Interlinking of Rivers:

A Dispassionate Look

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People [email protected]

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) (d/s) – Godavari 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 Ghagra Sarda Yamuna – Ganga – Yamuna – Yamuna – Rajasthan Rajasthan Chunar Sone Dam Ganga – Sabarmati – Sone Barrage – Southern Tributaries of Brahmputra – Ganga (MSTG) Brahmputra – Ganga (JTF) (ALT) Farakka Ganga – Sunderbans – Damodar – Subernrekha Subernrekha – Mahanadi

Main Features-1

Links Reservoirs Power Installed Capacity, MW Cost, crores Water Transfer, BCM Additional Irrigation M ha Himalayan Links Peninsular Links 14 16 30 000 MW 16 58 4 000 Total 30 74 34 000 422 650 141 22 137 350 33 13 560 000 174 35

Main Features-2

• 30 River Links • Involving 37 Rivers • How much additional water? – 300 BCM (President of India speech on May 11, 2005) – 174 BCM (NWDA) • 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 1:20,000 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 cumecs.

River BRAHMAPUTRA GANGA Peak flood discharge (cumecs) 60,000 50,000 Water to be diverted through ILR canal (cumecs) 1,500 (2.5%) 1,000 (2.0%) (Figures thanks to SG Vombatkere, ILR figures from official website: http://nwda.gov.in

) •

Similarly, flow rate in flood wave in Mahanadi or Godavari may be closer to 1 lakh cumecs, while the canal can transfer water at the rate of around 1000 cumecs, as noted by CWC expert (NWDA 2005-II p 74).

•

ILR can clearly not help solve flood problem

What about these floods of 2005 & 2006, 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 faced floods, were to receive more water from other basins.

• The ILR could have done nothing about the floods in Sutlej basin. • Cauvery basin faced in October 2005?

• The Bihar (Ganga basin) and Assam (Brahmaputra basin) faced drought like situation in 2006

What do experts say about ILR and Floods?

• • • “The interlinking of rivers and transfer of water itself will not moderate floods” (

CWC Director

in NWDA-2005-II p 74) • Contrary to claims ILR “may not have any impact by way of flood mitigation in Bihar” (E-in-C, Bihar, NWDA-05-II p245)

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?

• THE CLAIM: 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 • “Mitigating the droughts in the country is not going to be feasible by ILR because the proposals regarding transfer is mainly aimed at utilising the surplus, wherever required or possible, irrespective of the fact that they are drought prone or not.” (CWC director in NWDA-2005-II p 74)

ILR and Drought Prone areas

• A number of links are to help existing commands: – Netravati-Hemavati link to benefit existing Hemavati irrigation project command area – Bedti-Varda link to benefit existing Tungabhadra command – Sone-South Tributaries of Ganga link to benefit existing command of Sone Canal.

• A number of link canals are to increase the intensity in existing commands.

• Damanganga Pinjal link is an example of surplus to surplus basin.

• Yamuna-Rajasthan Link likely to create huge water logging and salinisation as per CGWB (NWDA-2005-II p 362)

Links will consume, and not generate power

PUMPED LIFT OF WATER Ganga-Subarnarekha (G-S) Subarnarekha-Mahanadi (S-M) 60 m 48 m Godavari-Krishna (G-K) Netravati Hemavati Link Bedti Varda Link 116 m 81 m (3 stages) 124 m (3 stages) [Source : http://nwda.gov.in

] 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 heads… the ILR will consumer power”. (CWC director in NWDA-2005-II p 74)  The power generation at a number of projects would be lower with ILR than it would be without ILR.

