Interlinking of Rivers:

Why it won’t work

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People

cwaterp@vsnl.com
 Stated objectives
• To take water from surplus to deficit areas
• To solve the problems of ALL drought and
floods permanently
• President on Aug 14, 2005 address to the
nation: “I feel that it has the promise of freeing
the country from the endless cycle of floods and
droughts. “
 Stated Benefits
• Flood Control (40 m ha area and 260 m people saved
from floods that leads to damages of Rs 2400
crore/year)
• Drought proofing (86 m people in 14 states, 116
districts saved)
• Relief of 1200 crore per year from floods/ drought
damages
• Irrigation: 35 m ha
• Hydropower generation 34 000 MW installed capacity
• Foodgrains production: 400 m t by 2020
• 70 lpcd water to every citizen
• Navigation
 List of proposed Links
Peninsular Component
• Mahanadi (Manibhadra)– Godavari
(d/s)
• Godavari (Inchampalli) – Krishna
(Nagarjunsagar)
• Godavari (Inchampalli Low Dam) –
Krishna (Nagarjunsagar Tail Pond)
• Godavari (Polavaram) – Krishna
(Vijaywada)
• Krishna (Almatti) – Pennar
• Krishna (Srisilam) – Pennar
• Krishna (Nagarjunsagar) – Pennar
(Somasila)
• Pennar (Somasila) – Cauvery (Grand
Anicut)
• Cauvery (Kattalai) – Vaigai – Gundar
• Ken – Betwa
• Parbati – Kalisindh – Chambal
• Par – Tapi – Narmada
• Damanganga – Pinjal
• Bedti – Varda
• Netravati – Hemavati
• Pamba – Achankovil – Vaippar
Himalayan Component
• Kosi – Mechi
• Kosi – Ghagra
• Gandak – Ganga
• Ghagra – Yamuna
• Sarda – Yamuna
• Yamuna – Rajasthan
• Rajasthan – Sabarmati
• Chunar – Sone Barrage
• Sone Dam – Southern Tributaries of
Ganga
• Brahmputra – Ganga (MSTG)
• Brahmputra – Ganga (JTF) (ALT)
• Farakka – Sunderbans
• Ganga – Damodar – Subernrekha
• Subernrekha – Mahanadi
 Main Features
• 30 River Links
• Involving 37 Rivers
• How much additional water? 300 BCM
(President of India speech on May 11, 2005)
• No of reservoirs: 60 (Rainer Horig)
• Estimated cost: Rs 5 60 000 crores
• Estimated submergence
– 1 675 000 ha (Rainer Horig: 625 000 ha for canals and 1 050 000 ha for reservoirs)
• Estimated displacement:
– 0.45 M (official document)
– 3.47 M (Rainer Horig)
 Some basic Questions
• Is the need for the ILR established?
• Has it been established if some basins are surplus or
deficits?
• Definitions of Surplus and Deficit
• Is any basin really water surplus?
• Question on hydrologic viability
• Is the feasibility of the proposal established?
• Is the Optimality of the proposal established? Is it the
least cost option?
• Has the social, environmental viability been
established?
• Is the economic and financial viability of the project
established?
• Is ILR feasible in current constitutional set up?
• Is the project desirable?
 Can ILR solve flood “problem”?
• According to President (speech on 110505) flood
affects 8 major basins, 40 m ha and 260 m people
• ILR is to have Lined Canals with 1:3,000 to 1:5,000
slope or 0.33 to 0.20 m per km. Maximum flow velocity
2 m/s. A 100 m wide & 10 m deep lined canal can
carry about 1,000 cumecs.
River Average flood Water to be diverted
discharge(cumecs) through ILR canal(cumecs)
BRAHMAPUTRA 60,000 1,500 (2.5%)
GANGA 50,000 1,000 (2.0%)
(Figures thanks to SG Vombatkere, ILR figures from official website: www.riverlinks.nic.in)

•ILR can clearly not help solve flood problem

 What about these floods of 2005, Mr President?
• The Central Gujarat region that experienced
serious floods were to receive MORE water
from Paar-Tapi Narmada Link proposal.
• Mumbai that experienced unprecedented floods
was to receive more water from Damanganga
Pinjal link proposal.
• The Krishna basin areas of Maharashtra and
Karnataka were to receive more water from
other basins.
• The ILR could have done nothing about the
floods in Sutlej basin.
• And what about the floods of Cauvery basin in
October 2005?
What do experts say about ILR and Floods?
• Dr. Bharat Singh, Professor Emeritus at the Water
Resources Development Training Centre at the IIT,
Rourkee, and Member of the National Commission for
Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (1996-
99), has said, “any water resources engineer will
immediately discard the idea of the inter-linking of
rivers as a flood control measure” (A big dream of little
logic, The Hindustan Times, 9 March 2003).
• John Bricoe, Senior Water Resources Expert of the
World Bank has said, "River linking per se will do little
to reduce flood damage since the size of the link
canals would usually be miniscule compared to flood
flows." Junaid Ahmad, Senior Manager, Social
Development, World Bank was also said ILR won’t
help flood problems.
 Can ILR help the drought areas?
• According to President (speech on 110505) 86 m
people, 14 states and 116 districts are affected by
drought annually
• Can ILR benefit all drought prone areas
– YES says President of India
– NO if you care to look at the map and topography
• Do we have other options for these areas?
– YES
• Do we have evidence that such options can work?
– Hundreds of examples (e.g. Alwar, Ralegaon, Sukhomajri,
many others)
• Have these options been explored?
– NO
Links will consume, and not generate power

