Critical
Comments on Interlinking of rivers project
Presented
by Gopal Krishna
at
the International conference on Water Resources of South Asia: Conflict to
Cooperation (WRSA-CC)
during
January 4- 5, 2013 at Dhaka University
Interlinking of rivers is
the world's biggest project which entails rewriting the geography of the
sub-continent. India occupies 2.45 per cent of the earth's surface and 72 per
cent of South Asia. If one analyses the topography of the country, one can see
that there can be no acceptable way of making a water network in the country as
it entails diverting the natural course of the rivers, which would lead to several
Aral Sea type disasters (where two Siberian rivers were diverted).
The National Commission for Water Resource Development, set up by the ministry of water resources under the chairmanship of S.R. Hashim, had submitted a report, namely the Integrated Water Resource Development Plan. 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."
Ganga, deemed as a
"surplus" river is a 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-Godavari-Krishna-Pennar-Cauvery flows during monsoon flood
at the average rate of 50,000 cumecs, creating an annual disaster.
However, the if 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.
However, the if 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.
In the present scheme of
things, if the Himalayan links are not being taken up as per the Government of
India's statement to Bangladesh, there is no reason to take up the peninsular
links because Brahmaputra or Ganga water will not reach Godavari and the system
of water supply to Cauvery will fail. The scheme appears to be poorly conceived
and designed, and is unworkable. Therefore, claim of flood and drought relief
is misplaced.
The ministry of water
resources has prepared a master plan suggesting that the water requirements can
be met through artificial recharge of the ground water at a very minimum cost
compared to ILR. It was in the backdrop of rejection by a high powered
committee, which has deemed the project undesirable that the GoI used the
President of India to re-propose this project on August 14, 2002.
Besides, this project
involves major international rivers such as the Ganga and the Brahmaputra with
their tributaries. Even the peninsular component is linked with them through
the Subarnarekha-Mahanadi and Mahanadi-Godabari links. The transfer of water
from the Ganga and the Brahmaputra and their tributaries and distributaries
will affect all co-riparian countries.
Bangladesh as the downstream
country will be particularly affected immediately, whose deltaic ecology and
economy depend crucially on the water of the Ganga, the Brahmaputra, and other
international rivers that flow through India. The annual monsoon inundation is
a normal feature of the delta formation process in Bangladesh, and hence it
cannot be used as a ground for large-scale water transfer from these common
rivers.
The withdrawal of the Ganga
water at Farakka has already caused serious damage to the ecology and economy
of south-western districts of Bangladesh, including the Sundarbans, the unique
mangrove forests along the Bay of Bengal. Further withdrawal of water of the
Ganga and the Brahmaputra, as envisioned, will threaten the country's economy
and ecology, making it impossible for Bangladesh to concede to this project.
Apart from presenting a considerable technical challenge, that of having to
transfer the Brahmaputra and the Ganga waters, it will contravene basic
principles of international law and their standard practices, and would
adversely impact India's relationship with Bangladesh.
Earlier the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Water Resources had invited comments on the project from
the public for a debate in Parliament, but even before any such thing happened
an agreement on Ken-Betwa was signed between the states and the Central
government. The parliamentary way of dealing with the subject implies that the
document proposing this project must be put in public domain before seeking any
comment on the subject and also allows the citizens of co-riparian countries to
express their concerns. Therefore, the courts and the Parliament ought to take
cognizance of the adverse ecological consequences of such a massive scheme.
Missing
Links
Networking rivers does not
mean drawing some mega litres from one river and pouring it into another like
one does with containers or even with canals. The ramifications are much wider
because a river is not only the water that flows or the channel which holds the
flow. A river is the dynamic face of the landscape. In the drama of history,
the eco system is not the stage setting; it is the cast. A recent Supreme Court
judgment has put the focus back on the Interlinking of Rivers (ILR) project. If
implemented, it will be the world's biggest infrastructure project and will
alter the national geography forever. But does it make ecological sense?
