claims have been debunked by several experts who have examined
its self contradictory claims and environmental costs. The
interlinking of rivers is a misnomer. It is actually an exercise aimed
at diversion of rivers from their centuries old courses. This project
is caught in time warp. It is an outdated project that belongs to an
era when climate crisis was not a reality. This entails unprecedented
amount of land use change and massive rupture of ground water
aquifers. This program proceeds in a colonial framework which deemed
flow of rivers being akin to flow of water in the pipelines.
It is noteworthy that National Council of Applied Economic Research
(NCAER) did a study on “Economic Impact of Interlinking of Rivers
Programme” in April 2008. The Foreword to the study admits, “Economic
impact of certain benefits such as mitigation of drought and floods to
a certain extent, increased revenue/income from fishing, picnic site
and amusement park are not taken into consideration.” It is clear from
the NCAER report itself that livelihood aspects have not been
considered by the project proponents.
As to mitigation of flood and drought to a certain extent, fishing at
dams and reservoirs, they are mentioned in passing as “fringe benefit”
of the programme. Thus, all claims of drought proofing, flood proofing
and dilution of pollution through linking rivers as is being argued by
its proponent’s of ILR programme are insincere, an exercise in
sophistry and totally misplaced.
This is the study on the basis of which claims are made that the ILR
project is viable. The fact is that the premise that the ILR project
would lead to drought proofing and flood proofing of the country is
based on the assumption that there is consensus among the states for
this project. It has been found that both these premises do not exist.
The study feigned ignorance about the relevant recommendations of the
two volume report of the National Commission for Water Resource
Development set up by the Union Ministry of Water Resources that was
submitted in September, 1999. Volume-I of the report says: "The
Himalayan river linking data is not freely available, but on the basis
of public information, it appears that the Himalayan river linking
component is not feasible for the period of review up to 2050." The
report underlines that the problems are in the entire plan of linking
the Himalayan rivers.
With regard to the Peninsular river component, the National Commission
for Integrated Water Resources Development states, "there is no
imperative necessity for massive water transfer. The assessed needs of
the basins could be met from full development and efficient
utilisation of intra-basic resources except in the case of Cauvery and
Vaigai basins. Some water transfer from Godavari towards the south
should take care of the deficit in the Cauvery and Vaigai basins."
Unmindful of the above recommendations of the High Powered Commission
headed by Prof S R Hashim, Feasibility Studies of the links in the
Peninsular Component of the Interlinking of Rivers project has already
been prepared by National Water Development Agency (NWDA), Government
of India. These links include: 1. Krishna (Almatti) Pennar Link, 2.
Inchampalli Nagarjunasagar Link, 3. Inchampalli Pulichintala Link, 4.
Ken Betwa Link Project, 5. Nagarjunasagar Somasila Link, 6. Parbati
Kalisindh Chambal Link Project, 7. Srisailam Pennar Link, 8. Cauvery
Vaigai Gundar Link, 9. Damanganga Pinjal Link, 10. Mahanadi Godavari
Link Project, 11. Pamba Achankovil Vaippar Link, 12. Par Tapi Narmada
Link, 13. Pennar Palar Cauvery Link and 14. Polavaram Vijayawada Link.
The map of the peninsular component is attached.
As to Himalayan Component, NWDA has completed the pre-feasibility
studies of fourteen links in the Himalayan component. These include:
1. Manas-Sankosh-Tista – Ganga (MSTG) link, 2. Jogighopa-Tista-Farakka
link, 3. Ganga-Damodar-Subernarekha link, 4. Subernarekha-Mahanadi
link, 5. Farakka-Sunderbans link, 6. Gandak-Ganga link, 7. Ghaghara
-Yamuna link, 8. Sarda-Yamuna link, 9. Yamuna-Rajasthan link, 10.
