1_interlinking of Rivers _22, 26.Doc

7/29/2019 1_interlinking of Rivers _22, 26.Doc

1/16

NATURAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENT

Submitted to :

Dr. C. Shambu Prasad

TERM PAPER

INTERLINKING OF RIVERS

Submitted By

NIKASH ANAND (22)

NISHI KALPANA PANDEY(26)

XAVIER INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

BHUBANESHWAR


2/16

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

TOPIC PAGE NO.

ABSTRACT 3

INTRODUCTION 4

ASSUMED NEED FOR INTERLINKING 4-5

ARGUMENTS AGAINST INTERLINKING

RIPARIAN RIGHTS

FINANCING FLOOD PERIOD DESERTIFICATION RIVER POLLUTION SECURITY LAND ACQUISITION TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

5-8

THE ILR PRICE TAG 9-10

ALTERNATIVES TO ILR

RAIN WATER HARVESTING RECHARGING GROUND WATER RESERVOIR LARGE SCALE UTILISATION OF GROUND

WATER IN DELTAS

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

10-12

THE QUESTIONS WHICH REMAINED UNANSWERED 12-13

CONCLUSION 13

OUR LEARNINGS 14

REFERENCES 15

APPENDIX-I

( TIME LINE OF ILR)


3/16

3

Abstract

A familiar phenomenon in human history is the fight to secure natural re-

sources. . This term paper will examine how one country, India, is seeking to solve itswater problems via the interlinking of all its rivers. River interlinking is a project

that is both visionary and controversial in claiming to cure all of the country's

water problems. The goal of the project is to interlink all the country's riverstogether. This, allegedly, will provide water to all by diverting water from areas

that have a `surplus' to those that don't and "by preventing the unnecessary

spillage of water into the sea." Furthermore, such water transfers would also be

aimed at flood control during the erratic monsoon season, where flood waterscould simply be diverted away. However, Interlinking at the same time has the

potential to become another grand, large scale project of the sort that createsmore problems than it proposes to solve. To assess the risk of this fate, this paper tries to

analyze the consequences which the human society has to face, in terms of cost benefitanalysis. It also takes into account the various factors which question the feasibility of the

project. It aims at providing the readers ample information about the various alternatives

possible in order to efficiently answer the problem of water scarcity. Various exampleshave been cited which will help in the better understanding of the current scenario of the

ILR project.(e.g. Ken- Betawa Link). Hopefully this paper will help the readers in

visualizing the issue and understanding their role in finding solutions to the current

problem of water crisis.


4/16

4

1. INTRODUCTION:

A familiar phenomenon in human history is the fight to secure natural resources. Its fair

to say that among these resources, water has been the most important for the existence ofcivilization and water crisis are the frequent occurrences across the globe. Droughts and

floods are the two extremes of water management. And addressing the remedies to these

two extremes while taking into account of the water management intermediaries i.e.availability of drinking and irrigation water, Our Honble President Dr. APJ Abdul kalam

has emphasized the urgent need of interlinking of rivers (ILR) in his Independence Day

speech on august 15th

, 2002. Later the supreme courts verdict regarding ILR on asking

the govt. to set up a high level task force to workout the modalities for interlinking ofrivers within 10 years and to bring about consensus among the state for completion of the

project had set the momentum across the country about the issue.

ILR is not a new concept; it is more than 150 years old starting from Lt. Gen. Sir ArthurCotton who has pioneered the development of water resources in southern India and first

time proposed interlinking of water resources. In 1960s, K.L. Rao, the then union

minister of state for power and irrigation spoke of linking of the Ganga with the Cauverythrough a 2600 km long canal. Further, The Garland Canal proposal made by captain

Dastur envisaged a 4200 km long Himalayan canal and 9300 km long southern canal.