Looking for the missing links in this chain of thought.
The Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 512 of 2002 is a historic case. In its judgment on February 27, 2012, the Supreme
Court directed the government to revive the long-dead, dangerous and disastrous
idea of diverting rivers for interlinking them. While the judgment is based on
a flawed assumption that there is consensus and unanimity among the states and
perhaps the neighbouring countries for Interlinking of rivers (ILR), the
project, if implemented, could spell an ecological collapse in the
sub-continent.
In fact, as the judgment
itself reveals, the central government's National Perspective Plan for optimum
utilisation of water resources which envisaged inter-basin transfer of water
from water-surplus to water-deficit areas was formulated in 1980, the
pre-climate crisis period.
ILR is the world's biggest
infrastructure project which entails rewriting the geography of the
sub-continent with the claimed objective to transfer water from surplus to
deficit river basins to solve the drought and flood problem for ever. The
National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has proposed 30 major river link
canals involving 37 rivers throughout the country to transfer water from so
called surplus basins to water deficit basins as part of the Peninsular and
Himalayan components of the ILR project.
The contention in the
judgment that “apart from diverting water from rivers which are surplus, to
deficit areas, the river linking plan in its ultimate stage of development will
also enable flood moderation” is flawed. There isn't any credible piece of
paper that can support this claim.
A Perspective
In his speech on May 11,
2005, Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, the then President of India claimed that ILR will
provide 300 billion cubic metres (BCM) of additional water but the NWDA
provided a different figure of 174 BCM. It has been estimated that canals
involved in it will cause the
submergence of 625,000 hectare while reservoirs will lead to submergence
of 1,050,000 hectares leading to a displacement of about 3.l4 million people.
The president's speech
observed that floods affect 8 major
basins, 40 million hectare and 260 million people. However, the 'surplus' water
being diverted through ILR ranges between 2 and 2.5 per cent of peak flood
discharge of surplus rivers like Ganga, Brahmaputra and Mahanadi. This is
corroborated by Central Water Commission, NWDA, authors of the National
Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan and even World Bank
officials.
The president's speech
observed that 86 million people, 14 states and 116 districts are affected by
drought annually which will be helped by ILR. NWDA, however, admits that “Mitigating
the droughts in the country is not going to be feasible by ILR because the
proposals regarding transfer are mainly aimed at utilising the surplus,
wherever required or possible.” It also
admitted that “The ILR system will not produce power except insignificant power
at the canal heads, the ILR will consume power”.
Earlier the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Water Resources had invited public comments on the
project for a debate in Parliament. But even before any such thing happened, an
agreement on the Ken-Betwa link was signed between the states and the Central
government, making a mockery of the
democratic process.
The National Commission for
Water Resource Development, set up by the ministry of water resources has
submitted the Integrated Water Resource Development Plan. The report said,
"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."
In the present scheme of
things, if the Himalayan links are not being taken up as per the Government of
India's statement to Bangladesh, there is no reason to take up the peninsular
links because Brahmaputra or Ganga water will not reach the southern river
systems.
Bangladesh as the downstream
country will be particularly affected immediately. The judgment acknowledges
that the construction of storage reservoirs on the principal tributaries of
rivers Ganga and Brahmaputra in India, Bhutan and Nepal makes this an
international issue. Bangladesh is also an affected party as a downstream
country but it does not find mention in the judgment. The judgment in this
almost ten year old petitioner-less “Networking of Rivers" case in the
Supreme Court of India deserves the attention of not only the residents of
India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh but also of China and the entire world.
Flawed Assumption
The question is why did the
Supreme Court interfere in the policy matters of the government against its own
interpretation of its 'lakshman rekha' and presume consensus among states?
The hearings in the case
started in September 2002. On October 31, 2002, the court noted, “the link
projects will be completed by the year 2035 in respect of the Peninsular Link
Project and by 2043 regarding the Himalayan
Link Project.”