Rajasthan-Sabarmati link, 11. Chunar- Sone Barrage link, 12. Sone
dam-Southern tributaries of Ganga link, 13. Kosi- Ghaghara link and
14. Kosi-Mechi link. The feasibility Studies of Ghaghara-Yamuna Link
and Sarda-Yamuna Link has been prepared.
http://www.nih.ernet.in/rbis/
Besides the above, Union Ministry of Water Resources has approved to
identify Intra-State links in the States like Bihar and to prepare pre
– feasibility / feasibility reports of these links by NWDA. The
Government of Puducherry has send a proposal for one interstate link
namely Pennaiyar – Sankarabarani link instead of intra state link
proposal. The States Governments of Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat,
Orissa, Rajasthan, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu have proposed intra-state
proposals within their respective states. NWDA is preparing the pre –
feasibility reports of the intra state links.
In Bihar, the proposed links include: 1. Kosi – Mechi, 2. Barh –
Nawada, 3. Kohra – Chandravat (Lalbegi), 4. Burhi Gandak – None – Baya
– Ganga Burhi Gandak 5. Bagmati [Belwadhar]and 6. Kosi – Ganga. The
pre-feasibility report of Kosi – Mechi, Kohra – Chandravat (Lalbegi)
and Burhi Gandak – None – Baya – Ganga has been completed and sent to
the state government. It shows that centre and the state government
refuse to learn from the embankment disaster and drainage crisis in
the Kosi basin. Notably, Modi promised the false solution of ILR to
deal with the situation during a recent rally in Bihar.
In Rajasthan, there are two links proposed namely, Mahi – Luni link
and Wakal – Sabarmati – Sei – West Banas – Kameri link. Is it
irrational to suggest that centre and state government should learn
its lessons from the flash floods of August 2006 in the usually
drought prone Barmer district and desist from such endeavors?
In Jharkhand, the links include South Koel – Subernarekha, Sankh –
South Koel and Barkar – Damodar – Subernarekha. Their pre-feasibility
report has been completed and sent to the state government. The centre
and the state government have chosen to discard the lessons from the
failure of the hydro projects in the Damodar valley. In Tamil Nadu,
there is a proposal for Pennaiyar – Palar link.
In Maharashtra, there 15 links which include 1. Wainganga (Goshikurd)
– Nalganga (Purna Tapi) [Wainganga – Western Vidarbha & Pranhita –
Wardha links merged and extended through Kanhan – Wardha link], 2.
Wainganga – Manjra Valley, 3. Upper Krishna – Bhima (system of Six
links). 4. Upper Ghat – Godavari Valley, 5. Upper Vaitarna – Godavari
Valley, 6. North Konkan – Godavari Valley, 7. Koyna – Mumbai city, 8.
Sriram Sagar Project (Godavari) – Purna – Manjira, 9. Wainganga
(Goshikurd) – Godavari (SRSP). 10. Middle Konkan – Bhima Valley, 11.
Koyna – Nira, 12. Mulsi – Bhima, 13. Savithri – Bhima, 14. Kolhapur –
Sangli – Sangola and 15. Riverlinking projects of Tapi basin and
Jalgaon District. Clearly, centre and Maharashtra government has not
learnt its lessons from disrupting Mithi river in Mumbai.
In Gujarat, the proposal of Damanganga – Sabarmati – Chorwad link is
facing people’s resistance. Will Nareendra Modi pay heed?
In Odisha, the links included Mahanadi – Brahmani but its
prefeasibility study concluded that it was not techno economically
feasible. Other links in the state include Mahanadi – Rushikulya
(Barmul Project) and Vamsadhara – Rushikulya (Nandini Nalla project).
The tripartite Memorandum of Understranding (MoU) amongst the Union
Government, the State of Gujarat and the State of Maharashtra for
preparation of the Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) of Damanganga –
Pinjal Link Project and Par – Tapi – Narmada Link Project was signed
by the Union Minister for Water Resources, the Chief Minister of
Gujarat and the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on May 3, 2010 in the
presence of the Prime Minister. It was claimed that the agreement for
these two links is meant for providing benefits to the people of the
areas at the earliest.
