Interlinking Of rivers In India
From the SelectedWorks of Pankaj
Singh
June 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Interlinking of major
rivers in India, aimed at modifying the acute spatial inequity in the
availability of water resources in India, has its origin in the ideas of
K.L.Rao and Captain Dastur, in the form of Ganga-Cauvery Link Canal and the
Garland Canal respectively. Both these ideas were considered to be mere dreams
and not feasible projects by the Ministry of Water Resources. In recent years,
the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has come up with a proposal for a
set of inter-basin transfer canals. The Supreme Court has asked that these
projects of inter-basin transfers be completed in the next 10 years or so.
While the urgency for
assured supply of domestic water needs for all citizens of India is
unquestionably accepted, the present paper examines whether the proposed
inter-basin water transfer project provides the best mechanism to address this
question in terms of environmental sustainability, regional equity and economical
feasibility. In the total absence of technical data and feasibility studies
from the public domain, the paper, after examining the available ideas and
information on the interlinking project, takes the position that supply of
domestic water needs could be better assured with the help of much less costly
water harvesting and consumption projects at local levels.
The paper then questions
the wisdom of extending irrigation facilities to the drier areas, instead of
promoting watershed management for increasing food production. Instead the
increased food production, if at all needed, can come from more efficient water
management and productivity increase in the presently irrigated areas. The
paper thenfinds the only justification for the proposed project on interlinking
in making more water available to the western and southern parts of India, for
diversified and highly lucrative use of land and for industrial uses.
The paper identifies the various social and
environmental costs to be generated by the proposed project and questions the
logic behind the investment of public funds to meet the very heavy costs of the
project. It takes the position that the official confidentiality around the
project could help in packaging and selling a highly cost-ineffective project
as a desirable one. On this basis, the paper stresses the need for a totally
transparent techno- economic and environmental feasibility study of the project
and comparison with other possible solutions, before the interlinking project
is approved.
INTRODUCTION
“Little
drops of water make a mighty ocean”
“Water,
water, everywhere, not a drop to drink”
These well known sayings,
refusing to both the constitution of water and its uses for humankind,
illustrate clearly an inherent flow in the availability of water all over the
world. Although 75% of the earth’s surface is covered with water, only a
miniscule proportion of it is available for human needs as fresh water. With so
little water available and most of it polluted & depleted, disputes over
the use of fresh water are becoming very common.1
Today in India water is one
of the two most important sources of conflict. The other is religion. The
ranking of these issues is location-specific. The political system in India is
based on multi party democracy. Every political party gives a top slot to water
resource development in its election manifesto. Every candidate contesting the
election promises a water project to his constituents. The availability of
water is seldom taken into consideration when making these electoral promises.
Non-availability can always
be attributed to someone upstream who can be shown as having appropriated all
the water, a ripe case for conflict. Water is an easily exploitable issue in
electoral politics. The potential for conflict had always existed historically
but the political leadership facilitated the negotiations. Over the years, this
spirit has changed to
1 See M.V.V Ramana,
Inter-State River Water Disputes in India, 1992, Orient Longman, New Delhi
rigid postures, with every state rushing to over exploit water and
accusing neighbors of “stealing” their share2
Given this political
environment, it is not surprising that the national river interlinking plan has
been offered as a miracle solution to water scarcity, primarily for these
claims, which it makes: -
i) First,
interlinking would lead to a permanent drought proofing of the country by
raising the irrigation potential to equal the current net sown area of about
150 million hectares.
ii) Second,
it would mitigate the annual floods in Ganga and Brahmputra.
iii) Third,
it would add 34,000 MW of hydropower to the national pool.
The passing observation of
the President Mr. A.P.J.Abdulkalam on the eve of Independence Day 2002, set the
momentum for interlinking of lines, hitherto a dormant idea. This prompted an
advocate to attach the copy of Kalam’s speech with a Public Interest Litigation
(PIL), which he had filed for the cleaning of Yamuna and also as regards the
water-sharing dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Thus in August, 2002
for the first time, the issue came up in the Supreme Court. Justice B.N.Kirpal,
the then Chief Justice of India, who was heading the Bench responded so
enthusiastically that he connected the PIL into an independent writ petition
and issued notices to the center and the states for interlinking of rivers.
When the matter came up
again on 31st October 2002, only the Centre and Tamil Nadu endorsed the court’s
initiative. The absence of response from all but one state did not deter
Justice Kirpal and other judges from pursuing the task which they took with
missionary zeal. On the contrary, the learned judges ruled that in the absence
of affidavits
2 See Ramaswamy Iyer, Scarce
Natural Resources and the Language of Security, EPW,16 May 1998
from other states, the
assumption was clearly that they do not oppose the plan made in the writ
petition and there is consensus amongst all of them that there should be
interlinking of rivers in India.
The order passed on 31st October, 2002 formed the basis on which the
Centre set up a high-powered Task Force under Mr. Suresh Prabhu, former Union
Minister of power. The irony is that the very order that presumed an all India
consensus on the subject went on record to suggest how the Task Force would go
into binding consensus among the states.
Another irony about this
far-reaching order is that there is no mention of the ten years deadline,
though the deadline is presented as part of the project. Justice Kirpal was cautions
enough not the put the deadline in writing lest it raise delicate
constitutional questions of the court’s jurisdiction in the realm of executive
policy.
Interlinking of rivers as a
solution for drought and flood is not a new proposal. It was Sir Arthur Cotton
who had originally proposed the networking of rivers more than a century ago,
and Dr. K.L.Rao, the Minister of Power and Irrigation in the Cabinet of Smt.
Indira Gandhi, reviewed this proposal in 1972. Both were no doubt eminent
engineers. Sir Cotton’s prime concern was for inland navigational network and
Dr. Rao’s concern was for irrigation and power. Neither could perceive that far
wider issues were involved3.
Mr. Rao persecuted his
plan, to link to Ganga and Cauvery4. In 1974, Captain Dinshaw J Bastur, an air
pilot, submitted a similar proposal named ‘Garland Canal’. The Government
prepared its own plan in 1980 and in 1982 the National Water Development Agency
(NWDA) was set up to carry out detailed studies. It envisioned a 30 years plan
but following the Supreme Court directive, the Task Force has published a time
table which lists 2016 as the date for completion of the project. No
explanation has been
i) Financial Viability
ii) TechnologicalViability
iii) Ecological Viability
iv) Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment
3 See, Sailendra Nath Ghosh,
Linking up rivers: A Recipe for Disaster, Mainstream, December 14, 2002 4 See Sudhirender Singh,
Linking Rivers: a Dream or a Nightmare? The Hindu, Survey of the Environment
2003, at 41
The NWDA plan has divided
the project into two broad components. The Himalayan part, with 14 river links
is estimated at Rs. 3,75,000 crores and the peninsular component with 17 river
links is estimated at Rs. 1,85,000 crores.