The Terms of Reference (TOR)
of the Task Force, constituted in 2002 to ensure networking of rivers said, “Devise
suitable mechanism for bringing about a speedy consensus”. This presumed
consensus is the ratio decidendi (the reasoning behind the decision) of the
judgment on networking of rivers.Till February 2012, only ten States had
responded to the court's notices. The States of Assam, Sikkim and Kerala had
raised their protests on the grounds that they should have exclusive rights to
use their water resources and that such transfer should not affect any rights
of these States. Kerala and Punjab Assemblies have unanimously opposed the
proposal of interlinking rivers. Maharashtra has also passed a similar
resolution. The judgment noted that “The States of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Tamil
Nadu have fully supported the concept.” The real reason for their support is
that these states have already exhausted their local water resources.
Para 47 of the judgment
reads: “it is clear that primarily there is unanimity between all concerned
authorities including the Centre and a majority of the state governments, with
the exception of one or two, that implementation of river linking will be very
beneficial.” The judgment, however, records: ‘In the Par-Tapi-Narmada and
Damanganga-Pinjal links, residents have shown concern about the extent of land
to be submerged on the construction of the proposed dam.’
The judgment delivered by
the bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia, Justice A K Patnaik and Justice
Swatanter Kumar seems to establish a disturbing precedent by assuming ‘consensus’
and ‘unanimity’ although 18 States chose not to respond to the Supreme Court
notice despite the grant of repeated opportunities to do so.’
‘The Court can hardly take
unto itself tasks of making of a policy decision or planning for the country or
determining economic factors or other crucial aspects like need for acquisition
and construction of river linking channels under that programme, ’ the judgment
reads. But, despite realising its limitation, it goes on to issue 16 directions
including warning for contempt in case of non-compliance and constitution of a
'Special Committee for Inter-linking of Rivers' with ‘œliberty to the learned
Amicus Curiae to file contempt petition in this Court, in the event of default
or non-compliance of the directions contained in this order.’
The legal minds involved
have perhaps failed to understand that every river and water source is a living
system (not mechanically piped water) with different alkalinity, acidic and
saline levels that allow for unique and individual ecosystems.
Inter-basin transfer and
interlinking of rivers will lead to an environmental catastrophe. The fact is
that ILR is a river and land diversion project akin to rewriting of geography.
This implies mindlessly linking toxic rivers with those which are cleaner and
mixing glacier waters with grassland waters that will have a killing effect on
the sub-continent's ecosystem.
The edifice of the entire
ILR projects rests on Himalayan rivers and since the Government realises it and
is cognizant of the impossibility of undertaking river diversion scheme in the
Himalayan component wherein international rivers like Brahmaputra and Ganga are
also involved, it has prioritised the peninsular rivers. It is not surprising
these planners have ended up misleading the court in passing the latest order
on networking of rivers in which more than 20 states have shown no interest at
all and several have explicitly objected to it as is evident from the order
itself.
One can say that it's not
that the court overstepped its jurisdiction on February 27, 2012.
Unrealistically, the Indian government had assured the court that it would
achieve this instead of arguing that, since 1960s the idea to connect the
country's rivers has been talked about at regular intervals. It has been
rejected each time with incremental doubts about its feasibility and viability.
The questions about the basis of claims about irrigation and electricity
benefits too remain unanswered till date.
Selective amnesia of NCAER Study
Para 31 of the judgment
merits special attention as it takes cognizance of a study undertaken by the
National Council for Applied Economic Research. Published in April 2008, the
study assessed “the economic impact of the river interlinking programme and
suggested an investment roll out plan, i.e., a practical implementation
schedule, for the same. A copy of this report was submitted in 2011, before
this Court.”