The proposed Par – Tapi – Narmada and Damanganga – Pinjal links are
two Inter Basin Water Transfer links concerning Gujarat & Maharashtra.
While Par – Tapi – Narmada link is for claimed benefits in Gujarat
State, Damanganga – Pinjal link is expected to benefit Maharashtra
State according to the project proponents.
The origin of these projects can be traced to a study by Government of
Gujarat in 1973 that contained a proposal to inter-link the rivers of
the state and the “National Perspective for Water Resource Development
-Master plan of Gujarat for utilisation of surplus water of west
flowing rivers south of Tapi” of 1981. The proposal envisaged a link
canal interconnecting the Damanganga, the Tapi and Narmada rivers.
Those were times when Barmer like incident had not happened and
climate science was not adequately developed.
In order to comprehend the claims of rivers being “surplus” take the
case of Ganga which is deemed as a "surplus" trans-boundary river from
which water is planned to be removed to relieve flood by means of
barrage-canal works for transfer to
Subarnarekha-Mahanadi-
rivers’ flow during monsoon flood is at the average rate of 50,000
cumecs. This will create an ever present disaster. If the flood is to
be relieved, water in substantial quantity needs to be removed by
means of the link canals that will "be 50 to 100 m wide and more than
6 m deep", according to government's website explaining the modus
operandi of "benefits." When a 10 m deep 100 m wide lined canal can at
most carry about 1,500 cumecs of water, that would relieve flood only
to the extent of 3 per cent and that too only downstream of the canal.
This is the landscape in which water from so called “surplus” rivers
is to be transferred to so-called deficit rivers.
The Par – Tapi – Narmada link envisages the transfer of surplus water
from west flowing rivers north of Damanganga upto Tapi to water
deficit areas in North Gujarat. The scheme is located mainly in
southern Gujarat; but it also covers part of the areas, north of
Mumbai on the Western Ghats in Maharashtra.
Damanganga – Pinjal link envisages the transfer of surplus water of
Damanganga basin available at the proposed Bhugad and Khargihill dam
sites to Pinjal reservoir for augmentation of water supply to Greater
Mumbai city. All the three reservoirs will be connected through
tunnels i. e. Bhugad – Khargihill (length 16.85 Km) and Khargihill –
Pinjal (length 25.70 Km) for the transfer of about 909 Million cubic
meter of water annually.
The unintended consequences of fiddling with river’s ecosystem have
not been factored in. In the case of Gujarat’s Par – Tapi – Narmada
link project consists of 7 proposed reservoirs on these rivers and a
395 km long link canal. This link would submerge tribal lands and
forests in south Gujarat. These proposed reservoirs include Jheri,
Mohankavchali & Paikhed on Par River, Chasmandva on Auranga River,
Chikkar and Dabdar on Ambica River and Kelwan on Purna river and a 401
km long link canal connecting these reservoirs. Four of these
reservoirs namely, Jheri, Mohankavchali, Paikhed and Chasmandva will
submerge territory and property in Maharashtra. Jheri reservoir is
completely in Maharashtra whereas other three reservoirs submerge the
areas in both the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra. The MoU does not
reveal as to whether people of Maharashtra would agree to submergence.
There is strong people’s opposition to the link since 1990s. The
resistance opposition has been officially noted. The project
proponents claim that the reservoirs envisaged as part of the river
link project will provide flood relief to the people residing in
downstream areas. These claims are not verifiable because information
about existing floods, flood damages and the impact of the project on
floods has not been factored in.
Since the days of Indira Gandhi efforts have been made by some lobbies
to undertake these link proposals as part of inter basin and intra
basin transfer of water mentioned in the national water policy.
