The Government’s decision to inter-link rivers is commendable, but it has turned a blind eye to the negative impacts of the project. A reality check is the need of the hour, as the downsides are not only detrimental but irreversible
The move to inter-link rivers in India is increasingly becoming a tough balancing act between ensuring availability of precious water resources to countless people and at the same time, guaranteeing that no harm is inflicted upon the environment due to the ripple effects of inter-linked rivers.
Originally conceived in 1982, and actively pursued by the NDA Government in 2002, the project has been revived by the current Government. The Rs11 lakh crore project to interlink rivers is commendably ambitious but its environmental ramifications need to be analysed and balanced with the benefits.
The inter-linking of Godavari and Krishna river — the second and the fourth longest rivers in the country on September 16 — has flagged off the project. Next in line is the inter-linking of Ken river in Madhya Pradesh and Betwa river in Uttar Pradesh. The project is currently under development with completion expected in December this year.
The benefits of the inter-linked rivers are hard to ignore. The project envisions linking 37 Himalayan rivers and peninsular rivers enabling water surplus rivers to be dammed, and excess flow to be diverted to the rivers that are in dire need of adequate water flows. The project also includes building of 30 canals and 3,000 reservoirs, which will be instrumental in enabling 87 million hectares of land to be irrigated besides transferring 174 trillion liters of water each year.
But probably, the most compelling benefit especially to the power-starved rural areas of India is the harnessing of clean hydroelectric potential due to the project.
The infrastructure built during the course of the project can enable installation of hydroelectric plants with a capacity of 34 gigawatts. These benefits justify large project outlay as it seeks to deliver compromised rural areas in India and reduce regional imbalances.
But these benefits come accompanied with a host of ecological and communal flipsides as well and if the Government does not assess the stakes involved, it can easily pave way for ecological and societal damage that will span across the coming generations.
For instance, according to a report by the International Water Management Institute, half a million people are likely to be displaced in the process of the river inter-linking project.
Given collateral consequences of this magnitude, the Government is yet to come out with a firm and convincing set of solutions for the possible adverse impacts of the project.
Ecologists and environmentalists have also been wary about the implications of the project, with some even terming the initiative as dangerous since only benefits of the project have been considered and the negative outcomes have not been clearly spelled out.
The project needs a reality check as the downsides are not only detrimental to the ecology but are irreversible. The Ken-Betwa river project is an apt example wherein the core area of the Panna national park will be affected due to flooding from the inter-linked rivers.
Even though the State wildlife advisory board has intimated its objections on the linking of the Ken river in Madhya Pradesh and the Betwa river in Uttar Pradesh last month, the Madhya Pradesh Government is planning to add another buffer area of nearly 8,000 hectares into the Panna tiger reserve.
Eventually, a total of 10.07 per cent of core area or 58.03 sq km will be submerged, while 31.97 sq km area will come from the buffer zone. Therefore, a total of 90 sq km of area will be submerged if the project becomes a reality.
The benefits of the Ken-Betwa project are also crucial, as the entire Bundelkhand region will be benefitted with the project providing irrigation to 575,000 ha of land by diverting water from Ken river to Betwa river, besides ensuring drinking water to 1.3 million people.
The Government must realise that an expedited implementation of the project cannot be a way forward especially when environmental stakes are involved.
The authorities must find sustainable solutions for the displaced communities and must also not hesitate to call off a project if it has excessive adverse ecological and communal impact.
Furthermore, the project derived benefits for the people need to be sufficiently highlighted by the Government, which currently finds itself pressurised from wildlife bodies and environmentalists. This will increase public confidence in the Government and its initiatives.
Altering the course of rivers is altering nature and it can have unimaginable repercussions. Interlinking of rivers must be a balanced effort wherein human welfare is achieved without challenging nature.