The Foreword to the NCAER
study cites recommendations of the A Vaidyanathan Committee but in an exercise
of selective amnesia it ignores the fact that Vaidyanathan, a water management
expert, has opposed 'interlinking' on the grounds of its feasibility,
desirability and viability. Vaidyanathan argues that the volume of flows during
the flood season is misleading as a basis for judging surpluses. According to
him, de-centralised local rain-water harvesting, by reviving and improving
traditional techniques, can meet essential requirements more effectively and at
a far lesser cost.
NCAER's exercise cites
Vaidyanathan's 2001 paper titled 'Irrigation Subsidies' and the 1992 'Report of
the Committee on Pricing of Irrigation Water' for Planning Commission under his
Chairmanship. But his later views that debunk the myth of 'surplus' rivers is
deliberately ignored. This is the quality of the NCAER study on the basis of
which the Water Resources ministry claims that ILR is viable.
The judgment also did not
take note that as per NCAER, the new aggregated cost is Rs 1,25,343 crore or
22.4 per cent lower than the earlier aggregate
estimate of Rs 5,60,000 crore at 2002-03 prices.
Calamitous Option
India occupies 2.45 per cent
of the earth's surface and 72 per cent of South Asia. If one analyses the
topography, it can be seen that there can be no acceptable way of making a
water network in the country as it entails diverting the natural course of the
rivers, which would lead to several Aral Sea type disasters (where two Siberian
rivers were diverted).
While NWDA claims that
Ganga, Kosi and Gandak have surplus water, Bihar Government has refuted the
claim. Similar reservations have been voiced by other states. Jairam Ramesh,
the current Rural Development Minister informed the Parliament in 2005, 'in my
view, there would be no greater calamity than massive inter-linking of rivers.'
In the past, the court has
rightly and consistently held that large infra-structure projects invariably
raise technical and policy issues which the courts are not equipped to handle.
In view of the reasons cited above and especially an evolving international law
on transboundary rivers, here is a clear case for the apex court to review its
order on networking of rivers.
Available Alternatives
In any case, the critical
issue is how to solve India's water problem. As per Planning Commission's Tenth
Plan document, there were 383 ongoing major and medium projects awaiting
completion, 111 of which are pending for more than 26 years. All these can be
completed within five to eight years, yielding an additional potential of about
14 million hectares at a cost of Rs 100,000 crore as estimated by the plan task
force.
The second component listed
in the Plan is development of minor irrigation, mostly in the eastern and
northeastern regions. The total potential assessed is 24.5 million hectares
with a total investment of Rs 54,000 crore, of which the government is expected
to provide only Rs 13,500 crore, the balance coming from beneficiary farmers
and institutional loans. The cost per hectare is only Rs 20,000 and gestation
period almost nil, against a cost of Rs 100,000 and 12 years' gestation in case
of major and medium projects.
The third equally beneficial
scheme mentioned in the Plan is the groundwater recharge master plan prepared
by the Central Ground Water Board needing Rs 24,500 crore to trap 36 billion
cubic metres of water annually. These measures are quite clearly better than
the project of networking of rivers. The judgment in this matter seems akin to
what the New Scientist (a science journal) referred to as 'replumbing the
planet'.
The river sculpts the
terrain and the lives of people by its waters which are always in a dynamics
state. Breaking this dynamics would indeed unleash forces of uncontrolled
change and invite the Law of Unintended Consequences.