However, these projects were rejected,but the thought was resuscitated, when in the 80sthe minister of water resources formulated a national perspective plan for water resource

development by transferring water from water surplus basins to water deficient basins by

interlinking of rivers. And in 1982, the NWDA was set up to study the feasibility of

interbasin transfer scheme, which has put forward a series of 30 links. And when supreme

court passed an order directing the government of India to link the rivers to combatreccuring droughts and floods on 31st

october2002, there was a surprise all around. Link

rivers? people dismissed it as a misplaced judicial activism, which indeed it is. Therehave been sufficient voices in favour of the implementation of the project and

governmental agencies are working on this project to make it a huge success. Ever since

Mr. Suresh Prabhu was appointed as chairman of the task force on riverlinking on Dec

16th

, 2002, he has emerged as a forceful proponent of completing the river linking task assoon as possible And India, as a country is seeking to solve its water problems via the

interlinking of rivers.

2. ASSUMED NEED:

River interlinking is a project that is both visionary and controversial in claiming to cureall of the countrys water problems. The goal of the project is to interlink all the countrys

rivers together. This allegedly, will provide water to all by diverting water from areas that


5/16

5

have a surplusto those that dont and by preventing the unnecessary spillage of water

into the sea. Furthermore, such water transfers would also be aimed at flood control

during the erratic monsoon season, where flood water could simply be diverted away.

Interlinking is intuitively appealing on initial inspection. The various states and regions

of India are victims of unequal distribution of water, and interlinking presents itself as acomprehensive solution to the problem. According to the task force on interlinking ofrivers (TFILR) that was created to implement this project, the benefits are not simply

restricted to alleviating droughts and flood control. Interlinking intend to provide

numerous benefits, such as cheap water for irrigation , drinking water , hydroelectricpower, allowing more inland navigation, generate employment and fostering a spirit of

national integration. Furthermore, it has been claimed that interlinking will save the

exchequer money.

But there have been sufficient evidences of the past that any decision taken in a hurry

have made the humans to pay in a large sum. Regarding interlinking of rivers there is a

question mark on its feasibility but the very fact is that the govt. has suddenly decided togo ahead with the project on a misguided suggestion from the Supreme Court. The

political consensus on the issue of interlinking of rivers is a myth. Already states like

Assam, Bihar, Kerala, Punjab, Orissa, Goa, Bengal and Maharashtra have raised

objections to it. Since the drought states of Rajasthan will not be a beneficiary of the link-up, will it have to be treated as a hopeless case?

3. ARGUMENTS AGAINST INTERLINKING

But before working extensively on this project some brainstorming is needed to be done

by the government agencies and the possible hindrances have to be thought of.

3.1 Riperian Rights:

Under entry 17 of constitution, water is a state subject subject; almost all powers vestwith the state. Mahanadi wherefrom the peninsular links will start and which has the

surplus water. orissa has in past consistently taken a stand that there is no surplus water in

Mahanadi. If orissa does not agree the other major links fall through. Similarly, states ingodavari basin have to agree for transfer and construction of dams on tributaries ofgodavari for transfer of water to other basins.

In the present political scenario in the country, where states have become dominant and

the central govt. is a multiparty coalition and weak, agreement of states will be seriouslimitation.

And thinking of Himalayan component, which entirely depends on the construction of

dams on the tributaries of Ganga in Nepal. In spite of continuous effort over the last 25


6/16

6

years, it has not been possible to reach agreement with Nepal on a single project.

similarlyBangladesh has stoutly rejected a proposal to constructed Brahmaputra- Ganga

links through its territory. And with acute shortage of power the proposal is not feasible.Or precisely stating, the Himalayan component is not likely to be feasible.

So the grand vision of long distance water transfer from one basin to another is totally

uncalled for , when we cannot even persuade neighbouring states within a basin to agreeupon sharing of waters.

