After a decade, interlinking of rivers is back again on government agenda and public debate
The origin of interlinking of rivers (ILR) in India is somewhat strange. It is generally the state government that prepares plans for water infrastructure projects, including irrigation. But in case of ILR, the Supreme Court (SC) directed the Union government—based on some vague private writ petition—to take it up “to deal with the paradoxical situation of floods in one part and droughts in other parts”. In 2002, SC asked the government to complete this grand plan, whose cost then was estimated at Rs 5.6 lakh crore (US$100 billion). A public debate raged on with many opposing the plan on various grounds. After some initial furore, the issue became dormant around 2006. But it came back to life again in 2012. This time too, the apex court, still dealing with the old writ petition, directed the government to constitute a special committee on interlinking of rivers.
The apex court has gone the extra mile to spell out the details of this committee, including who should be in it. The apex court, in its 2012 judgment, extensively quoted a 2008 report by the Delhi-based research organisation, National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER). This report said that the project will contribute to GDP, agricultural growth, rural development, construction and just about every aspect of the country. The report made a bizarre comparison by stating that the “Experience of Pakistan in the area of interlinking of rivers could be an inspiration for India” and, “if Pakistan can complete the interlinking of its rivers in 10 years, it should not be difficult for India to complete the task of interlinking of rivers.” The NCAER report has not come under any external scrutiny, both in its substance and critical analysis.
Based on the supreme court directive, the Union Cabinet set up a Special Committee on ILR (SCILR) in September 2014. The very first meeting of SCILR, decided to establish four sub-committees for comprehensive evaluation of various studies/reports; system studies for identification of most appropriate alternate plan; consensus building through negotiations, and restructuring of National Water Development Agency (NWDA). To assist SCILR, a Task Force (TF-ILR) was constituted in 2015. The TF-ILR is chaired by N N Navalawala. All these committees are meeting regularly and discussing ILR.
Current status of ILR
The official website of the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) claims that ILR will “ensure greater equity in the distribution of water by enhancing the availability of water in drought-prone and rain-fed areas”. The website claims that the “implementation of any interlinking project is yet to be taken up. As such no project is in progress or completed. Thus, no amount has been allocated or released on the project so far...” It further states that the government is perusing “the Interlinking of Rivers programme in a consultative manner” and “the time limit for the completion of individual projects can be identified only after the requisite statutory clearances are obtained and Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) are technoeconomically approved. Thus, the implementation of the projects will take varying periods of time.” Five points are clear: ILR is not a project, but a programme; no money has been spent yet and no time frame has been set; individual projects will go through the existing process of sanctions and clearances, and the programme will be implemented in a consultative manner.
The National Perspective Plan (NPP) prepared by NWDA has identified two components of linking of rivers. Under Peninsular component, 16 river links have been identified and pre-feasibility reports for 14 links have been prepared. So far, DPRs for three river links have been prepared. Ken-Betwa link has two phases and DPR for each phase has been prepared.Under the Himalayan component, by 2004, pre-feasibility reports were prepared for 14 links. Of that, feasibility reports for seven links were completed by March 2009 and two more are in survey stage. As of 2017, no DPR has been prepared for this component. Of all the proposed ILR projects, three are in advanced stages of implementation with DPRs. The Ken-Betwa link seems to have reached the stage of “starting the work”.
KEN-BETWA LINK: In Phase I, a link canal will be built, which will divert 1,074 million cubic metres of water of Ken river basin to water-deficit Betwa basin. Of this, 659 million cu metres will be transferred to Betwa River upstream of Parichha weir and 312 million cu metres will be utilised for enroute irrigation. The project also proposes to build a dam at Dedham to store 2,275 million cu metres of water. Makodia dam has also been proposed across the Betwa River. As per the 2001 Census, 1,411 families and 6,388 people will face submergence due to the Daudhan dam. The Makodia dam will submerge 3,445 families with 13,499 people. Collectively, about 20,000 people will be displaced. This number might be higher now by at least 5,000. Moreover, about 17,783 ha of land will be submerged, of which about 12,000 ha may be forest land.
The total cost of Phase I is estimated to be Rs 7,614.63 crore at price level of 2007-08. This does not include rehabilitation cost, which is estimated to be Rs 1,110 crore and environmental management plan. The cost benefit ratio is estimated to be 1.71 and internal rate of return (IRR) is 13 per cent. The cost of Phase II is estimated to be around Rs 2,282 crore and cost benefit ratio is 1.57 with IRR about 15 per cent. While the final cost of the project will increase significantly, there has not been any detailed discussion or plan to address displacement and ecological degradation, including damage to tiger reserve.
Earlier attempts to critique ILR and Ken-Betwa link
A National Civil Society Committee on Interlinking of Rivers (NCSCILR) was set up in 2003, just after the Supreme Court directive on completing the project by 2016. The idea was to “initiate a debate and carry on the dialogue focusing on the complexity of the project, its technical, financial, economic, social equity implications and likely ecological consequences”. This 14-member committee, which included Yoginder K Alagh, Ramaswamy Iyer, Nitin Desai, B P Singh and Medha Patkar, met several times and produced several papers. NCSCILR produced a book, “Interlinking of Rivers in India: Overview and Ken-Betwa Link”, with detailed analysis and points for convergence on each link proposed. The book has several papers reviewing the Ken-Betwa link. They conclude that:
The DPR did not address any of these aspects. It needs to be re-examined with independent experts to look at the need for irrigated water and suitability of cropping pattern suggested, keeping soil and climate in mind. It must also consider the cost economics and the cost benefit ratio. If such a review confirms the figures of DPR, the construction of the link should be fast-tracked. If not, the revisions and modifications may be made to suit current needs and cost economics.