Not only does the economics
of the plan appear to be extremely improbable, serious reservations are also
raised about its claims. It is an open fact that these rivers do have massive
flood flows-estimated at 30,000 to 60,000 cubic metres of water per second
(cusec) during a few days in the monsoon. The plan envisions tapping these
flood flows, storing these in the reservoirs and draining this water over
thousands of kilometers of canals to “parched” agricultural lands in Southern,
Western and Central India. While this may sound good, the finer analysis
reveals that only 4500-cusec water is to be lifted from a total flood flow of
60,000 cusecs5. How lifting only 7.5% of water flow can solve, or even mitigate
floods is a mystery. The other issue not being raised is why water rich
riparians like the Cauvery basin and delta are today parched and water scarce.
Capturing all the water of
a river and stopping its natural flow to divert it outside the basin is
tantamount to killing it. Countries with a history of playing around with
rivers and trying to control them, are now investing billions of dollars to
restore them by removing dams and embankments. In the U.S. alone, more than 100
dams were removed between 1999 and 2002. In 2001, over 115 miles of the river
Baraboo were restored in Wisconsin. Attempts are now on to revive the Colorado
in the Southwestern U.S. as its water dry up before reaching the Ocean. An $8
billion plan has been passed in California
5. See,
Sanjay Pabuja, Linking River-A Sustainability Perspective, The Hindu, Survey of
the Environment, at 20
to revive some of its
rivers. In Spain, protests have stalled the second phase of water transfer from
the Ebro river to the country’s south.6
In such a situation when we
see that countries like the U.S.A, who were the torchbearers and our role
models at the time of independence turning towards rapid decommissioning of
dams, can we stand alone or look for new role models like China for another
half century before we rethink about such grandiose ideas, being sold as the
permanent solution to India’s water problems. One can only hope and wish that
the government carefully thinks through this project before jumping on to
“redraw India’s geography” which can have potentially grievous results for this
country in future.
6. See,
Sailendra Nath Ghosh, Linking up Rivers-A Recipe for Disaster, Mainstream
December 14, 2002
CHAPTER – I PROPOSED PLAN FOR INTERLINKING OF RIVERS
The Prime Minister in his
address to the National Water Resources Council (NWRC) commending the National
water Policy (NWP) 2002, for adoption did not refer to the subject of
interlinking of rivers. Instead he favored community control over water
resources7. However, subsequently the government chose to ignore the view
expressed by the Prime Minister at the NWRC by setting up a task force to
execute the gigantic proposal of interlinking of rivers. Economically, similar
enthusiasm was lacking in the case of decentralized initiatives like the
rainwater harvesting and watershed development programmes.
The National Water
Development Agency which was established in 1982 to work out basin wise
surpluses and deficits and study the possibilities of storage, links and
transfers, has identified 30 river links, which would connect every major
rivers in the Indian mainland, and has prepared a feasibility report on six of
these. The interlinking of rivers has two components: the Himalayan component
and a Peninsular one. The Himalayan Component envisages construction of
reservoirs on the principal tributaries of the Ganga and the Brahmputra in
India and Nepal, along with transfer of water from the eastern tributaries of
the Ganga to the west, apart from linking the Brahmputra to the Ganga and the
Ganga to the Mahanadi. The general idea is to transfer the water from the
southern
7 See Raamaswamy Iyer,
"Linking of Rivers: Vision or Mirage?", Water : Perspectives, Issues
Concerns, at 311
Uttar Pradesh, Haryana,
Punjab and Rajasthan and perhaps southwards to the peninsular component.8 The Peninsular component consists of
interlinking of the Mahanadi- Godavari-Krishna-Pennar-Cauvery, diversion of the
west flowing rivers of Kerala and Karnataka to the east, interlinking the west
flowing rivers north of Mumbai and south of Tapi and interlinking river Ken
with Chambal. All interlinking schemes obviously are for the purpose of
transferring water from one river system to another, aided by either gravity
flows (tunneling through mountains) or by lifting across natural basins. The
above links are meant to carry water from surplus areas to deficit ones. There
are two areas where we have a surplus of water-the Brahmaptura-Meghna system
and the Western Ghats where the rivers carry much of the annual precipitation
into the Arabian Sea. The Brahmputra valley is certainly surplus in water,
causing floods annually creating a perennial problem.
The mandate of the NWDA is
to complete the feasibility report of link schemes. The steps involved in the
implementation of the link schemes after the completion of the feasibility
reports are: -
• Negotiations and interstate agreements among the concerned states
to arrive at a consensus regarding the shaving of surplus water and other
project related agreement.
• Preparation of detailed project reports.
• Techno-economic and environmental approvals and investment
clearance by
the Planning Commission
• Financing arrangement and mode of funding
• Execution of link projects
The project is claimed to
be an answer to the country’s problem of recurring floods and the droughts in
different areas, the generation of cheap hydroelectric power is also put
forward as a justification. It is being hailed as a phenomenal project to unite
all the people of the country and give a developmental impetus of unprecedented
magnitude. It would-
8 See Map 26.2: Source –
Ramaswamy Iyer, “Water, Perspectives, Issues, Concerns”, 2003
• Create the potential to increase agricultural production by an
additional 100 per cent over the next five years.
• Avoid the losses of the type that occurred in 2002 to the extent
of Rs. 25,000 crores by the loss of crops due to drought conditions and
flooding in many parts of the country
• Save 3000 crores a year in foreign exchange by avoiding importing
oil because of the cost effective navigation provided along the long coastline
and the National Water Way which will become a reality by implementing the
project.
• Unify the country by involving every Panchayats as a share holder
and implementing agency
• Provide for enhancing the security of the country by an additional
waterline of defense
• Provide employment to the 10 lakh people for the next 10 years
• Mitigate the flooding problems which recur in the north-east and
the north
every year
• Solve the water crisis situation in many parts of the country
particularly in the
northwest, western and
southern India by providing alternative, perennial water resources.
The real benefits of the
National Water Grid, therefore, would accrue from the additional water supply
that it would create. The Himalayan and the Peninsular components of the
project are expected to provide additional irrigation of about 25mha and 10mha
respectively. Before the feasibility and desirability of this objective can be
examined, we need to look at the larger picture of India’s food and economic
situation.