It is abundantly clear that short-term and long-term impact of such
failed ideas has not been taken into account. People’s movements and
environmental groups in India in particular and South Asia in general
are opposed to this project because it will lead to Aral Sea like
ecological disaster and will endanger the life of rivers for good. It
is a case of refusing to learn from the diversion of two Siberian
rivers led to drying up of Aral Sea. Will Modi consider paying a visit
to Aral Sea to witness the outcome of his promise? Has the far
reaching implications of the project on relations with neighboring
countries in the Himalayan region been factored in?
MP CM too is on the prowl
In a highly controversial act, the so-called river-linking project
that claims to solve the problem of water scarcity in Malwa region as
part of the Narmada-Kshipra link project has been completed and
inaugurated without Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and
Environmental Clearance. Narmada's water has been lifted to 350 metres
and through pipelines spread over almost 49 kilometres to Kshipra
river in Ujjain, about 15 kilometres from Indore. The first phase of
the project has been completed in 14 months. It was inaugurated by L K
Advani in February 2014. Modi’s absence from the program and its
advertisements was quite conspicuous. The project has three more
phases which will connect river Ganga to three rivers - Gambhir,
Kalisindh, Parvati. Malwa region. Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan
claims, "When all phases of the project are complete 3,000 villages,
72 towns will get drinking water and water to irrigate 16 lakh acres
of land."
It has been claimed that the project will provide drinking water to
Dewas and Ujjain cities, over 250 villages along Kshipra river, supply
water to Ujjain, Dewas and Pithampur and also recharge groundwater.
But 25% of the 362 MLD water to be pumped under this scheme is going
to be transferred to Pitampur industrial area in Malwa under an
agreements that has already been signed with Delhi Mumbai Industrial
Corridor. This is revealed in an elaborate note titled “Hype vs
Reality of Narmada Kshipra Pipeline Project” published by South Asia
Network on Dams, Rivers and People. This leaves the question- Who will
get how much water-unanswered. This information is not in public
domain.
This pipeline project involves pumping through 47 km long pipes that
would raise the elevation of water by about 348 m from Sisliya (228 m)
to Ujjaini (576 m) through pipelines of 1.8 m diameter. This involves
use of at least 27.5 MW of power. The power bill of this project would
be Rs 118.92 crores per year.
Notably, about 4 lakh liters of polluted water is entering the Kshipra
river from Dewas city and industries, affecting villages of Ujjain,
Dewas and Indore and Hirli dam and even groundwater. The pumping of
pipeline water into the polluted Kshipra water will generate more
quantity of polluted water.
Interestingly, Kshipra river is part of Ganga basin under the ILR
programme is a so-called surplus basin and Narmada is a so called
deficit basin, which is supposed to get water from Gujarat’s Par and
Tapi rivers. It is evident that there an unbridgeable gulf of
communication between Modi, Chouhan and Advani. The MP project by
default reveals that the assumptions about ‘surplus’ and deficit which
is the basis of ILR project is totally flawed.
Two Questions
Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal recently asked Narendra Modi
some questions. Two of them pertain to Gujarat’s river water
management and agricultural growth.
1. 1. You claim that agriculture growth rate in Gujarat is 11%,
but by your own government's estimates in 2006-2007 agricultural
production in the state was Rs. 27,815 crore. In 2012-2013,
agricultural production fell to Rs. 25,908 crore. This means
agricultural production has fallen in Gujarat during your tenure and
the annual agricultural growth rate is -1.18%. How do you then claim
agriculture growth rate is 11%?
2. 2. The height of Narmada Dam was raised in 2005 to provide
water to the people of Kutch for drinking and farming. But, even eight
years later, the people of Kutch have not got water. This water was
given to some of your favourite industrialists. Why this
discrimination against the people of Kutch?
Gopal Krishna
This article has been published in ECO magazine from page no. 36 to 39 at
http://ecoearthcare.com/e_
No comments:
Post a Comment