3.2 Financing:

The effect on the economic and political independence of India due to borrowing an

enormous amount of money (estimated today at Rs.5.6 lakh crores as conveyed by

Government of India to the Supreme Court, but it would surely increase) needs to be re-considered. This especially when India is almost in a debt trap with rising debt servicing

almost equaling loans received from financial institutions like World Bank or Asian

Development Bank. It is also necessary to consider whether we will be in a financial and

physical position to maintain the huge assets when created (dams, canals, tunnels, captiveelectric power generation plants, etc.) in order for the system to continue to function and

give the benefits for which it is designed. If we cannot maintain the network, the capitalassets created will deteriorate and be lost and the benefits of the project and incomesfrom it will not be available, though the loan liability would remain. This will inevitably

lead to take over of assets by the creditor Banks to consolidate the entry of foreign

interests into India. The political aspect of forcible project implementation is increasingdisaffection among displaced people who already number tens of millions since

Independence. The talks have also been on financing by private sources but it may lead to

the privatization of water resources that will not be in the interest of the citizens of India

(e.g. Shivanath river in Chattisgadh).

3.3 Flood Period:

The basic idea of networking rivers is to convey unwanted floodwaters from one place to

another where it is deficient and needed. But this idea does not consider that the periodwhen it is surplus in the donor area ( July to October in the Ganga-Brahmaputra basins) is

not the time when it is needed most in the recipient area (January to May in the

peninsular rivers). In such a situation, it will be necessary to construct enormous holding

reservoirs that will add to financial, social and environmental costs.

3.4 Desertification:

Flooding per se is not undesirable because it results in deposition of alluvium particularly

in the delta areas of rivers to maintain the fertility of the land by compensating loss of

topsoil due to natural erosion. Any system that prevents or severely reduces naturalflooding (by diversion of floodwater) will cause land fertility to gradually reduce over the

years, thus desertifying the land. The greatest loss that land can suffer is desertification

by loss of topsoil. The land that will be so lost to cultivation is the most fertile delta land,


7/16

7

and therefore the impact of this on total food production needs to be factored into the

discussion. History tells us that entire civilizations have vanished due to desertification.

3.5 River Pollution:

Annual floods flush industrial and municipal pollution in the Ganga down to the ocean.Reducing the flow in the Ganga by diversion will increase the concentration of pollution

in the river. A live example is the Yamuna, from which Haryana and Delhi draw so much

water that it barely flows after Delhi and the water quality at Delhi is so poor as to bepositively poisonous. It is relevant to note that the expensive project to clean the Ganga

has not succeeded even with annual flooding. This is not to argue that pollution of river

water is inherent and may never be checked at source, but that this factor is yet anotherthat needs to be included in the legitimacy check for the project. So linking of rivers is a

disastrous idea from the environmental point of view. Interlinking a toxic river with a non

toxic one will have a devastating impact on all rivers and as consequence on all human

beings and wild life.

3.6 Effect on aquatic life:

The interlinking of rivers is also going to play a major role in disturbing the aquatic

ecosystem dynamics. If the rivers from the Himalayas will be connected with the riversof peninsular India, there will be a difference in thermal potential. i.e. the water comingfrom the Himalayan origin will be having lower temperature as compared to the

peninsular India. And this difference in temperature gradient will harm the aquatic flora

and fauna of the region.

3.7 Security:

India has a national electric power grid that functions with difficulty because supply does

not meet demand. However it is kept functional because electric power can be switchedfrom one circuit to another in the grid. Further it is not easy to deliberately interfere

physically with the flow of very high voltage (upto 132 kV) electricity on overhead

conductors atop huge pylons. But a national water grid is entirely different because water

does not flow instantaneously like electricity, it cannot be switched like electric power,and it can very easily be tampered with enroute to divert, pump out or interrupt flow. A

canal breached deliberately or due to natural circumstances combined with poor

maintenance would spell disaster for the areas around the breach. Water is basic for

human survival unlike electric power, and motivation for interference is that much more.Maintenance of a network of canals, dams, etc., will have to be done under central

supervision. Flow can be prevented or caused by the simple expedient of taking control

of sluice gates as demonstrated by farmers during the recent Cauvery water problem.Thus security of the network will be an enormous load on security forces of Central and

State Governments. In contrast, decentralized systems can be maintained, repaired and

protected by those who benefit from them and live nearby.