The Larger Picture
From the food perspective,
we will need an additional 300 million tones of grain in order to meet the
demand of our approximately 1,640 million people in 2050. This would
require more than doubling
the current food production. From an overall economic perspective, the
objective of increasing irrigation potential is being sought due to
agriculture’s contribution to the economy. (According to the Chairman of the
task force for interlinking of rivers, the project will increase India’s GDP by
4 per cent)9
In as much as water is a
critical input for agriculture, the desired increases in food production and
economic growth can be achieved through two paths:
a) by
developing more water resources, and
b) by
increasing the productivity of water utilized.
The two approaches are not
mutually exclusive, but it is primarily the first approach that characterizes
India’s progress since Independence.
Today, India ranks first in
the world in terms of irrigated area, ahead of China and the U.S. Overall, we
have developed over 75 per cent of our surface irrigation potential, and
furthermore, an increasing number of areas are reaching the point of full or
over exploitation of groundwater. 10
Naturally there is a limit
beyond which we cannot develop our water resources. This brings us to the issue
of enhancing the productivity of water. It is the consensus of experts, and as
such is now enshrined in our National Water Policy, that the potential of yield
enhancement measures in India far exceeds that of new water resources development11. The irrigation efficiency on India’s major
irrigation projects has been found to be in the range of 25-35 per cent,
implying that for every three units of water that are beneficially provided to
the crop, seven are wasted. Combined with the fact that the agriculture sector
accounts for 83 per cent of India’s total freshwater use, the amount of water
potentially available through efficiency improvements dwarfs the water
resources that would be developed by the National Water Grid.
9 See, The Hindu, Jan, 9,2003
at 9 10 See, Sanjay Pahuja, Linking Rivers- A Sustainability perspective,
The Hindu Survey of the Environment, at 21 11 See, Ramaswamy Iyer,
"The National Water Policy 2002", Water-Perspectives, Issues,
Concerns, at 56
Advanced drip-and
micro-irrigation techniques in India have demonstrated on-farm water
efficiencies in the range of 80-90 per cent, and concomitant crop yield
increases of 20- 100 per cent depending on the crop. Although high costs are
often cited as a deterrent in implementing water efficiency and
yield-enhancement programs, it is still a cheaper solution than enhancing
supply at the price tag of the National Water Grid. Pursuing a giant
water-supply augmentation project while enormous quantities of water are being
wasted at the farm and basin levels is akin to getting a bigger bucket of water
with a bigger hole in its bottom. Clearly, if food security and economic growth
is the concern of the policy makers, then it would perhaps be a better
alternative to use the additional water for agriculture in those areas where
there is a greater potential to increase the produce and thereby earn more
income. The priority, therefore, should be to develop additional irrigation
potential on good soils within the basins, instead of transferring water for
agriculture across basins. For example, only two-thirds of the net sown area of
the fertile plains of Uttar Pradesh is irrigated. Combined with the
improvements in water efficiency, the additional potential can be translated
into an increased agricultural output.
So we can see that our concerns
regarding food security and a sustained economic growth can be taken care of,
without spending huge sums of money for transferring water from Bengal to
Rajasthan or Kerala to Tamil Nadu, by improving the efficiency of water already
available to agriculture through irrigation. In such a situation, an argument
in favor of interlinking on grounds of food security and economic growth seems
indefensible. In addition, in the introduction to this paper, it has already
been shows that the claims about flood mitigation as a result of interlinking
of rivers, are highly inflated and fallacious with very little possibility of
any change in the flood situation affecting the north and north eastern parts
of India, by a diversions of mere 7 to 8 per cent of flood water.
Therefore the only other
ground on which the Supreme Court could have intervened and passed an order for
interlinking of rivers is the drinking water problem being faced in various parts of southern
and western India12. An intervention on this ground would indeed be commendable, as
because denial of drinking water to people would amount to a denial of ‘right
to life’, a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution.
However one would have to look at the water situation in different parts of the
country and analyze all the possible avenues from which the shortfall can be
met before declaring interlinking as the only solution to the drinking water
problem being faced by the country today. It is extremely doubtful whether
Supreme Court considered all the options in this regard and examined the water
situations in the various parts of the country. A closer scrutiny would have
surely dissuaded it from coming to the conclusion, which it has reached. More
than the mere shortage, the examination of the entire situation should also
consider the causes of scarcity of drinking water. In doing so, one would
surely notice that much of this scarcity is man made and can surely be tackled
with better planning.
A detailed picture in this
regard would be presented in the next chapter. But assuming for a while, that
all these simple measures of tackling our drinking water scarcity problems is
ignored, of which there is a very good possibility, one needs to simultaneously
explore the pros and cons of a venture of interlinking of rivers, the potential
benefits arising out of it and the possibilities of damages in the form of
environmental, ecological, social and economic that it presents. Therefore an
isolated study of interlinking assuming it to be the best option available to
us today is proposed to be done in the coming chapters and then a statement on
its viability and feasibility as a sustainable solution to India’s water
problems will be made.
12 See Narmada Bachao Andolan
V. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664, where the court held, “... right to water
is a basic need for the survival of human beings and can be served only by
providing sources of water where there are none “See also A.P. Pollution Board
v Proof. M.V.Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62, where it was held, “the right of access to
clean drinking water is a fundamental right to life.” See further, Attakoya
Thangal .v UOI. 1991(1) KLT 580, where the court pronounced the fundamental
right to sweet water.
CHAPTER – II WATER SITUATION IN INDIA AND THE CHALLENGE OF
INTERLINKING
The concept of interlinking
is evidentially appealing to considerable sections of the general public and to
policy makers. In a country which quenches its thirst fed with erratic rainfall
patterns and its skewed distribution, uneven climatic pattern ranges from the
overfed Cheerapunji, receiving the maximum rainfall in the world to the
generally arid and semi arid regions of the western and southern India thriving
on as little as 100 millimeter cubic rain.13 It is in this backdrop that interlinking of
rivers is proposed as a major policy option to rejuvenate the parched lands,
the signed earth and the frayed tempers.14
However, even as all these
claims may be true about the impending water crisis, on a careful examination
of the entire proposal to interlink major river basins, the National Commission
for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (NCIWRDP) made following
observations: “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 except in the case of
Cauvery and Vaigai-
13 For instance, the
Brahmaputra-Meghna-Barak Basin receives 677-bcm rain of which only 24 bcm is
used because of the topography. See India Today, January 20, 2003. 14 See, J.Venkatesan,
Interlinking of Rivers by 2016, The Hindu December 18,2002. See also, The
Hindu, February 2, 2003 “Work on interlinking of rivers likely to take off by
year and,” at 10
basins. Therefore it is
felt that limited water transfer from Godavari would take care of the deficit
in Cauvery and Vaigai basins15”.
