T 'Khryke~ 'Kl; ';Keyke ~ Ekrje~ Oun S Ekrjea~
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
------ltykeq lQykeq ~ ey;t 'khryke~ 'kL; ';keyke ~ ekrje~ oUn s ekrjeA~ ------foUè; fgekpy ;eukq xxka mPNy tyfèk rjxa Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................. 1 2 The Financial Cost ................................................................. 4 3 Proposed National Perspective Plan for Interlinking of Rivers ............................................................. 6 4 (a) Major River Basins in India ........................................ 12 (b) Features of Main River Basins ................................... 15 (i) Ganga Basin .......................................................... 15 (ii) The Yamuna Basin ............................................... 21 (iii) Cauvery Basin ....................................................... 21 (iv) Godavari Basin ...................................................... 26 (v) Krishna Basin ........................................................ 29 (vi) Mahanadi Basin .................................................... 31 (c) Linking the Ganga to the Yamuna A case study in River linking ..................................... 33 5 (a) Food and Water ............................................................ 39 Sujalam: Living Waters (b) Major Irrigation Projects .............................................. 42 The Impact of the River Linking Project (c) Major Dams ................................................................... 45 6 (a) Water Rights: Who Does Water Belongs to? ........... 56 © Navdanya (b) Water Laws ................................................................... 60 Dr. Vandana Shiva (c) Water Conflicts .............................................................. 63 Kunwar Jalees (i) International Conflicts ......................................... 63 (ii) Inter-State ............................................................... 66 (iii) Centre State Conflicts .......................................... 70 Published by: (iv) State vs People ...................................................... 71 NAVDANYA (v) People vs People ................................................... 72 A-60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 (vi) Potential of Future Conflicts with China ......... 72 Tel.: +91-11-26968077, 26853772, 26561868 7 Unassessed Cost & Unanswered Questions .................... 73 Telefax: +91-11-26856795, 26562093 Peoples National Water Forum .................................. 76 E-mail: [email protected]; Jal Suraksha, Adhikar, Mukti Declaration ............... 80 [email protected] Action Plan .................................................................... 81 Website: http://www.vshiva.net Jal Yatra .......................................................................... 82 8 References .............................................................................. 84 Printed by: 9 Appendix ............................................................................... 85 SYSTEMS VISION (i) Supreme Court on Interlinking of Rivers ................. 85 A-199, Okhla Industrial Area-I, (ii) National Water Policy .................................................. 95 New Delhi-110020 (iii) Ground Water Development .................................... 103 107 INTERLINKING OF RIVERS 1. INTRODUCTION “Little drops of water make a mighty ocean” “Water, Water, every where, not a drop to drink” hese well known sayings, referring to both the ii) Second, it would mitigate the annual floods in Tconstitution of water and its uses for humankind, Ganga and Brahamputra. illustrate clearly an inherent flaw in the availability of iii) Third, it would add 34,000 MW of hydropower to water all over the world. Although 75% of the earth’s the national pool. surface is covered with water, only a minuscule The passing observation of the President Mr. A.P.J. proportion of it is available for human needs as fresh Abdulkalam on the eve of Independence day 2002, water. With so little water available and most of it polluted & depleted, disputes over the use of fresh set the momentum for interlinking of rivers, hitherto a dormant idea. This prompted an advocate Ranjet water are becoming very common1. Kumar to attach the copy of Kalam’s speech with a Today in India water is one of the two most important sources of conflict. The other is religion. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which he had filed for the cleaning of Yamuna. Thus in August, 2002 ranking of these issues is location – specific. The for the first time, the issue came up in the Supreme political system of India is based on multi-party democracy. Every political party gives a top slot to Court. Justice B.N. Kirpal, the then Chief Justice of India who was heading the bench responded so water resource development in its election manifesto. enthusiastically that he converted the PIL for cleaning Every candidate contesting the election promises a water project to his constituents. The availability of of the Yamuna into an independent writ petition and issued notices to the Centre and the States for water is seldom taken into consideration when making interlinking of rivers. these electroal promises. st Non-availability can always be attributed to some When the matter came up again on 31 October 2002, only the Centre and Tamil Nadu endorsed the one upstream who can be shown as having Court’s initiative. The absence of response from all but appropriated all the water, a ripe case for conflict. Water is an easily exploitable issue in electoral polities. one state did not deter justice Kirpal and other Judges from pursuing the task which they took with missionary The potential for conflict had always existed historically, zeal. On the contrary, the learned judges ruled that in but the political leadership facilitated the negotiations. Over the years, this spirit has changed to rigid postures, the absence of affidavits from other states, the assumption was clearly that they do not oppose the with every state rushing to over exploit water and plan made in the Writ Petition and there is consensus accusing neighbours of “stealing” their share. Given this political environment, it is not surprising amongst all of them that there should be inter-linking of rivers in India. that the national river interlinking plan has been The order passed on 31st October, 2002 formed the offered as a miracle solution to water scarcity, primarily for three claims, which it makes :— basis on which the Centre setup a high powered Task Force under Mr. Suresh Prabhu, former Union Minister i) First, interlinking would lead to a permanent of Power. The irony is that the very order that drought proofing of the country by raising the presumed an all India concensus on the subject went irrigation potential to equal the current net sown on record to suggest how the Task Force would go into area of about 150 million hectares. bringing consensus among the States. 1 Another irony about this far-reaching order is that Today, the Calcutta Port is so silted up that crores of there is no mention of the 10 years deadline, though the rupees have been invested to build another port at deadline is presented as part of the project. Justice Haldia. It was to overcome the silting of the Calcutta Kirpal was cautious enough not to put the deadline in Port that the Farakka barrage was constructed to writing lest it raise delicate Constitutional questions of divert more water to the Indian stream. While Farakka the Court’s jurisdiction in the realm of executive policy. has led to drastically reduced water flows to Bangladesh Interlinking of Rivers as a solution for drought and and resulted in constant diplomatic tension with that flood is not a new proposal. It was Sir Arthur Cotton country, it has not been able to save the Calcutta Port. who had originally proposed the networking of rivers One may be tempted to ask Does the Ganga really have more than a century ago, and Dr. K.L. Rao, the surplus water ? Minister of Power and Irrigation in the Cabinet of i) One, the source of the river is drying up, like almost Smt. Indira Gandhi, revived this proposal in 1972. all the other Himalayan rivers. It is well known Both were no doubt eminent engineers. Sir Cotton’s that Gangotri Glacier which feeds the river has prime concern was for inland navigational network receded by over 14 km in the last century alone. and Dr. Rao’s concern was for irrigation and power. ii) Second, increasing amounts of the river’s water Neither could perceive that far wider issues were involved2. are already being used for irrigation as well as urban needs. Mr. Rao presented his plan to link the Ganga and Cauvery. In 1974, a similar proposal ‘Garland Canal’ iii) Third, almost half of the Ganga’s water at Patna was submitted by Captain Dinshaw J Dastur, an air originates in Nepal which has its own plans to pilot. The Government prepared its own plan in 1980 develop hydrological resources. Once these come and in 1982 the National Water Development Agency up, flows would be further reduced in the Ganga. (NWDA) was set up to carry out detailed studies. It Similar facts do not justify the claims that envisioned a 30 year plan but following the Supreme Brahamputra, the Mahanadi and the Godavari are Court directive, the Task Force has published a time water surplus. In any case, the riparian states through table which lists 2016 as the date for completion. No which these rivers pass have their own plans to use this explanation has been provided how this is to be “surplus water”. This puts another question mark on managed. Such a project should