The 12th meeting of SCILR, held on March 8, 2017, noted that “Investment Clearance of Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP) Phase-I, at an estimated cost of Rs 18,057.08 crore at price level of 2015-16” has been recommended by the investment clearance committee of MoWR in February 2017. But actual cost of this projects indicated in the DPRs—both phase I and II–is Rs 7,614 crore and Rs 2,282 crore respectively. It means, even before the start of the project, the cost has increased from Rs 9,896 crore to Rs 18,057 crore, an almost 100 per cent increase. After six months, the meeting of the Task Force on ILR was held on September 15, 2017. The Chairman of the Task Force requested the Chairman of Group on Financial Aspects to evolve criteria for considering the ILR projects as national projects and suggest an appropriate mechanism to fund them. So, it becomes evident that even the funding mechanism has not been worked out yet. There seems to be confusion over the share of the Centre and the states. But despite this, an in-principle sanction of Rs 18,000 crore has been obtained for Ken-Betwa link.
DAMANGANGA-PINJAL LINK: The objective is to increase water supply to Mumbai Corporation and Greater Municipality (MCGM). The current supply is around 3,000 MLD (million litres per day) and the projected demand is expected to reach 4,900 MLD by 2021. The estimated cost has already increased from Rs 1,278 crore at price level of 2002-2003 to Rs 2,746 crore, which is more than a 100 per cent increase. Twenty-four villages and area covering 3,461 ha will be submerged because of a proposed dam. About 4,530 people will be displaced and so will 3,500 livestock. However, this calculation is based on 20-year-old data and the estimation for displacement of people and livestock will be significantly higher. The price for the land will also be higher. Despite this, DPR says that since it is a drinking water supply project, it does not come under the provision of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. Hence, environmental clearance is not needed.
PAR-TAPI-NARMADA LINK: The Par-Tapi-Narmada link “envisages transfer of surplus water from west flowing rivers between Par and Tapi to water-deficit areas in North Gujarat”. It involves building seven reservoirs between Par and Tapi rivers and a 395-km-long link canal connecting these reservoirs. The feasibility report states that the area is expected to have a demand of about 1,800 million cu metres of water for irrigation and other uses, which will be met by this diversion. The possible flow that can be diverted is estimated to be 1,350 million cu metres, which is about 75 per cent of the entire flow of the seven rivers: Nar, Par, Auranga, Ambica, Purna into Tapi and Narmada. The project, however, will submerge 7,559 ha of land, of which 3,572 ha is forest land. About 14,832 people are going to be displaced along with 9,029 livestock.
“The net annual benefit for irrigation has been estimated to be Rs 5.35 million per hundred ha. Thus, the total benefit for irrigating 169,000 ha works out to Rs 563 crore per year. The annual benefit from power generation is estimated to be Rs 55.23 crore. The overall cost of the link is Rs 6,016 crore (at 2004-05 price level). The cost-benefit ratio of the project has been found out to be 1.08. The IRR for the project has been computed as 8.82 per cent,” according to the FR. However, the total cost of the project, according to DPR, will be over Rs 10,000 crore—about 40 per cent up from the FR. But the benefits remain same. For example, DPR says that the annual benefit from irrigation is Rs 1,650 crore, almost three times of what the feasibility report had estimated. IRR is even higher at 10.17 per cent. These figures are not reliable and may not stand any scrutiny. However, if these figures of cost benefits stand the independent scrutiny, project should surely go ahead.
Constructive dialogue over blanket criticism
ILR is not a project but a very long-term programme. Each river linking programme needs to be critiqued on the specific DPR. Each of them should be treated based on its merits or otherwise. Instead of simply stonewalling such programmes, raising scientific, technical and economic questions will help the process. Individual DPR can be evaluated independently and such information can be made available for policy makers and public. That might generate an informed dialogue in order to make some impact for certain modifications. Focus should be on the three links which seem to be reaching implementation stage.
Currently, DPRs do not have convincing data, argument or methodology to suggest that these projects are in the national interest. While the physical aspects like construction of dams, canals and other infrastructure components may be sound, that is only one part of the project. Currently, the most important aspects like assumptions of cropping pattern and productivity before and after the water is made available are not realistic or reliable. The cost benefit analysis and IRR calculations lack merit and the impact of these projects on people and ecosystems is either ignored or underestimated.
Even alternatives to meet the same goal are not even explored. ILR is controversial politically, but politics has to be taken out of the analysis. The government needs to reflect and constitute an independent expert committee to look at the DPRs and come out with specific views on each project. Simultaneously, it needs to look at the possibility of meeting the same objectives with better alternatives and establish a constructive dialogue with civil society in order to build consensus. At the same time, the civil society needs to reflect on its approach. Instead of the no-dam-anywhere approach, as some sections seem to adopt, they need to participate in constructive dialogue with the government. Not just articulating problem, but suggesting a path for resolving issues with specific suggestions should be the way forward.
(The author is the founder and chairperson of AgSri Agricultural Services Pvt. Ltd. He has written extensively on water management and improving agricultural productivity)
RESOURCES
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
India Environment Portal Resources :
Photo: Sarandha.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.