The point which needs to be
understood over here is that it is not primarily drinking water needs but the
large demands of irrigation that lead to proposals for long-distance water
transfer, though the waters so transferred may also be used to meet drinking
water requirements. However the belief that interlinking is necessary to ensure
adequate and safe water supply to everyone and everywhere is usually misplaced.
Domestic use currently accounts for a mere five percent of the total use of
water harnessed through canals, wells and tube-wells. The requirements are no
doubt growing rapidly but will still be relatively small compared to those of
other uses. Interlinking is hardly justified as the solution for this problem.
Even if interlinking were justified for other reasons, it will not be possible
to take the water to all the habitations without huge investments in a
centralized distribution network. Decentralized local rainwater harvesting, by
reviving and improving traditional techniques can meet essential requirements
for domestic purposes more effectively and at a far lower cost.
2.1 IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PROJECT
The popular appeal of
interlinking of rivers is based on the understanding that an enormous amount of
water of our river flows into the sea and that if only this is prevented, and
water transferred from water abundant rivers to water-deficit areas, there will
be adequate supply for everyone in every part of the country. At another level,
the project is seen as promoting national integration and a fair sharing of the
country’s natural water wealth. Both these presumptions are far too simplistic.
Whether the linking of
rivers will promote integration or generate more disputes and tensions is a
moot question. While the principles on the basis of which riparian states can
share water have been established over time internationally and in the various
agreements between States, the transfer of river water from a surplus basin to
a deficit one has no
15 See, NCIWRDP’s Report,
September 1999
such agreed principles. The
states that are not riparian are assumed not to have any claims to the water of
the rivers. Therefore a transfer of water from one basin to another, which is
going to be used predominantly for commercial purposes like agriculture in the
areas in which the water will be transferred should be done only by mutual
consent and a commercial agreement by which the state (or country) that
receives water pays the donor state a certain amount. It water from Beyond or
Bihar is sought to be transferred to Gujarat or Rajasthan, it is only
legitimate that these states pay for the water that they get from other states
or part with some other resources which they have in plenty and which are
lacking in the water rich states of north and north-east, say resources like
solar energy, which these states manufacture in bulk. Any other basis for
transfer of water is bound to be unacceptable as no state is likely to transfer
water to another foregoing possible future use of such water.
There are also important
institutional and legal issues to be sorted out. There is no mechanism as of
now to deal with matters concerning inter-basin transfers. In this regard a
proposal that is being floated is that the rivers should be nationalized and
the control of the water grid should rest with the centre16. It is highly unlikely that the states will
agree to rest the controlling authority with the centre. In the absence of
consensus among the states over the project, if the centre goes ahead with
existing laws and procedures for dealing with water allocation between the
states within the same basin one can safely assume that this project is going
to breed further animosity and give rise to a plethora of litigations. We know
from experience how contentions, prolonged and difficult this process is. This
caution is both wise and understandable, given the complexity of the issues
induced and the fact that courts have no means to enforce the judgment on river
water disputes and the record of compliance by Governments is at best mixed.
These questions are pertinent and basic to a considered assessment of the
river-linking programme. In the absence of satisfactory answers, criticisms of
the decision to go ahead with the implementation of the project are reasonable
and legitimate.
16 Water i.e. water supplies,
irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power
have been included in list II under entry 17, giving the states the sole
authority to legislate on the subject. However this power is subject to the
power of the Union mentioned n entry 56 of list I, which includes, regulation
and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent to which
such regulation and control under the union is declared by
2.11 POSSIBLE LINKAGES AND THE DETERMINATION OF SURPLUS WATER
A closer examination of the
interlinking idea raises several questions. First, it is based on the
presumption that there are large surplus flows in some basins and that the
physical transfer is feasible in terms of physical engineering and can be accomplished
economically without creating any adverse impact.
The Himalayan component of
interlinking project envisages linking the Brahmputra to the Ganga upstream of
Farakka to meet the needs of Bangladesh and West Bengal. Unless the Ganga flow
can be augmented, India is bound by its agreement with Bangladesh not to
disturb the flow into Bangladesh of the Ganga17. The Brahmputra- Ganga link has two possible
alignments, one of which is through Bangladesh and the other passing entirely through
Indian territory (the Siliguri chicken neck). Bangladesh has already rejected
the proposal for linking Brahmputra through Bangladesh18. The other alignment through Siliguri involves
large scale lifting of water and does not appear to be economically viable.
Thus both the proposed links have serious problems without addressing which the
interlinking of the Ganga and the Brahmputra is not possible. Without this
linkage the whole idea of transferring water from north to south and western
India becomes impossible because it is the Brahmputra valley, which has surplus
water, and not Ganga and therefore this link is absolutely crucial.
Another important factor,
which is going to be very crucial for the successful implementation of the
project, will be the timely release of water from the surplus basin to the
deficit basin. It would be imperative for this to have a basis for the
determination of surplus basins and the magnitude of the surplus. The bad
experience in the Cauvery basin
Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest. Therefore,
the Parliament has the power to legislate on the use, development and control
of the inter-state rivers 17 The Indo-Bangladesh Ganga waters Treaty of 1996 bind both India
and Bangladesh.
18 Bangladesh has expressed
its concern over the project on the ground that it might affect the flow of
Ganges to the Bangladesh and affect its environment and ecology adversely. See,
the Hindu, Oct 1, 2003, at 14.
should serve as a lesson
for any endeavor at sharing of river water between various states and should
certainly be kept in mind before determining any basis for future. The volume
of flows during the flood season is misleading as a basis for judging
surpluses. Nor can the regions where floods occur be considered water surplus.
Most of them may have floods during the monsoon but have inadequate water for
use in the dry season. Substantial tracts in these regions do not have the
benefit of irrigation. Estimates of surplus made by Central agencies such as
National Water Development Agency are hotly contested by the states19.
A more serious difficulty
arises from the fact that most of the flow in practically all rivers occurs
during southwest monsoon. Published data from official sources show that 90 per
cent of the flow in south Indian rivers occurs between May and November. Data
on the Indo-Gangetic and Brahmputra river basins are classified. Being
perennial, the proportion of the total flow occurring during these months may
be somewhat smaller but not all that much smaller. For instance, over 80 per cent
of the annual flow in the Kosi is between May and November, and almost three
fourths between June and October.