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 11,000 km. Land for canals alone at least 2,100 sq km (210,000 ha). ( http://nwda.gov.in

) • 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 • Land for borrow areas, coarse and fine aggregates • Land slides due to tunnels and other construction. • Loss of opportunity of development for the deprived people • Permanent loss of rivers and environmental resources

Poor Quality studies of NWDA-1

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 agrees substantial portion of Panna Tiger Reserve would be submerged Ganga, Kosi, Gandak has surplus water

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 However, FR says there will be no impact on the wildlife Bihar government says NO Parbati Kalisindh Chambal Link includes ten dams FR has details of only three of them

Poor Quality studies of NWDA-2

NWDA claim Ground reality/ discrepancy

Pamba and Achkovil has surplus water Kerala says there is no surplus water in these basins Does not include Groundwater in the water balance Par Tapi Narmada link supposed to benefit Kutch, Saurashtra, N Gujarat ILR required to reduce food deficit Groundwater is the most important source of water for water supply and irrigation The link stops at Miyagam in Central Gujarat, no details as to how water will go to Drought prone areas.

Water shortage does not mean food scarcity. Indus and Pennar basins (NWDA-2005-II p 188) Karnataka disagrees Netravati-Hemavati and Bedti Varda links are feasible Sone Dam-STG link is feasible to transfer about 2500 MCM water for south Bihar districts Govt of Bihar (2003, p V-62) says it is not feasible as there is no surplus water.

Ken Betwa Link FR

• When Ken has floods, so has Betwa, when Betwa faces water scarcity, so does Ken. Both are part of Bundelkhand.

• Such events of concurrent floods or drought are not uncommon. In one case this would mean no water for transfer and in another no need for transfer.

• 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 Water required to irrigate 1 Ha Ken 57.08% 46.26% Irrigable land in Upper basin 42.91% 5327 cum Betwa 67.88% 65.05

55.47% 6157 cu m Water Export(+) or Import(-) (-)2427 mcm 3854.5 mcm Surplus (+) / deficit (-) 5085 mcm (-)1762 mcm Projected water required to irrigate 1 ha 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

Reservoir data: FRL

80170 MCM 45.72 m MDDL Gross storage at FRL Live storage

Water Utilisation;

Diversion to Krishna Irrigation: LMC & RMC Water supply to Vizag 41.15 m 194.6 TMC (5511 MCM) 75.2 TMC 84.7 TMC (incl evaporation) 193.36 TMC 23.44 TMC Demands of Chhattisgarh Demands of Orissa Godavari Delta demand TOTAL

Irrigation:

Culturable command area Net Area to be irrigated Annual irrigation

Power

1.5 TMC 5 TMC 274.57 TMC 582.57 TMC 323396 Ha 291114 Ha 436792 Ha 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.

intra basin resources…” (Executive Summary, pp (ix)) The assessed needs of the basins could be met from full development and efficient utilization of

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, “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 from 40% average national figure End Use efficiency (CFLs: upto 10 000 MW saving possible) 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: Use most big hydro for peaking power 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 Less than 10% of large dams have hydropower component

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?

Diminishing Returns from Large Hydro

• • •

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.

4 3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3 2.8

2.6

2.4

Generation-MU/MW

Monsoon above normal in majority of these years

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Monsoon Rainfall

110 % 100 % 103 % 102 % 105 %

96 % 92 % 91 % 81 %

105 %

87 %

100 %

Irrigation Options

 Reduce the gap between potential created and actual irrigation (over 10 M ha as per MWR claims and 28 M ha as per independent observers like MS Reddy (NWDA-2005-IIp102))  Increase irrigation efficiency  Appropriate cropping pattern  Reduce siltation of reservoirs  Allocation for O&M  Manage reservoirs for optimum benefits  Desilt tanks and other local water systems  Groundwater recharge  Watershed management, create local water systems

Food Management Options

• Increase yield: Indian irrigated yield is 2.5 t/ ha on average, the world average is over 4 t/ha • Similarly there a big scope for increasing the rainfed yields • Appropriate cropping pattern • Innovations like SRI: System of Rice Intensification

THANK YOU

• • • Read “Dams, Rivers & People” www.narmada.org/sandrp [email protected]

December 9, 2006