At the International conference on Water Resources of South Asia: Conflict to Cooperation (WRSA-CC) besides inaugural and concluing sessions there were four plenary sessions and several concurrent experts sessions. Plenary General Session 1, dwelt on State of Trans-boundary Water Resources Management and Future Direction. Hasanul Haque Inu, MP & Minister, Ministry of Information, Peoples Republic of Bangladesh referred to September 2011 framework agreement between India and Bangladesh. The other speakers included Gopal S. Chinton, Tribhuvan University, Nepal, Kelly Alley, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, U.S.A and Doug Hill, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Plenary General Session 2 dwelt on The Barak-Meghna River basin, Tipaimukh dam and Haors of Bangladesh. The speakers included Abdullah Abu Sayeed, Vice President, BAPA, Md. Matiur Rahman, MP, Sunamganj-4, Shakhawat Hasan Jiban, Organizing Secretary, BNP Sylhet Division
Hasnat Quaiyum, Haor People, M Inamul Haque, Former Director General, WARPO, R. K Ranjan Singh, Professor, Manipur University, India
Bedananda Bhattacharjee, Convener, Tipaimukh Badh Protirodh Andolon
Plenary General Session 3 dwelt on The Future of Teesta and Brahmaputra Rivers in the Context of Indian River Linking Project. The Speakers included Gopal Krishna, Coordinator, Water Watch Campaign of Toxics Watch Alliance, India, Kesav Krishna (bhai), River Activist, Assam, India besides Khandaker Bazlul Hoque, Vice President, BAPA, Tauhidul Anwar Khan, Former Member, Joint River Commission and Joya Mitra, Journalist, Assansol, Pashchimbonga, India
Plenary general session 4 dwelt on The Farakka Barrage and the crisis of the Ganges River basin. The speakers included Sayed Abul Maksud, Columnist and EC Member, BAPA, Fazle Hossain Badshah, MP, Rajshahi-2,
Zakir Hossain, Dean, Lock Haven University, USA, Chandrashekar Bhattacharjee, Journalist, Kolkata, Pacshchimbonga, India, Md. Khalequzzaman, Professor, Lock Haven University, USA and Member, BEN
Asif Nazrul, Professor, Dhaka University, S M Mijanur Rahman, Member Secretary, Boral Banchao Andolon and Md. Afzal Hossain, Member, Save Cholon Beel Movement
In the Strategy session a drafting committee for conference resolution was constituted.
In the concluding session the speakers included Shajahan Khan, MP, Hon'ble Minister, Ministry of Shipping, Dr. Nazrul Islam, Global Coordinator, BEN, Dr. Khondaker Azharul Haq, Vice President, BWP, Shajahan Khan, MP, Prof. Nazrul Islam and Kamrul Ahsan Khan
Coordinator, BEN-Australia
Besides these speakers there were eminent speakers in the expert session as well
'Takka 1 billion fines realised from polluters'
Dhaka, Jan 4 (bdnews24.com)––The government realised over Tk 1 billion in fines from business undertakings in the last four years for pollution and violation of the environment protection law.
Environment and Forests Minister Dr Hasan Mahmud disclosed the information while speaking at the inaugural function of a two-day international conference at Nawab Ali Chowdhury Senate Bhaban of Dhaka University on Friday.
Two citizen forums working for protection of environment -- Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon (BAPA) and Bangladesh Environment Network (BEN) -- jointly organised the conference styled 'Water Resources in South Asia: Conflict to Cooperation'.
The minister said the violators of environmental laws would not be 'spared'.
He said crisis of freshwater was a crucial issue globally, not only in the South Asian region and added that the fast growth in population increased the demand and use of water, lowering its availability.
Referring to trans-border water problems prevailing in South Asian countries, Mahmud said a difference of opinion was created over sharing of waters of 54 common rivers entering Bangladesh, but the government took initiatives to resolve the issues.
He claimed that Bangladesh reached a level to secure its due rights on the trans-boundary water resources with government initiatives.
After the inaugural function was over, Information Minister Hasanul Haque Inu spoke at another session titled 'Present situation of inter-country water management and its future perspectives'.
He said: "The main obstruction to resolution of the trans-boundary water problems of South Asia is our efforts for bilateral resolution instead of taking multilateral initiatives. But unilateral efforts are needed for the resolution."
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) Vice Chancellor Prof Dr SM Nazrul Islam, BEN Member Dr M Khalequzzaman and BAPA Member Secretary Abdul Matin, among others, spoke at the inaugural session, chaired by BAPA President ASM Shahjahan.
http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=239420&cid=2
Post a Comment