The monsoon happens to be
the season when rainfall in the aggregate is adequate for crop growth. Of
course in some regions, such as Rajasthan and parts of Gujarat and the Deccan,
even the Kharif rain is far too low and variable for productive agriculture. In
some others, more water could help switch to more productive crop patterns.
These “deficit” regions are far from those considered “surplus” requiring
transport over very difficult terrain and long distances.
Moreover, since the surplus
occurs in the rainy reason and the demand in the dry season, it is not enough
to merely carry the water from one point to another. Large storages will be necessary.
One needs to know the quantum of water to be stored, and whether and where
potential sites on the required scale are available. The maps and the sketchy
19 Orissa and Andhra Pradesh
are united in their opinion that Mahanadi and Godavri have no surplus water for
transfer to Cauvery and Vaigai Basins. Also states like Bengal, Bihar and
Punjab do not agree to the argument that there is surplus water in the Ganga
system that can be released westwards for non-ripalian states like Rajasthan.
accounts in the media and
official pronouncements tell us little on these aspects. If these maps
accurately reflects the concept of the interlinking project sought to be
implemented, it will only mean that instead of the surplus flows flowing to the
Bay of Bengal via the Ganges and the Brahmputra and the Mahanadi, they will
flow to the sea through the Krishna, the Godavari, the Pennar or wherever20.
2.2 AN ECONOLOGICALLY DESTRUCTIVE EXERCISE
Enthusiasts of interlinking
project tend to be dismissive of the concerns over the environmental and human
consequences of the project. They claim that these fears are vastly exaggerated
or argue that they are unavoidable costs of “development” and that they should
not be allowed to hold back the project. One has to be extraordinarily
insensitive not to recognize the consequences of ignoring these aspects in our
water resource planning in the past. They are reflected in the callous manner
in which displaced persons have been treated, land degradation due to misusage
of water, depletion of groundwater and the growing pollution of water
resources. The experience of the Indira Gandhi Canal is a stark example of the
problems arising in the wake of bringing in vast amounts of water without
adequate understanding of and concern for its impact on the fragile desert
ecology. Among the long list of adverse ecological impacts is the destruction
of innumerable sensitive aquatic ecosystems because of changes in temperature
and flow regimes. This alteration of the chemical and biophysical properties of
the river has not only caused the loss of estuarine fisheries downstream of the
dam, in many instances, but has also impacted water quality very severely. The
losses due to poor water quality in India are staggering. The World Bank estimates
the health costs of water pollution alone to be equivalent of three percent of
the GDP21. With the majority of the Indian rivers being severely polluted,
interlinking them may actually increase these costs. Furthermore, with the
widely recognized failure of the Ganga Action Plan, contaminants from the Ganga
basin are expected to enter other basins and destroy the natural cleansing
20 See, A Vaidyanathan.
Interlinking of rivers, The Hindu, 26 March, 2003 at 8 21 See, Sanjay Pahuja, linking
rivers- A Sustainability Perspective The Hindu Survey of the Environment, at 23
processes of other river
basins. If the clean-up of the main rivers involved in this interlinking
project has been such a dismal failure, does it not portend doom for the
sanitation levels of other rivers? The new areas that will be riverfed after
the introduction of the scheme may experience crop failures or rotting due to
alien contaminants and compounds carried into other streams from the dirty
Ganges.
It has been argued that
similar projects have been undertaken elsewhere without catastrophic
consequences. This claim may be true, but only partially. If we project the
success of interlinking in France or Israel to support a similar project in
India, we can’t probably overlook the dismal failure at Aral Sea caused by a
similar venture, resulting in the virtual death of that sea. That is now
recognized as a great environmental disaster, perhaps the greatest ever, and
desperate attempts are being made to reverse the phenomena. Even the widely perceived
leader of the 20th century in the field of water resource planning, the USA has
realized its folly in building big dams and has taken up the task of large
scale decommissioning of dams every year and restoring the natural flow of
rivers like Colorado. In such a situation, because China has embarked upon its
massive three Gorges Project, whose impact will be seen only in the due course,
that cant serve as a good model for us to follow, as argued by some sections.
With the “linking of rivers” project, we may actually be headed for other
unforeseen disasters and may discover them too late. The situation therefore
demands exercise of a degree of caution before we embark on this enterprise.
With the recognition of
“precautionary principle” under the environmental jurisprudence of our country22, the “onus of proof” is clearly on the
government to show as to how a project like interlinking of rivers, fraught
with serious consequences and its potential for irreversible damage, is
environmentally benign. This would require a thorough Environmental Impact
Assessment and feasibility studies of the proposed links. Let the information
be put into the public domain for experts and all the concerned groups to
22 See, Vellore Citizen’s
Welfare Found V. Union of India, AIR1996 SC2715, where Justice Kuldip Singh has
explained the meaning of this principle. See also, A.P. Pollution Control Board
v Prof. M.V.Naidu, (1999) 2SCC 718
offer their informed
comments. This massive undertaking is too important a matter to be left entirely
to the internal processes of the Government.
Till this is done, it is
difficult to believe that the interlinking programme has been worked out in
sufficient detail to qualify for serious examination, leave alone immediate
implementation.
2.3 THE
PROBLEM OF DISPLACEMENT
The interlinking project if
implemented would lead to construction of canals running into thousands of
kilometers and some 200 storage dams. The obvious fallout of this massive
construction would be the displacement of around four and a half lakh people
and the submergence of nearly 79,000 hectares of forest land23. It is a recognized principle of international
law that no human being can be sacrificed at the altar of economic growth and
while encouraging any development project, its effect on the community must
first and foremost be taken into consideration. The ILO Convention 107, which
has been ratified by India, under Article 11, recognizes both collective and
individual rights over the lands, which the indigenous and other tribal and
semi-tribal populations have traditionally occupied. The Convention protect
them by forbidding their removal from their habitual territories without their
free consent, and in cases where removal of these populations is absolutely
necessary, Article 12 of the Convention speaks about providing a humane or
effective settlement. There also stands a unanimous resolution of the UN
Commission of Human Rights, adopted in March 1993, which held forced eviction
as gross violation of human rights.
In the light of these
international obligations and with the doctrine of incorporation as carved out
by the Indian judiciary in the context of Article 51 of the Constitution,
especially in the light of the Visakha dictum24, the state is under an obligation to protect
23 See Kalyan Kumar
Bandyopadhyay, “Interlinking of Indian River Systems: Its harms may outweigh
its benefits.” At 7 in Seminar on Interlinking of Rivers: Bane or Boon? Centre
for Environment and Development, Kolkata.