PUMPED LIFT OF WATER

Ganga-Subarnarekha (G-S) 60 m

Subarnarekha-Mahanadi (S-M) 48 m

Godavari-Krishna (G-K) 116 m

Need for 3,400 MW of dedicated power generation

[Source : http://riverlinks.nic.in/taskforce.asp ]
 Some Social Impacts
• Dams: Submergence, displacement (see earlier slide)
• The link canals, “will be 50 - 100 m wide and
more than 6 m deep.” Total canal length 14,000
km. Land for canals alone at least 2,100 sq km
(210,000 ha). (http://riverlinks.nic.in/taskforce.asp)
• Downstream areas: Drying up of rivers, destruction of
biodiversity, increase of salinity ingress, death of
fisheries and fisherfolks’ livelihoods, stoppage of
groundwater recharge
• Deforestation: destruction of livelihood for surrounding
population, large number of environmental impacts
• Loss of opportunity of development for the deprived
people
• Permanent loss of rivers and environmental resources
 Poor Quality studies of NWDA
NWDA claim
Mahanadi is surplus basin
Godavari is surplus basin
Damanganga water can be exported
to Pinjal
Tapi has surplus water
Ken Betwa Link proposal includes five
dam proposals
KBL FR has population figures based
on 1981 population and cost figures
based on 1995 costs
KBL FR agrees substantial portion of
Panna Tiger Reserve would be
impactedParbati Kalisindh Chambal
Link includes ten dams
Ground reality/ discrepancy
Orissa says it has no water to export
AP says it no water to export
Gujarat does not agree
MP and Maharashtra disagree
FR has details of only one dam
When latest figures are available
However, FR says there will be no
impact on the wildlife
FR has details of only three of them
 Ken Betwa Link FR
• When Ken has floods, so has Betwa, when Betwa faces water
scarcity, so does Ken. Both are part of Bundelkhand.
• Use of wrong, outdated and manipulated data to prove that Ken
is Surplus and Betwa is deficit basin.
Ken Betwa
Cultivable land 57.08% 67.88%
Cultivable land in Upper 46.26% 65.05
Basin
Irrigable land in Upper basin 42.91% 55.47%
Water required to irrigate 1 Ha 5327 cum 6157 cu m
Water Export(+) or Import(-) (-)2427 mcm 3854.5 mcm
Surplus (+) / deficit (-) 5085 mcm (-)1762 mcm
Projected water required to 5200 mcm
irrigate 1 ha
 UP has strong objections
• Principal Secretary (Irrigation),UP has said in
official meeting, “Ken Basin is not a surplus
basin and if water is transferred from this basin
there might be unrest in the Budelkhand
region.”
• “The area presently irrigated south of Lalitpur
and Jhansi districts will get affected dur to KB
Link project.”
• “The investment made by UP on Rajghat and
Matatila dam will become waste”
• “The hydropower generation of Rajghat and
Matatila Power Houses would be hampered”
 Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal Link
• Totally Ten dams are planned as part of this
link, but info of only three included in the FR
• Socio-Economic and Environmental impacts
study yet to be done and no information about
this in the FR
• 17 308 ha will be submerged in three dams as
given in FR. For the other 7 dams, about 21
800 ha to be submerged. In addition, at least 3
500 ha land will be required for canals
• Social impacts based on 1991 census figures in
2005
• FR failed to establish the need for the PKC link
Location of Dam
Salient features of Polavaram
Near Polavaram village in W Godavari dist, 42 km u/s of the existing Cotton Barrage
Hydrology: Rainfall 1023 mm
Catchment area 306643 sq km
Design flood 102000 cumecs
Available runoff at Polavaram dam site (Assessed by NWDA from computed series of 1951-52 to 1980 –81
75% dependability 80170 MCM
Reservoir data: FRL 45.72 m
MDDL 41.15 m
Gross storage at FRL 194.6 TMC (5511 MCM)
Live storage 75.2 TMC
Water Utilisation; Diversion to Krishna 84.7 TMC (incl evaporation)
Irrigation: LMC & RMC 193.36 TMC
Water supply to Vizag 23.44 TMC
Demands of Chhattisgarh 1.5 TMC
Demands of Orissa 5 TMC
Godavari Delta demand 274.57 TMC
TOTAL 582.57 TMC
Irrigation: Culturable command area 323396 Ha
Net Area to be irrigated 291114 Ha
Annual irrigation 436792 Ha
Power 12x80 MW installed capacity
 Polavaram: Serious implications
• Submergence: 276 villages, over two lac people
including villages in Orissa and Chhatisgarh, mostly
adivasi population
• Human Rights violations
• Public Hearing violations
• EIA violations
• No R&R plan
• Submergence of deposits of Chromite, graphite, iron
ore and coal bearing area
• 3 705 ha Forest land under submergence
• Submergence of parts of Papi Hills WLS
• Environmental clearance under suspicious
circumstance
• Environmental clearance without forest clearance
 National Commission about ILR-1
HIMALAYAN COMPONENT:
• “The Himalayan Component data are not freely
available but on basis of published information it
appears that this component may not be feasible for
the period of review up to the year 2050.” (Executive
Summary, pp (ix))
• Further it says about the Himalayan links, “the costs of
construction and environmental problems would be
enormous. These links should only be taken up if and
when they are considered unavoidable in national
interest.” The Commission also noted, “On the basis of
published information, the commission is of the view
that the Himalayan component would require more
detailed study using systems analysis techniques.” (p
187-88)
 National Commission about ILR-2
PENINSULAR COMPONENT
• “As regards east flowing peninsular rivers, the studies indicate that based on
mean annual flows except for Krishna (if irrigation intensity is adopted at a
rather high 45 %), Cauvery and Vaigai, the balances are positive in other
cases. The shortage in Cauvery is 12 % of gross demand and that in Vaigai
16 %. These shortages result from increasing the present irrigated area to
1.4 times in case of Cauvery and 1.6 times in case of Vaigai and assuming
return flows at 60 % of the imbalance. In case the return flow is taken as 80
% of the imbalance, there is no shortage in Krishna and those in Cauvery
and Vaigai are reduced to 5 and 8 % respectively. Thus, there seems to be
no imperative necessity for massive water transfer. The assessed needs
of the basins could be met from full development and efficient utilization of
intra-basin resources…” (Executive Summary, pp (ix))
• Par-Tapi-Narmada Link proposal: “Taking the entire system, the cost of
water delivered is high and can hardly be borne by the farmers at prevailing
agricultural prices. The irrigation rates may have to be very heavily
subsidized which is not in conformity with current thinking. It is felt that these
links should be deferred till the impact of the SSP is seen and need for
additional water is clearly established.”
• Netravati-Hemavati link: “The cost is rather high due to requirement of lift.”
 Some Eminent persons on ILR:
• Bharat Singh: “There really seems to be no
convincing argument or vital national
interest which can justify undertaking this
mammoth undertaking”.
• Jairam Ramesh, Member of Parliament said in
a Short Duration Debate in Parliament on July
26, 2005, “To imagine that we are going to be
able to solve our annual problems of flood and
drought by a massive programme of inter-
linking of rivers, in my view, there would be no
greater calamity than massive inter-linking of
rivers.”
 Do we have options?
• Flood Management
• Drought Management
• Water Supply
• Agriculture
• Irrigation
• Food Production
• Power
 Options for Power
• Better performance of existing infrastructure (see
next slide for performance of existing hydro)
• Reduce T&D losses
• End Use efficiency (pumps, CFLs)
• Demand Side Management
– According to former power minister, the potential in India for this is
equivalent to additional installed capacity of 25 000 MW
• Peak management: Most big hydro storage for
peaking pwoer
• Generation options: Small Hydro, wind, biomass,
solar
– Small hydro potential is 15 000 MW as per CEA,
hardly 15% of that has been exploited
• Pump storage potential in existing storage projects
 Advocacy for large hydro
• There is strong push for
31000
large hydro projects today, 30000
as if large hydro projects 29000
Installed Capacity
are good in themselves. 28000
27000
• In fact installed capacity of
26000
large hydro has increased 25000
at a compound growth rate 24000
of 4.35% per annum during 23000
1991-2005, HIGHER than 22000
all other power sub-sectors. 21000
20000
• There is little attempt for 19000
credible assessment of 18000
performance of large hydro.
How have they performed?
 Diminishing Returns from Large Hydro
• As can be seen from the

