You are on page 1of 18

TODAY WE ARE WATER STRESSED,

BUT TOMORRROW WE WILL BE WATER SCARCE.


WHY WILL BE INDIA WATER DEFICIT?

Annual rainfall- 400 m.ha.m.

Total utilizable surface and ground water after full
development of water resources-114m.ha.m.

UTILIZATION:

1991- 58m.ha.m.
2001- 79m.ha.m
2025- 114m.ha.m

Thus the entire quantum of utilization water will be exhausted
by the year 2025.
Proposed solution

INTERLINKING OF RIVERS





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 (NCIWRDP) set up to review NWDA
reports .

Aug 15, 2002- President Abdul Kalam mentions the need for river
linking in his independence day speech .

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.
STATED BENEFITS
Alleviating droughts and flood control.
Cheap water for irrigation.
Availability of drinking water.
Generation of hydroelectric power.
Allowing more inland navigation.
Employment generation.
Fostering a spirit of national integration.
INTERLINKING:SALVATION OR FOLLY
Riparian rights: conflict between states (as- kauveri and
Mahanadi issue) have to be resolved. In addition worry of
Bangladesh and Nepal have to be taken into account.


Financing: Raising 5.6 lakh crores of rupees is a tough task and if
created maintenance of huge asset is a problem. Fear of
privatization of water resources.


Flood period: Idea of networking flood water to the deficient
basin does not consider the surplus period of donor area and
deficient period of recipient area.

Desertification: Prevention of natural flooding may led to
desertification as there will be loss of fertile soil.

River pollution: Reducing the flow of river by diversion will
increase the concentration of pollutants in the river.

Security: Security of network will be an enormous load on
security forces of central and state governments. As canal can
be easily breached by manual or natural activities.

Land acquisition and displacement: Misery and
injustice to the displaced people in obtaining compensation
due to systemic corruption.
Technical feasibility: The slope, altitude and other
topographical aspects have to be considered. (e.g. for Ganga,
Patna is diversible surplus but for raising water to Vindhya
chain i.e. 2860 ft. high enormous amount of power is
required).
ILR PRICE TAG
Financial cost:-

5.6 L Crores Rs:-

- 250% of Indias tax revenue in 2002

- 1/4
th
of Indias annual GDP

- Twice the entire irrigation budget of India
since 1950
Rehabilitation cost:

- Estimated that 8,000 sq. km. of land affecting the
thousands of villages and towns


- 33 mn of 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.

Environmental cost:

- 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.

- River system will be altered catastrophically
creating droughts and desert.
Doubtful role of government agencies
Claimed that 35 mn ha of dry land regions will be brought
under irrigation but the areas not clearly identified.
No clear answer to the issue of displacement and
resettlement.
The reports regarding the feasibility of the interlinking not
made public.

KEN BETAWA LINK:

Not yet clear, which is surplus basin and which is deficit.
1991 census data used for the implementation in 2005.
No proper assessment of the ecological and social aspects.
Only 3 dams figured in the report out of 10.

Alternatives to ILR
Rainwater harvesting and conservation of water
resources : Changes in topography, soil system and
runoff flow pattern in a changing climatic environment
is considered. Not only stored rain water but soil erosion
is also prevented.

Recharging ground water reservoir : Skills have to
be developed for arresting rain water where it falls and
allowing it to recharge these ground water reservoirs.


Large scale utilization of ground water in deltas
: practically feasible and initiatives for borewell
development and irrigation needed with responsibility
lying .


Community participation: Approaches of reducing
water consumption by the affluent in the cities and reducing
the wastage of water by the farmers in their field can be
attempted.
Options for Power


Reduce T&D losses

End Use efficiency (pumps, CFLs)

Demand Side Management .

Generation options: Small Hydro, wind,
biomass, solar

CONCLUSION
considering the pragmatic view of all the issues raised
it can be concluded that implementation of this
ambitious scheme is not possible in foreseeable future.
Hence it can be a better option to concentrate on the
local resources and think upon the alternatives
available
Learning's:
The environmental, political and the economical
aspects of the topic have provided us with the
importance of water conservation. To answer the
problem of water scarcity, local centralized steps can
be the most viable effort (e.g. water harvesting). But
in these efforts we also have to play important roles
by creating awareness among the individuals of the
society as well as within us. And this effort we have
already initiated by efficient use of water in our day
to day life. We wish to be the part of these efforts in
our coming days and will certainly prove our worth
to the society we live in.
THANKS