8/16

8

3.8 Land Acquisition:

How do you consider the acquisition of 8000 sq km of land when acquisition of land evenin acres is a vexed issue that takes years? Even if fresh legislation makes it possible

within a short period, its implementation will cause untold misery and injustice to the

displaced people in obtaining compensation due to systemic corruption. Besides, land forresettlement is mostly not available.

In sum for this section of the series, we must scrutinize closely and guard against ourtendencies to address the political challenges of progressive policy and lawmaking for

resolution of conflicts over natural resources with technology-heavy solutions.

3.9 Technical Feasibility:

And if all we dont consider all these aspects the basic approach of technical feasibilityalso pose a hindrance towards the implementation of the project. As e.g. considering

Mahanadi- Godavari link, a dam across Mahanadi in Orissa at Manibhadra ascontemplated by the Government of orissa is considered for the diversion of water fromMahanadi to Godavari. The gross and live storages of the reservoir are 9,375 Mcum and

4,295 Mcum respectively. The diverted water will be received at the existing Sir Arthur

Cotton Barrage on Godavari at Dowlaisaram in Andhra Pradesh. The total length of thelink canal is about 932 km. But difference in the altitudes has not been taken into accountand the additional power required for uplifting the water has been not even thought of.

Similarly there are several aspects which question the technical feasibility of other links.

Considering the first link of ILR, Ken-Betawa link, whose feasilbilty is also under

suspicion as there were various issues that have not been studied? 17,308 ha will be

submerged in three dams and for the other 7 dams, about 21 800 ha to be submerged. Inaddition, at least 3 500 ha land will be required for canals. Totally Ten dams are planned

as part of this link, but info of only three included in the financial report. Social impacts

based on 1991 census figures in 2005. This clearly depicts that Socio-Economic andEnvironmental impacts studies yet to be done and no information about this in the

financial report has been provided. In addition to this there are several conflicts that have

to be resolved. Firstly it should be clearly stated that which river is deficit and which issurplus? There were differing voices abut the current water status of the two rivers. These

conflicts have already posed a threat to the ongoing project and there are lot more to

come.


9/16

9

4. ILR PRICE TAG:

4.1 Financial cost:

Initial estimated cost was rs. 5, 60,000 crores just for infrastructure rehabilitation,environmental cost, so on. The task force members have admitted it could exceedRs 1,000,000 crores

What does this huge number mean? Rs 5,60,000 crores is:-250% of the Indias entire tax revenue in 2002

-1/6 th of the Indias annual GDP(2005)

-more than twice the entire irrigation budget of India since 1950.

4.2 Rehabilitation cost:

It is estimated that ILR would submerge 8000 sq. km of land affecting thousandsof villages and towns.

Millions of people will be displaced from the neediest sections. Around 33 million have been displaced in India during the last 50 years and most

have not been rehabilitated, ending up destitute.

4.3 Environmental cost:

50,000 ha of forest to be submerged just by the peninsular links. River system will be altered catastrophically creating new drought and deserts,

destruction of fisheries seawater ingress. Intensive irrigation is unsuitable soils will lead to water logging and salinity as in

Indira Gandhi Irrigation Canal.

Highly polluted rivers will spread toxicity to other rivers.

A million crores- what it mean for India

Completion of existing irrigation projects alone requires Rs. 80,000 crores withmany languishing due to lack of funds. Renovation of tanks, watershed

development and rain water harvesting compete for the same shrinking pie. A

massive allocation for ILR simply means creating a black hole that sucks away allthe resources.

