1. INTERLINKING OF RIVER BASINS:THEIR ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS Presented By Nithish Kumar K.M 1DS08CV139 Guided By Dr. B.S. Thandaveswara 1

2. Contents Objectives Benefits List Of Proposals Economic Impact Technical Feasibility Ecological Impact Topic Conclusion 2

3. OBJECTIVES To take water from surplus to deficit areas To solve the problems of drought and floods permanently WATER UTILISATION 1991- 58 Mha m 2001- 79 Mha m 2025- 114 Mha m Total utilizable surface and ground water after full development of water resources-114 M ha m Thus the entire quantum of utilization water will be exhausted by the year 2025. 3

4. BENEFITS Flood Control (40 Mha area and 260 million people saved from floods which causes crores of rupees damage) Drought proofing (86 million people in 14 states, 116 districts saved) Relief of crores of rupees per year for floods/ drought damages Irrigation: 35 Mha Hydropower generation 34 000 MW installed capacity. 70 lpcd water to every citizen. Navigation 4

5. 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 perspective plan(NPP). 1982-The National water development agency (NWDA) set up to carry out pre – feasibility studies. 1999-A National commission was set up to review NWDA reports. Aug 15, 2002- Then President Abdul Kalam mentions the need for river linking in his independence day speech. 5

6. Oct 2002- Supreme court recommends that the government formulate 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. 6

7. There are two different proposals that have been put forth by the government commission. They are :- 1.Himalayan interlinking (14 links) 2.Peninsular interlinking (16 links) 7

8. LIST OF PROPOSED HIMALAYAN LINKS 1.Kosi – Mechi 2.Kosi – Ghagra 3.Gandak – Ganga 4.Ghagra – Yamuna 5.Sarda – Yamuna 6.Yamuna – Rajasthan 7.Rajasthan – Sabarmati 8.Chunar – Sone Barrage 9.Sone Dam – Southern Tributaries of Ganga 10.Brahmputra – Ganga (MSTG) 11.Brahmputra – Ganga 12.Farakka – Sunderbans 13.Ganga – Damodar – Subernrekha 14.Subernrekha – Mahanadi 8

9. PROPOSED HIMALAYAN LINKS 9

10. LIST OF PROPOSED PENINSULAR LINKS 1.Mahanadi (Manibhadra)– Godavari (d/s) 2.Godavari (Inchampalli) – Krishna (Nagarjunsagar) 3.Godavari (Inchampalli Low Dam) – Krishna (Nagarjunsagar Tail Pond) 4.Godavari (Polavaram) – Krishna (Vijaywada) 5.Krishna (Almatti) – Pennar 6.Krishna (Srisilam) – Pennar 7.Krishna (Nagarjunsagar) – Pennar (Somasila) 8.Pennar (Somasila) – Cauvery (Grand Anicut) 9.Cauvery (Kattalai) – Vaigai – Gundar 10.Ken – Betwa 11.Parbati – Kalisindh – Chambal 12.Par – Tapi – Narmada 13.Damanganga – Pinjal 14.Bedti – Varda 15.Netravati – Hemavati 16.Pamba – Achankovil – Vaippar 10

11. PROPOSED PENINSULAR LINKS 11

12. ECONOMIC IMPACT The national water development agency has estimated a budget of 112 billion USD(Rs 5 60 000 cr) at 2002 prices for the entire project. However, it is estimated and accepted widely that the cost may go up to 200 billion USD. Apart from estimated cost, recurring expenditure would be incurred in maintenance of dams, desilting reservoirs, relining canals and creating artificial drainage where needed External costs like those arising from harm done to the environment, ecology, wildlife and social costs have not been taken into account. The estimated cost itself represents 20% of India’s Gross Domestic Product, 2.5 times the annual tax collection, 2 times the foreign exchange reserves and equals the amount spent on irrigation in the last 44 years. 12

13. According to the Government’s Economic Survey for 2001-02, this amount is higher than the Gross domestic savings, and also the total outstanding external debt of the country. 13

14. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY The slope, altitude and other topographical aspects have to be considered. For e.g. for Ganga, Patna for raising water to Vindhya chain i.e., 1730 m. Enormous amount of power is required which means more cost. 14

