Rivers Interlinking of India

8/11/2019 Rivers Interlinking of India

1/18

TODAY WE ARE WATER STRESSED,

BUT TOMORRROW WE WILL BE WATER SCARCE.


2/18

WHY WILL BE INDIA WATER DEFICIT?

Annual rainfall- 400 m.ha.m.

Total utilizable surface and ground water after fulldevelopment of water resources-114m.ha.m.

UTILIZATION:

1991- 58m.ha.m.

2001- 79m.ha.m

2025- 114m.ha.m

Thus the entire quantum of utilization water will be exhausted

by the year 2025.


3/18

Proposed solution

INTERLINKING OF RIVERS


4/18

HISTORY OF INTERLINKING

1972-Ganga cauvery link proposed by Dr. K.L.Rao.

1974-Garland canal proposal by captain Dastur .

1980-Ministry of water resources frames the National perspectiveplan(NPP).

1982-The National water development agency (NWDA) set up tocarry out pre feasibility studies.

1999-A National commission (NCIWRDP) set up to review NWDAreports.

Aug 15, 2002- President Abdul Kalam mentions the need for riverlinking in his independence day speech.

Oct 2002- Supreme court recommends that the governmentformulate a plan to link the major Indian rivers by the year 2012.

Dec 2002- Govt. appointed a task force on interlinking of 37 rivers

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


5/18

STATED BENEFITS

Alleviating droughts and flood control.

Cheap water for irrigation.

Availability of drinking water.

Generation of hydroelectric power.

Allowing more inland navigation.

Employment generation.

Fostering a spirit of national integration.


6/18

INTERLINKING:SALVATION OR FOLLY

Riparian rights: conflict between states (as- kauveri and

Mahanadi issue) have to be resolved. In addition worry ofBangladesh and Nepal have to be taken into account.

Financing: Raising 5.6 lakh crores of rupees is a tough task and ifcreated maintenance of huge asset is a problem. Fear ofprivatization of water resources.

Flood period: Idea of networking flood water to the deficientbasin does not consider the surplus period of donor area anddeficient period of recipient area.


7/18

Desertification: Prevention of natural flooding may led todesertification as there will be loss of fertile soil.

River pollution: Reducing the flow of river by diversion willincrease the concentration of pollutants in the river.

Security: Security of network will be an enormous load onsecurity forces of central and state governments. As canal canbe easily breached by manual or natural activities.

Land acquisition and displacement: Misery andinjustice to the displaced people in obtaining compensationdue to systemic corruption.


8/18

Technical feasibility:The slope, altitude and othertopographical aspects have to be considered. (e.g. for Ganga,Patna is diversible surplus but for raising water to Vindhya

chain i.e. 2860 ft. high enormous amount of power isrequired).


9/18

ILR PRICE TAG Financial cost:-

5.6 L Crores Rs:-

- 250% of Indias tax revenue in 2002

- 1/4thof Indias annual GDP

- Twice the entire irrigation budget of Indiasince 1950


10/18

Rehabilitation cost:

- Estimated that 8,000 sq. km. of land affecting the

thousands of villages and towns

- 33 mn of people have been displaced in India during

the last 50 years most have not been rehabilitated

and ILR will also displace million of people from the

most needy section.


11/18

Environmental cost:

- 50,000 ha of forest to be submerged only bypeninsular link.

- Intensive irrigation in unsuitable soils will lead to

water logging and salinity.

- Highly polluted rivers will spread toxicity to other

rivers.

- River system will be altered catastrophically

creating droughts and desert.


12/18

Doubtful role of government agencies Claimed that 35 mn ha of dry land regions will be brought

under irrigation but the areas not clearly identified.

No clear answer to the issue of displacement andresettlement.

The reports regarding the feasibility of the interlinking notmade public.

KEN BETAWA LINK:

Not yet clear, which is surplus basin and which is deficit.

1991 census data used for the implementation in 2005.

No proper assessment of the ecological and social aspects.

Only 3 dams figured in the report out of 10.


13/18

Alternatives to ILR

Rainwater harvesting and conservation of waterresources: Changes in topography, soil system andrunoff flow pattern in a changing climatic environmentis considered. Not only stored rain water but soil erosionis also prevented.

Recharging ground water reservoir: Skills have tobe developed for arresting rain water where it falls and

allowing it to recharge these ground water reservoirs.


14/18

Large scale utilization of ground water in deltas

:practically feasible and initiatives for borewelldevelopment and irrigation needed with responsibilitylying .

Community participation:Approaches of reducingwater consumption by the affluent in the cities and reducingthe wastage of water by the farmers in their field can beattempted.


15/18

Options for Power

Reduce T&D losses

End Use efficiency (pumps, CFLs)

Demand Side Management .

Generation options: Small Hydro, wind,

biomass, solar


16/18

CONCLUSIONconsidering the pragmatic view of all the issues raisedit can be concluded that implementation of thisambitious scheme is not possible in foreseeable future.Hence it can be a better option to concentrate on thelocal resources and think upon the alternativesavailable


17/18

Learning's:

The environmental, political and the economical

aspects of the topic have provided us with theimportance of water conservation. To answer theproblem of water scarcity, local centralized steps canbe the most viable effort (e.g. water harvesting). But

in these efforts we also have to play important rolesby creating awareness among the individuals of thesociety as well as within us. And this effort we havealready initiated by efficient use of water in our dayto day life. We wish to be the part of these efforts inour coming days and will certainly prove our worthto the society we live in.


18/18

THANKS

Rivers Interlinking of India

Documents

Transcript of Rivers Interlinking of India