India will face severe water shortages by 2025 as demand is projected to exceed available supply. One proposed solution is interlinking India's rivers to transfer water from surplus to deficit regions. The document discusses the history and technical details of various interlinking proposals. It also outlines both benefits such as flood control and drinking water availability, as well as criticisms such as large costs, environmental and social impacts, and technical challenges. Ultimately, it argues local water conservation and groundwater management may be more practical alternatives to the ambitious interlinking plans.

1. INTERLINKING OF RIVERS
TODAY WE ARE WATER STRESSED,
BUT TOMORRROW WE WILL BE WATER SCARCE.

2. WHY WILL BE INDIA WATER DEFICIT?
 Annual rainfall- 400 m.ha.m.
 Total utilizable surface and ground water after full
development of water resources-114m.ha.m.
UTILIZATION:
 1991- 58m.ha.m.
 2001- 79m.ha.m
 2025- 114m.ha.m
Thus the entire quantum of utilization water will be exhausted
by the year 2025.

3. Proposed solution
INTERLINKING OF RIVERS

4. HISTORY OF INTERLINKING
 1972-Ganga cauvery link proposed by Dr. K.L.Rao .
 1974-“Garland canal” proposal by captain Dastur .
 1980-Ministry of water resources frames the National perspective
plan(NPP) .
 1982-The National water development agency (NWDA) set up to
carry out pre – feasibility studies .
 1999-A National commission (NCIWRDP) set up to review NWDA
reports .
 Aug 15, 2002- President Abdul Kalam mentions the need for river
linking in his independence day speech .
 Oct 2002- Supreme court recommends that the government
formulate a plan to link the major Indian rivers by the year 2012.
 Dec 2002- Govt. appointed a task force on interlinking of 37
rivers led by Mr. Suresh Prabhu. The deadline was revised to
2016.

5. STATED BENEFITS
 Alleviating droughts and flood control.
 Cheap water for irrigation.
 Availability of drinking water.
 Generation of hydroelectric power.
 Allowing more inland navigation.
 Employment generation.
 Fostering a spirit of national integration.

6. INTERLINKING:SALVATION OR FOLLY
 Riparian rights: conflict between states (as- kauveri and
Mahanadi issue) have to be resolved. In addition worry of
Bangladesh and Nepal have to be taken into account.
 Financing: Raising 5.6 lakh crores of rupees is a tough task
and if created maintenance of huge asset is a problem. Fear of
privatization of water resources.
 Flood period: Idea of networking flood water to the deficient
basin does not consider the surplus period of donor area and
deficient period of recipient area.

7.  Desertification: Prevention of natural flooding may led to
desertification as there will be loss of fertile soil.
 River pollution: Reducing the flow of river by diversion
will increase the concentration of pollutants in the river.
 Security: Security of network will be an enormous load on
security forces of central and state governments. As canal
can be easily breached by manual or natural activities.
 Land acquisition and displacement: Misery and
injustice to the displaced people in obtaining compensation
due to systemic corruption.

8.  Technical feasibility: The slope, altitude and other
topographical aspects have to be considered. (e.g. for
Ganga, Patna is diversible surplus but for raising water to
Vindhya chain i.e. 2860 ft. high enormous amount of power
is required).

9. ILR PRICE TAG
 Financial cost:-
5.6 L Crores Rs:-
- 250% of India’s tax revenue in 2002
- 1/4th of India’s annual GDP
- Twice the entire irrigation budget of India
since 1950

10.  Rehabilitation cost:
- Estimated that 8,000 sq. km. of land affecting the
thousands of villages and towns
- 33 mn of people have been displaced in India during
the last 50 years most have not been rehabilitated
and ILR will also displace million of people from the
most needy section.

11.  Environmental cost:
- 50,000 ha of forest to be submerged only by
peninsular link.
- Intensive irrigation in unsuitable soils will lead to
water logging and salinity.
- Highly polluted rivers will spread toxicity to other
rivers.
- River system will be altered catastrophically
creating droughts and desert.

12. Doubtful role of government agencies
 Claimed that 35 mn ha of dry land regions will be brought
under irrigation but the areas not clearly identified.
 No clear answer to the issue of displacement and
resettlement.
 The reports regarding the feasibility of the interlinking not
made public.
 KEN BETAWA LINK:
 Not yet clear, which is surplus basin and which is deficit.
 1991 census data used for the implementation in 2005.
 No proper assessment of the ecological and social
aspects.
 Only 3 dams figured in the report out of 10.

13. Alternatives to ILR
 Rainwater harvesting and conservation of
water resources : Changes in topography, soil
system and runoff flow pattern in a changing climatic
environment is considered. Not only stored rain water
but soil erosion is also prevented.
 Recharging ground water reservoir : Skills have
to be developed for arresting rain water where it falls
and allowing it to recharge these ground water
reservoirs.

14.  Large scale utilization of ground water in
deltas : practically feasible and initiatives for borewell
development and irrigation needed with responsibility
lying .
 Community participation: Approaches of reducing
water consumption by the affluent in the cities and reducing
the wastage of water by the farmers in their field can be
attempted.

15. Options for Power
 Reduce T&D losses
 End Use efficiency (pumps, CFLs)
 Demand Side Management .
 Generation options: Small Hydro, wind,
biomass, solar

16. CONCLUSION
considering the pragmatic view of all the
issues raised it can be concluded that
implementation of this ambitious scheme is
not possible in foreseeable future. Hence it
can be a better option to concentrate on the
local resources and think upon the
alternatives available

17. References:
 “National seminar on interlinking of rivers” , seminar
document, April 2003.
 Gopal Krishna and Uma Shankari, “Interlinking Rivers:
Contradiction and confrontations”, 2004,
riverlinks@yahoogroup.com
 “Interlinking the rivers of India is a mirage”, Dec 2002.
www.indiatogether.org/opinions/guest/interlink.htm
 ‘The mindlessness called river linking proposals”, may
2003, www.sandrp.org
 B.P. Radhakrishna, “Linking of major rivers in India: Boon
or Bane?”, June 2003, current Science, Vol. 84, No. 11

18.  Dev Goel, “A political economic analysis of
India’s river interlinking project”, 2005,
http://dscholarship.lib.fsn.edu/undergrad/132
 S.G. Vomabatkere, “Interlinking of Rivers:
Salvation or Folly?”, 05 Sep, 2006,
http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/wtr-
sgvintlink02.htm
 Anil Aggarwal, “Interlinking of India’s Rivers- A
reality check”, 2004,
http://studentorgs.ntexas.edu/aidaustin/conf2004
/reading_list/ILR_booklet
 B. Sivaraman, “Interlinking of rivers in India”,
June 2003,
http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2003/june/in
terlinking_river.htm

19. Learning's:
The environmental, political and the economical
aspects of the topic have provided us with the
importance of water conservation. To answer the
problem of water scarcity, local centralized steps
can be the most viable effort (e.g. water
harvesting). But in these efforts we also have to
play important roles by creating awareness among
the individuals of the society as well as within us.
And this effort we have already initiated by efficient
use of water in our day to day life. We wish to be
the part of these efforts in our coming days and
will certainly prove our worth to the society we live
in.