24 See Vishakha v State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
the interests of the
tribals and the backward populations, which are sections which have been the
worst hit as a result of these kinds of developmental project25.
This obligation of the
state to secure the lives of ‘project affected persons’ has led to the
enactment of the 73rd and 74th amendments of the Constitution, as also the Provisions of the
Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 whereby the village
communities for the first time have been granted legal recognition as a community
entity. It has also recognized their control over their commons including their
water resources. It is important to note, that the significance of command over
community resources has been recognized not in isolation, or as a mere economic
issue, but in relation to the cultural identity of the people itself. Thus,
through the new Act, the state recognizes the relationship between the
communities and the commons, hence bestowing a very significant and pivotal
role to the village communities to safeguard their interests and empowering
them to meet the challenges both from within and outside.
With the recognition of
tribals and local communities’ claims over their community resources under the
Constitution, any attempt at usurping the rights of the local communities, by
allowing a centralized state to act undemocratically on the principle of trust
doctrine, for operationalizing river linking project in the garb of ‘public
interest’ would be in clear violation of the constitutional norms and our international
obligations.
Looking at the shoddy
manner in which the rehabilitation policies have been implemented in the past,
there is very little room for any kind of optimism for this latest misadventure
of the Central Government. Under these circumstances, any attempt at denying
the tribal communities their rights over their land and water resources
invoking the archaic Land Acquisition Act of 1894 would be patently unjust26. The Rural
25 See Samatha v State of A.P.
(1997) 8 SCC 191, See also, Irrigation, Economic Development and Displacement :
A Macro view. The Administrator, Vol. XLIII, April-June 1998 at p. 68
26 See Gayatri Singh, “Bitter
Price for Development” LEXET JURIS 20 March 1989 at 22 for a detailed
discussion on the flawed Land Acquisition Act 1894, See also, Water Fernandes,
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1998, EPW October 17-24, 1998.
Development Ministry of the
Central Government which has been holding the “Rehabilitation Policy” on its
desk for last so many years, just gives a clue about the keenness and the
urgency which the government attaches to safeguarding the interests of the
‘project affected people’ who have got displaced from their habitats of
centuries, for the implementation of these large scale projects. Under these
circumstances, the ill planned and the hasty river linking project would lead
to further marginalization and disarticulation of these socially and
economically disadvantaged sections of our population, leading to the denial of
their basic human right to leave a peaceful life with dignity.
CHAPTER-III THE FINANCING CHALLENGES
Financing a project of this
magnitude is going to be extremely challenging. Conservative estimates of the
National water development Agency puts the cost of the project at Rs 5,60,000
crores. However cost overruns on account of delays are quite expected.
Conscious of this reality the Task Force Chairperson Suresh Prabhu has himself
indicated that the cost may go upto Rs 10,00,000 crores ($ 200 billion). Even
the minimum estimated cost of Rs5,60,000 crores at 2002 price equals 25 per
cent of our Gross Domestic product (GDP), or two and a half times of our annual
tax collection and double of our present foreign exchange reserves. Where is
the investible capital of this magnitude available in the domestic market?
According to the Government’s Economic Survey for 2001-2002, the country’s
Gross Domestic Savings were lower than the cost of the project. The cost is
also higher than India’s total outstanding external debt by $12 billion27.
Already the spillover
projects of the Tenth and Eleventh plan are expected to cost Rs. 1,80,000
crores on the public exchequer. That leaves little scope of financing the
interlinking project from the planned expenditure. The chairman of the task
force has suggested that the government can raise the required money through
loans, taxes and user charges. Having categorically negated raising external
funding for the project, and realizing the difficulty in raising the money
entirely through taxes, Prabhu has called on the industry to support the
costliest endeavor the country has undertaken. “The Project is all about
tangible benefits.” says he. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and
Industry (FICCI) and the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) are
discussing their positions in the light of the potential benefits that might
accrue from the project. Following the privatization of a stretch of the
Sheonath river in Chattisgarh, the private sector sees a distinct role for
itself in managing country’s water resources. The “interlinking of rivers”
proposal may indeed provide that opportunity28.
27 See Sudhirendra Sharma,
Linking of rivers – A dream or a nightmare? The Hindu Survey of the
Environment, 2003, at 43
28 See, “Private participation
to be sought for interlinking of rivers” The Hindu, Feb 12,2003 at 13.
But this may also mean
giving up the traditional rights of people over water resources, because the
government is seeking not only the capital investment but also recurring
expenses towards operations and management. Privatization helps achieve both,
as consumers have to pay for every drop, whether for household needs or
irrigation29.
With operations and
maintenance expected to cost no loss than $631 per hectare, the success of the
project will depend on how best the recurring costs are realized from the
users. Undoubtedly, the water-stressed communities that stand to benefit from
the proposed interlinking will have to incur the costs of sustaining the
ambitious project. With this being the likely scenario, one wonders whom the
project intends to benefit in the long run30?
Already at the World Water
Forum meeting in 2001, water MNCs successfully managed to get the UN to define
water as a ‘human need’ as distinct from ‘human right’. By the WTO’s
definitions, which are increasingly running the market, human needs can be
supplied by the private entrepreneurs for a profit, unlike a human right that
accrues equally to everyone.
Under these circumstances
the proposal for interlinking of Indian rivers, may give false illusion to the
larger public with dreams of water security, though in reality this grandiose
scheme may well create conditions where large scale privatization of water
becomes the only option. That we seem to be moving blindly towards such a
future is the real danger31.
29 See, A.C. Kamaraj, “Neither
a Dream nor a disaster,” The Hindu, November 20,2002 at 16. 30 See, The Hindustan Times,
24th October, 2002. 31 See, The Statesman, 5th April, 2003 at 7.
CHAPTER-IV
RAIN WATER HARVESTING: AN ALTERNATIVE TO INTERLINKING
The water crisis faced by
India today stems largely from the skewed rainfall that it receives. Much of
the 4,000 billion cubic metres of rain the country receives falls in just 100
hours out of the total of 8,760 hours in a year. Therefore, the trick to tackle
the severe and widespread water problem of India lies in capturing enough water
in these 100 hours in the very areas where it falls in ways, which would lost
for the rest of the parched year.