Heavy borrowings will be inevitable, sinking the country into a debt trap. Theinterest alone could be Rs 30,000 crores per year.


10/16

10

The task force is already talking of contracts to foreign companies. This is clearpath to private ownership of our water resources.

The project is a mouth watering prospect for politicians and contractors- even a10% graft from the project cost would leave the country short by Rs 100,000

crores.

5. DIFFERING VOICES OF STATESKarnataka: (May 1, 2003) H K Patil, Karnataka minister for water resources reportedlysaid, It is doubtful about the centrehaving the political will to interlink rivers in view of

its failure to clear the Mahdayi- Mahaprabha and the Godavari- Krishna projects pending

for mare than 2 decades.

Tamil Nadu:(April 22, 2003) Tamil Nadu ready to extend all help to the task force for

early execution of the project but the existing inter- state agreement on water sharingshould not be disturbed.

Andhra Pradesh: Willing to have the project started from the state as it will trigger thepace of several pending projects in the state.

Kerala: Informed the task force on proposed linking of Pamba and Achankovil riverswith Vaippar in Tamil Nadu is not acceptable to the state as it reflects the discriminatory

approach of the centre.

Similarly other states are also having different stands on the issues

as Bihar, Assam and Gujarat have rejected it from the head start while Maharashtra is indilemma.

6. ALTERNATIVES TO INTERLINKING

Interlinking of rivers seems to be a massive approach but it also encompasses several

problems which may led the human beings to face serious consequence as we havewitnessed in several other big projects like Sardar Sarovar. Instead of indulging in suchfanciful schemes it would be more sensible to encourage the traditional practice of

preserving rain water and device the new methodologies to tap the unutilized resources.

Eminent scientists and environmentalists have already considered these points and came

up with several alternatives. Some of these are listed below:


11/16

11

6.1 Rainwater harvesting and conservation of water resources:

The most obvious way to preserve as much rain water as possible is to impound itwhere it falls. This is what our ancestors tried to do and succeeded. It is evident by the

numerous bunds, ducts and tanks that are characteristic features of the southern India

landscape. Rain water have been practiced since time immemorial. Many successfulattempts have been made in this direction in Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradeshand their efficacy could convince government agencies who are much eager to implement

ILR.

If we are to fight drought on a large scale, the construction of small water storage

structures at site is inevitable. A recent French study shows that the indigenous

technology developed earlier and perpetuated in Vijayanagar times (1365-1565) ia an

extraordinary character that it has taken into consideration changes in topography, soilsystem and runoff flow pattern in a changing climatic environment. It has not only stored

rain water but effectively prevented soil erosion. Hence, we should work toward

developing several such structures and generate a model with less of side-effects.

6.2 Recharging ground water reservoir

Nature has provided inter connected reservoirs of vast extent underground. Skills

have to be developed for arresting rain water where it falls and allowing it to recharge

these ground water reservoirs. Afforestation of catchment areas, contour bunding,leveling of land, creation of farm ponds and check dams across nalas, gully plugging are

measures aimed at arresting flow of water on the surface and directing it belowground.

There are several other practices that can be done in the context but the need is to explore

the new methodologies and bring it into practice.

6.3 Large scale utilization of ground water in deltas

Large scale utilization of ground water especially in delta region is practically

feasible. If the farmers are reluctant, the state should take the initiative to develop asystem of bore wells and supply of irrigation. According to an earlier UNDP estimate, the

ground water potential of the Cauvery delta is considerable, more than the storage

capacity of Krishnaraj Sagar dam. Is this the wise decision to allow this quantity of water

to remain unutilized? Would it not be a better investment than bringing water fromGodavari or Ganga? In areas away from river valleys, ground water is the only source of

drinking water. Over exploitation of this precious resource has gone to abysmal depth. If

further deterioration of ground water has to be prevented, sinking of fresh wells to deeper

levels should be strictly prohibited. All existing borewells should be licensed and allowedto utilise only prescribed quantities of water.


