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outdated project that belongs to an era when climate crisis was not a reality.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.
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-Godavari-Krishna-Pennar-Cauvery. The latter
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_
Post a Comment