Any attempt by the
government to ensure round the year water availability in all parts of the
country to meet the basic requirements of people, would succeed only with the
participation of people in such programmes. A community’s sense of ownership
and control of natural resources has been found to be a key determinant for
ensuring this sustainability. There seems to be little hydrological wisdom in
letting rainwater flow down into the river, which is then dammed and much
energy is wasted to pump this water back to those very fields where this water
originally fell as rain. It makes much greater sense to trap the water in small
structure in the villages itself. We have rich traditions of community-based
water harvesting and management in India, each of them well suited to the needs
of a specific environment. The potential of rainwater harvesting in meeting
household needs is enormous. It is a fact that there is no village in India
that cannot meet its drinking water needs from rainwater harvesting32, Apart from household water needs rainwater
harvesting has the potential to meet agricultural requirements as well.
32 See, Anders Wijkman &
Live Gordon, synthesis from the workshop on Meeting Hydroclimatic Viability in
the Tropics and Subtropics : Strategies for Drought Effect Mitigation, Workshop
H B : Water Harvesting. Water-the Key to Socio-Economic Development and Quality
of Life. SIWI Paper 2 (1998) Stockholm, Sweden, Pg. 3
Rainwater harvesting has
the capacity to contribute towards eradication of poverty amongst a substantial
section of rural India. In addition, it can increase groundwater availability
through recharge mechanisms and prevent floods by reducing storm water runoff.
A shining example in this
regard is the community effort to harvest rainwater and recharge the aquifers
in Alwar district of Rajasthan: its success has revived the Arvari, which had
not flown in the last 40 years. Similar district-and watershed-level
experiences from Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh provide
continuing proof that community-based and participatory water management is a
realistic and replicable strategy for the nation. It would have the benefit of
making each village responsible for its own water storage and use. The cost of
such initiatives would be a fraction of the proposed river- interlinking plan
and it would be easy to maintain and repair. The social cost of displacement
would also not exist or be minimal. Most importantly, by making each village
responsible for its own water security, this would encourage more responsible
farming practices and would thus serve as a tool for social change, supporting
poverty alleviation and providing communities’ rights over resources.
The top priority of our
water policy, therefore, should be to develop the potential of decentralized
people-centred water management, couple it with modern water science and
technology, and harness it to tackle the challenges posed by our current water
situation. That would also be the best way to give expression to the views
expressed by the Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee on April 1, 2002,
when in his address to the National Water Resources Council he favored
community control over water resources as the model on which the National Water
Policy should be shaped for an effective water resource management strategy for
the nation at all times in future.
CONCLUSION
India’s ever increasing and
widespread water crisis is the result of the culmination of myopic planning,
muddled policies and misguided perceptions. As cities grew and towns sprouted,
no thought was paid to the emerging mismatch between demand and supply. In the
quest for food security, groundwater was pushed as a solution- it was cheaper
and quicker-while storage and distribution projects were neglected. The race
for industrialization saw no checks on wasteful technology and pollution of
water resources. With rapid development and urbanization, traditional systems
of managing water resources were dismantled and thrown by the wayside. Today,
the very development, growth and security it
sought to build while neglecting the ecological side-effects are under threat.
Water security is indeed
dear to all and there is no doubt that the citizens of India have suffered for
too long from water security. At this crucial juncture in the history of water
resource management in our country, the planners of our country need to proceed
cautiously. As much as we may attempt to manage water supply through mega
projects like interlinking of rivers, we can no longer underestimate the need
to manage our demand and evolve strategies for conservation and augmentation of
water bodies. The government surely needs to redefine the need-availability
paradigm by redesigning and restructuring demand. Growing water intensive paddy
or sugarcane can never be a right of any peasant.
Today when the government
is proposing to undertake river linking project as an answer to India’s water
concerns there is very little information available in the public domain which
can substantiate the tall claims being made by the Government. The total
absence from the public domain of any technical and economic assessment report
on this project surely creates a lack of comfort and confidence in the public
mind on the wisdom behind such an investment decision. The citizens of India
certainly expect the government to be completely transparent and professional
at all levels, before it gets a clearance for this mega project. This is
particularly important at a juncture when the paradigm of water resource
management is undergoing a fundamental change, with old ideas falling by the
wayside, getting dislodged by more integrated and transparent scientific
knowledge. It is an imperative that the people of India are assured that the
country will not be investing in a 21st Century project that is developed on the basis
of a 19th century knowledge base33.
The government has to work
on these fronts and has to realize that firefighting cannot be a substitute for
structural change. The enormity of the crisis dictates urgency- in thought and
action and consideration of the few suggestions mentioned below may go a long
way in tackling our water crisis and providing us a sense of security and
sustainability at all times in future:
_ Reverse the usual approach of proceeding from projections of
demand to supply side answers in the form of ‘water-development’ projects’;
start with a recognition of finite supply and learn to live with it; shift the
focus from ‘water resources development’ to ‘water resources management.’
_ On the supply side, reverse the ranking of big projects like river
linking project as primary and local water-harvesting and watershed-development
programmes as secondary and supplementary; treat the latter as primary and the
former as projects of last resort.
33 See S.Kalyanaraman,
“Interlinking of Rivers,” The Hindu, October 22, 2002 at 16.
_ Where a big project is put forward as necessary, make the planning
interdisciplinary from the start, with all environmental, ecological and human
concerns fully internalized; and put it through a stringent process of
comprehensive and rigorous evaluation to make sure:
a) that
in itself it is a good proposition, and
b) that
in comparative terms it represents the best choice out of the available
options and alternatives
_ Transform
the cost-benefit analysis into a careful, comprehensive and sensitive
multi-criteria analysis34
_ Give primacy to the affected people, make them part of the
planning and decision- making process from the start, and give them the first
rights over the benefits of the project.
This would serve as a more
holistic and participatory effort of water resource management and has the
potential to serve our needs better than the environmentally unsafe and archaic
methods of damming the rivers imposed on us by the colonial rulers of the past,
a legacy we cannot afford to pass onto our future generations. Rather than
trying to play God it may be better to manage within the available water
resources.
PRIMAY SOURCES
1. 2. 3.
Constitution of India Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 Forest Conservation Act
BIBLIOGRAPHY
34 See Aniket Alam, “River
Grid, The Preferred solution?”, The Hindu, December 2,2002 at 9.
SECONDARY SOURCES
1. Sailendra
Nath Ghosh, “Linking up Rivers: A Receipe for Disaster” Mainstream, December
14, 2002
2. Aniket
Alam, Pipe Dreams ; The Hindu, Feb. 2, 2003
3. Manoj
Mitra, “The River Sutra” The Indian Express, July 26, 2003
4. Sujata
Sachdeva, “River-linking: Network of Solution or Problem” Times of India
December 19, 2002
5. Ramaswamy
R Iyer “Linking of Rivers: Judicial Activism or Error?” EPW, Nov 16, 2002
6. Shankar
Aiyar, “Changing the Course”, India Today, Jan. 20, 2003.
