Interlinking of Rivers:

Why it wont 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
discharge(cumecs)

Water to be diverted
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 (199699), 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 wont
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

Ground reality/ discrepancy

Mahanadi is surplus basin

Orissa says it has no water to export

Godavari is surplus basin

AP says it no water to export

Damanganga water can be exported

to Pinjal

Gujarat does not agree

Tapi has surplus water

MP and Maharashtra disagree

Ken Betwa Link proposal includes five

dam proposals

FR has details of only one dam

KBL FR has population figures based

on 1981 population and cost figures
based on 1995 costs

When latest figures are available

KBL FR agrees substantial portion of

Panna Tiger Reserve would be

However, FR says there will be no

impact on the wildlife

impactedParbati Kalisindh Chambal

Link includes ten dams

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.

Cultivable land
Cultivable land in Upper
Basin

Ken
57.08%
46.26%

Irrigable land in Upper basin 42.91%

Water required to irrigate 1 Ha 5327 cum
Water Export(+) or Import(-) (-)2427 mcm
Surplus (+) / deficit (-)
5085 mcm
Projected water required to
irrigate 1 ha

Betwa
67.88%
65.05
55.47%
6157 cu m
3854.5 mcm
(-)1762 mcm
5200 mcm

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

Salient features of Polavaram

Location of Dam

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 interlinking 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
large hydro projects today,
as if large hydro projects
are good in themselves.
In fact installed capacity of
large hydro has increased
at a compound growth rate
of 4.35% per annum during
1991-2005, HIGHER than
all other power sub-sectors.
There is little attempt for
credible assessment of
performance of large hydro.
How have they performed?

31000
30000
29000
28000
27000
26000
25000
24000
23000
22000
21000
20000
19000
18000

Installed Capacity

Generation-MU/MW

3.69

3.8

2.957

3.2

2.74

2.893

3.168

3.4

3.404

3.46

3.6

3.383

2.551

2.8

2004-05

2001-02

2000-01

1999-00

1998-99

1997-98

1996-97

1995-96

2.4

2002-03

2.395

2.6

2003-04

1994-95

As can be seen from the

chart here, the Million
Units energy generated
from large hydro projects
has been almost
continuously falling over
the last eleven years.
The fall from 1994-5 to
2004-5 is huge 31%.
There are many reasons
for this, use of increasing
large hydro to provide
peaking capacity is surely
not one of them to the
best of our information.

3.97

Diminishing Returns from Large Hydro

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