15. PUMPING LIFT OF WATER Ganga-Subarnarekha (G-S)60 m Subarnarekha-Mahanadi (S-M)48 m Godavari-Krishna (G-K) 116 m Netravathy Hemavathy Link81 m (3 stages) Bedti Varda Link124 m (3 stages) ILR will need 3 400 MW of dedicated power supply Claim of power production by ILR is misleading. The ILR system will not produce power except insignificant power at the canal head, the ILR will consume power. 15

16. Rehabilitation cost Estimated that 8 000 sq. km. of land affecting the thousands of villages and towns. 33 million 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. The government will have to bear all these costs for rehabilitating people. And the amount will surely be huge. 16

17. As per 2002 survey As per 2002 survey Himalayan Links Peninsular Links Total Links141630 Reservoirs165874 Power Installed Capacity, MW 30 0004 00034 000 Cost, crores422 650137 350560 000 Water Transfer, BCM14133174 Additional Irrigation Mha221335 17

18. CONCLUSION BASED ON ECONOMIC IMPACT The above numbers imply that the cost of the project is huge and the burden arising from it will have to be borne by the government and the people for a very long time Starting a project of this magnitude, when there are so many incomplete projects that are pending, seems an uphill task. 18

19. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT 50 000 ha of forest to be submerged only by peninsular link. Intensive irrigation in unsuitable soils will lead to water logging and salinity. Highly polluted rivers will spread toxicity to other rivers. Deforestation: destruction of livelihood for surrounding population, large number of environmental impacts Land slides due to tunnels and other construction. Loss of opportunity of development for the deprived people 19

20. Effect on morphology :- The sediments from the northern rivers tend to settle in the peninsular region during the transfer of surplus water from their basin. Effect on fauna :- The various species adapted to the dry lands will no more have an ecosystem since dry lands will be converted into wetlands. But these wetlands will attract other species. Hence these links will have a huge impact on the fauna surrounding the links. 20

21. FLOOD PROBLEM ILR is to have Lined Canals with 1:30 000 to 1:20 000 slope or 0.33 to 0.05 m per km. Maximum flow velocity 2 m/s. A 100 m wide & 10 m deep lined canal can carry about 2 400 cu m/s. RiverPeak flood discharge(cu m/s) Water to be diverted through ILR canal(cu m/s) BRAHMAPUTRA60,0001,500 (2.5%) GANGA50,0001,000 (2.0%) Similarly, flow rate in flood wave in Mahanadi or Godavari may be closer to 1 lakh cu m/s, while the canal can transfer water at the rate of around 1 000 cu m/s, as noted by CWC expert (NWDA 2005). River linking will do VERY little to reduce flood damage since the size of the link canals would usually be miniscule compared to flood flows 21

22. DROUGHT PROBLEM 86 million people, 14 states and 116 districts are affected by drought annually. Some of the links help in tackling draught, like Netravathy-Hemavathy link to benefit existing Hemavathy irrigation project command area Bedti-Varda link to benefit existing Tungabhadra command But looking at the maps it is very clear that ILR cannot cover all the draught prone areas. For eg., Damanganga Pinjal link is an example of surplus to surplus basin i.e., water in these areas is a surplus and wont help in tackling draught problems. Yamuna-Rajasthan Link likely to create huge water logging and salination as per CGWB. 22

23. CONCLUSION BASED ON ECOLOGICAL IMPACT As mentioned before the ecological impact is completely negative. India cannot afford to undergo such impacts since there are other mandatory projects which inevitably cause such impacts as well. The main purpose of ILR is to maintain flood and drought prone areas. But as mentioned before it will fail to make a huge impact on all the flood and drought prone areas. 23

24. TOPIC CONCLUSION Even though there are numerous short comings and demerits in the project, the positive impact exceed the limitations as a whole. Every project has pros and cons and some trade-offs have to be accepted which is the case in this project. The legal aspects regarding the water laws have to be relooked. The right of water or the sustenance of human beings and animals( including farm animals) require protection and the laws may have to be modified. The repercussions of these projects on the political aspects have not been considered and the technical feasibility has been given a thrust in the task. 24

25. REFERENCES I.Biyani A.K and Gupta S.K 2004 River Interlinking : More a bane. II.Journals: The Interlinking of Rivers Project in India and International Water Law: A Over view By Abu Raihan.M. Khadil. Interlinking of River Basins : A Mega Harvesting Plan-A Review By B.S Prakasa Rao, P.H.V. Vasudeva Rao, G. Jaisankar. Interbasin Transfers of Water : Economic Issues and Impacts By Charles.W. Howe, K. Willia Easter. Frontline magazine, April issue. 25