7. Ramaswamy
R Iyer, Linking Rivers: Vision or Mirage ? Frontline, December 20, 2002
8. Water
Fernandes, “Displacement and the Land Acquisition Act 1894”, Combat Law, April
– May 2002
9. A
Vaidynathan, Interlinking of rivers, The Hindu, 26 March, 2003
10. Jayanta
Bandyopadhyay, “And quiet flows the river project”, Business line, The Hindu,
March 14, 2003.
11. Ramaswamy
R Iyer, “Water: Perspectives, Issues, Concerns” Sage Publications, New Delhi,
2003
12. Biksham
Gujja and Hajara Shaik, Linking Rivers: learn from others’ mistakes,” The Hindu
Survey of the Environment 2003.
13. Neil
Pelkey, “Linking Rivers: Cost of the behemoth”, The Hindu Survey of the
Environment, 2003
14. Aniket
Alam, “Linking Rivers: Would it drought-proof India,” The Hindu Survey of the
Environment, 2003,
Annexure I:
Orders of the Supreme Court in brief with respect to
the interlinking of rivers.
Petition (Civil) No.512/
2002
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
“IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS”
Date: 31/ 10/ 2002 This Petition was called on for hearing today
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.K SABHARWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT
PASYAT
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER
Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court to all the States and
the Union Territories in relation to the inter- linking of the rivers, an
affidavit has been filed by the Union of India and also by the State of Tamil
Nadu. No other State or Union Territory has filed any affidavit and the
presumption, therefore, clearly is that they do not oppose the prayer made in
this writ petition and it must be regarded that there is a consensus amongst
all of them that there should be inter-linking of rivers in India.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it
has, inter alia, been stated that after Rao Committee’s report was received,
the Government of India has been studying and planning inter-linking of rivers
for over two decades. It is also mentioned in this affidavit that the Ministry
of Water Resources had made a representation on 5th October, 2002 before the
Prime Minister on inter-linking of rivers and in that presentation the Dy.
Prime Minister and other senior ministers and officers were also present. It
was suggested that a High Level Task Force can be formed which will go into the
modalities for bringing consensus among the States. This affidavit further
states that the presentation was also made to the President of India on 16th October, 2002 which also
shows the interest of the President of India in this project and it is in view
of his broadcast to the nation on the eve of the Independence Day where
emphasis was laid on the inter-linking of rivers that has given rise to the
filing of the present petition.
Learned Attorney General states that a High Powered Task Force, as
referred in the Affidavit of the Union of India, has not yet been formed and by
the next date of hearing he should be in a position to inform this Court with
regard to the formation of the said task force as well as the decision of the
said Force. The Union of India has accepted the concept of inter-linking of
rivers and in the affidavit spelt out the benefits which will annure after the
entire project has been completed.
The State of Tamil Nadu is the only State which has responded to
the notice issued by this Court and filed an affidavit. The said State also
supports inter-linking of the rivers and in its affidavit has prayed that a
direction be issued to the Union of India for constituting a High Powered
Committee in order to see that the project is completed in time schedule.
Alongwith this affidavit the prospective plan for implementation of inter-basin
water transfer proposals prepared by the National Water Development Agency in
May, 2000 has been placed on record. We are distressed to note that milestone
for the perspective plan indicated in the report of the Agency shows that even
though the Pre- Feasibility Reports regarding the Peninsular and Himalayan
projects are already completed, the completion of the linked projects
ultimately will be by the year 2035 in respect of Peninsular Link Project and
2043 regarding Himalayan Link Project.
It is difficult to appreciate that in this country with all the
resources available to it, there will be a further delay of 43 years for
completion of the project to which no State has any objection and whose
necessity and desirability is recognised and acknowledged by the Union of
India. The project will not only give relief to the drought prone areas but
will also be an effective flood control measure and would be a form of water
harvesting which is being rightly propagated by the Union of India and all the
States.
Learned Attorney General states that a more realistic view will be
taken and a revised programme on completion would be drawn up and be presented
to the Court. We do expect that the programme when drawn up would tray and
ensure that the link projects are completed within a reasonable time of not
more than ten years. We say so because recently the National Highways Projects
have been undertaken and the same is nearing completion and the inter-linking
of the rivers is complementary to the said Project and the water ways which are
so constructed will be of immense benefit to the country as a whole.
The report of the National Water Development Agency refers to
negotiations and signing of agreements. This aspect is also adverted to by the
Union of India in its affidavit when it mentioned that consent of all the States
affected by the inter-linking of the rivers has to be obtained. Learned
Attorney General would like to consider this aspect as it is contended by Mr.
Ranjit Kumar that if a legislation under Entry 56 of List I of the Constitution
is made, the need for the consent would not arise and the Centre would be in a
position to undertake the project and complete the same within a reasonable
period of time.
It is not open to this Court to issue any direction to the
Parliament to legislate but the Attorney General submits that the Government
will consider this aspect and, if so advised, will bring an appropriate
legislation.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus has drawn our attention to River
Board Act, 1956 which has been enacted by the Parliament. Learned Attorney
General would look into this in order to examine whether any further piece of
legislation is necessary for bringing about inter-linking of the rivers.
The parties are at liberty to file in Court any reports or papers
containing studies in respect of the said project. To come up for further
orders on 16th December 2002.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512/ 2002 “IN RE: NETWORKING OF RIVERS”
Date: 16/12/2002 These petitions were called on for hearing today CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.K SABHARWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT
PASYAT
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER
Learned Attorney General
has brought to our notice resolution dated 13.12.2002 passed by Ministry of
Water Resources, Government of India, inter alia, stating that National Water
Development Agency has, after carrying out detailed studies and investigations
for preparations of feasibility reports identified 30 links and prepared feasibility
reports of six such links. It also notices various basin States have expressed
divergent views about the studies and feasibility reports prepared by the said
Agency and with a view to bringing out a consensus among the States and provide
guidance on norms of appraisal of individual projects and modalities for
project funding etc. the Central Government has set up a Task Force, details
whereof are given in paras. 3 and 4 of the resolution. para 5 sets out the
terms of reference of the said Task Force and para 8 sets out the time table
for achieving the goal of inter-linking of river by the end of 2016. Mr. Ranjit
Kumar, learned amicus curiae, prays for a short adjournment for filing response
thereto. List on 20th January 2003.
ANNEXURE - II
ANNEXURE - III
No comments:
Post a Comment