12/16

12

6.4 Community participation

These are the issues that can be taken into account by the government agencies. But alonethey will not be able to devise any alternative. Hence community participation is

inevitable. 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.

6.5 Alternatives for power generation:

The emphasis should be given on better performance of existing infrastructure. The care

has to be taken for reducing transportation and distribution losses. Also the end use

efficiency can be increased by pumps and CFLs efficient use. Some of the otherpractices as peak management and improvement of pump storage potential in existing

storage projects will help in increasing the efficiency of existing structures. It will

certainly help in emphasizing less on the massive projects like river interlinking.

7. THE QUESTIONS WHICH REMAIN UNANSWERED:

One fundamental issue that has been raised by the critics of India governments river

linking proposal is, do we need it at all and if yes, then for what needs and benefits? The

second important issue that would follow is: does river linking provide the optimalsolution for achieving the projected needs and benefits and if so how? B.G.

Verghese(member of the ILR task force) in his response has refused to address either of

these fundamental questions other than informing that our population and water stress is

increasing ( we did know this before?) and that river linking is also necessary for meeting

the challenges of climate change ( no elaboration). The people of India deserve to begiven clear and convincing answers to the most fundamental questions raised in response

to the river linking proposals.

The task force asserts that Narmada water have been carried to arid areas of North

Gujarat, Saurashtra and kutch for the last two years by the Sardar Sarovar Project(SSP)!The fact is that whatever small amount of water is being carried to whatever small part of

the arid belt of Gujarat, is being conveyed through pumps and pipes.

Another issue is issue of displacement and resettlement on which the governments past

deeds and misdeeds have no credibility. The question is, if a just resettlement is not

possible, then does the government have any right to displace people and heap injusticeon them? And if a just resettlement is possible, then let the government prove it by doingjustice to the million of people who have been displaced in the past before taking upfurther projects that involve displacement.

The task force asserts that the bulk of the 35 million hectare of land that will be brought

under additional irrigation will be in dry farming regions, but refuses to identify which

areas these are! And they do not answer the question as to why local water systems


13/16

13

should not first be developed in these regions before attempting extravagant solutions.

The task forces objection that local efforts at water conservation may not be sufficient or

cost- effective begs several questions. Sufficient for whom? Cost effective for whom? AsSom Pal, Member of indias planning commission, has repeatedly demonstrated, the cost

of local systems are less expensive than that of large systems by orders of a quantum

magnitude.

8. CONCLUSION

As we have seen the two sides of the project, one promoting ILR and the other asking

questions about its feasibility. For any project to be successful, benefits should outweigh

cost. And most probably, the government agencies had faulty calculations or have failedto assess the project in its wider perspective. There are probabilities that we have to face

severe consequences of ILR. And taking a pragmatic view of all the issues raised anddespite optimism , it can be concluded that implementation of this ambitious scheme isnot possible in foreseeable future. The InterlinkingRivers plan should notbe projected

as an inevitablenational priority. Instead, it should be considered a plan that is open

to debate and scrutiny with public participation at all levels. All reports on ILR, includingthe pre-feasibility and feasibility studies should be made fully public with immediate

effect. Detailed options assessment has to be done before choosing a path.

Each individual link should be critically examined, including public hearings, instead of

being considered fait accompli. More resources to be allocated for studies andimplementation of time-proven sustainable approaches for managing water resources

Prior informed consent has to be obtained from all affected people before embarking

work on any of the links.. Agricultural policies should be really oriented towards foodsecurity and increasing sustainable production by most needy Hence it can be a better

option to concentrate on the local resources and think upon the alternatives available. But

all the efforts have to be measured on the environmental and financial parameters. And in

these efforts all the individuals of the country have to play a definite role. The need isthere to understand the respective responsibility of the individuals, government agencies

as well as the non government organizations who have been working in the field.