3.97
4
chart here, the Million Generation-MU/MW

3.69
3.8
Units energy generated
from large hydro projects 3.6

3.46

3.404

3.383
has been almost
3.4
continuously falling over

3.168
the last eleven years. 3.2

2.957

2.893
• The fall from 1994-5 to 3
2004-5 is huge 31%.

2.74
2.8
• There are many reasons

2.551
for this, use of increasing 2.6

2.395
large hydro to provide 2.4
peaking capacity is surely
1994-95

1996-97
1997-98

1999-00
2000-01

2003-04
1995-96

1998-99

2001-02
2002-03

2004-05
not one of them to the
best of our information.
Monsoon above normal in majority of these years
Year Monsoon Rainfall
1994 110 %
1995 100 %
1996 103 %
1997 102 %
1998 105 %
1999 96 %
2000 92 %
2001 91 %
2002 81 %
2003 105 %
2004 87 %
2005 100 %
 What is going on?
Role of
• President of India
• Supreme Court of India
• WB, other international forces
• NDA govt
• UPA govt
• MWR, NWDA
• States, state level politicians
• Bangladesh, Nepal
• Media
• Academics, experts
• Communities and Civil Society
 THANK YOU

• Read “Dams, Rivers & People”

• www.sandrp.in
• cwaterp@vsnl.com

November 14, 2005