14/16

14

OUR LEARNING

Natural resources, the word which we have been usually confronting in our text books

since our school days has gained much importance in our life now. Water, which is one

of the basic necessity of life have been stressed out today and going to be scarcetomorrow. Working on the term paper Interlinking of rivers, we came across various

aspects which were unknown to us. The environmental, political and the economicalaspects 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 bycreating awareness among the individuals of the society as well as within us. And the

effort we have initiated by cautious 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.


15/16

15

Reference:

1.) National seminar on interlinking of rivers , seminar document, April 2003.2.) Gopal Krishna and Uma Shankari, Interlinking Rivers: Contradiction andconfrontations, 2004,[email protected]

3.) Interlinking the rivers of India is a mirage, Dec 2002.www.indiatogether.org/opinions/guest/interlink.htm

4.) The mindlessness called river linking proposals, may 2003,www.sandrp.org

5.) B.P. Radhakrishna, Linking of major rivers in India:Boon or Bane?, June 2003,current Science, Vol. 84, No. 11

6.) Dev Goel, A political economic analysis of Indias river interlinking project,2005,http://dscholarship.lib.fsn.edu/undergrad/132

7.) S.G. Vomabatkere, Interlinking of Rivers: Salvation or Folly?, 05 Sep, 2006,http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/wtr-sgvintlink02.htm

8.) Anil Aggarwal, Interlinking of Indias Rivers- A reality check, 2004,http://studentorgs.ntexas.edu/aidaustin/conf2004/reading_list/ILR_booklet

9.) B. Sivaraman, Interlinking of rivers in India, June 2003,http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2003/june/interlinking_river.htm
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.indiatogether.org/opinions/guest/interlink.htmhttp://www.indiatogether.org/opinions/guest/interlink.htmhttp://www.sandrp.org/http://www.sandrp.org/http://www.sandrp.org/http://dscholarship.lib.fsn.edu/undergrad/132http://dscholarship.lib.fsn.edu/undergrad/132http://dscholarship.lib.fsn.edu/undergrad/132http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/wtr-sgvintlink02.htmhttp://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/wtr-sgvintlink02.htmhttp://studentorgs.ntexas.edu/aidaustin/conf2004/reading_list/ILR_booklethttp://studentorgs.ntexas.edu/aidaustin/conf2004/reading_list/ILR_booklethttp://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2003/june/interlinking_river.htmhttp://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2003/june/interlinking_river.htmhttp://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2003/june/interlinking_river.htmhttp://studentorgs.ntexas.edu/aidaustin/conf2004/reading_list/ILR_booklethttp://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/wtr-sgvintlink02.htmhttp://dscholarship.lib.fsn.edu/undergrad/132http://www.sandrp.org/http://www.indiatogether.org/opinions/guest/interlink.htmmailto:[email protected]


16/16

16

APPENDIX- I

Time line of ILR :

YEAR HOW, BY WHOM

1972 Ganga cauvery link proposed by union minister Dr. K.L.Rao

1974 Garland canal proposal by captain Dinshaw J Dastur, a pilot.

Both plans rejected due to technical infeasibility and huge costs

1980 Ministry of water resources frames the National perspective

plan(NPP) envisaging interbasin transfer.

1982 The National water development agency(NWDA) set up to carry

out prefeasibility studies. These form the basis of the ILR plan.

1999 A National commission(NCIWRDP) set up to review NWDAreports concluded that it saw no imperative necessity for massive

water transfers in the peninsular component and that the

Himalayan component will require more detailed study.

Aug 15t

,2002 President Abdul Kalam mentions the need for river linking in his

independence day speech, based on which senior advocate Ranjit

kumar filed a PIL in supreme court.

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 rivers led by Mr.Suresh Prabhu. The deadline was revised to 2016.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pallav-anand
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

1_interlinking of Rivers _22, 26.Doc

Documents