<p>Union water resources minister Nitin Gadkari’s announcement that work on three river-linking projects, estimated to cost about Rs 50,000 crore, would start in three months shows that the government is pushing ahead with the controversial scheme. The three projects to be taken up this year are the Ken-Betwa link, the Par-Tapi-Narmada link and the Damanganga-Pinjal link. All of them are in north and central India. The three projects are part of the Rs 5.5 lakh crore mammoth plan involving 30 projects which will link over 60 rivers -- big and small, Himalayan and peninsular, perennial and seasonal -- to tackle floods and drought, produce hydropower, provide water for drinking and irrigation and for other purposes. The NDA government is a big votary of the scheme which has been debated for more than a hundred years. While the government thinks the scheme will end the country’s water woes and make it an economic superpower on the strength of its water resources, there are valid reasons to think that it may be disastrous for the country economically, environmentally and in other ways. <br /><br />The scheme envisages the building of 3,000 storage structures with 15,000 km of canals and transfer of 175 trillion litres of water every year. Many experts feel that intervening with nature on such a big scale will have serious consequences because it is based on bad science and untested engineering. Rivers are not standalone water courses but complete ecosystems where living beings and non-living things have a mutually dependent existence. A change in the natural scheme will upset the balance. The classification of rivers into water surplus and water deficit ones has been questioned. The trapping of much of the water inside the country’s landmass may give rise to many problems. The problem of displacement and resettlement of people will be huge. The hydrological, geological and meteorological data on which the scheme is based is inadequate and unreliable. It is also argued that climate change may make the presumed gains from linking rivers more uncertain. Many feel that the scheme itself will lead to changes in weather patterns. There is also a view that a large network of reservoirs could turn out to be security hazard. <br /><br />Many scientists, engineers and experts like India’s “waterman” Rajendra Singh have opposed the project and suggested better, more viable and cheaper alternatives. Rajendra Singh has proposed rejuvenation of rivers and waterbodies as a better option. Another suggestion is for restoration of the lost links of rivers with the waterbodies connected with them. A number of small and individual projects at the micro-level will be better, safer and cheaper than a mega project with unpredictable consequences.</p>
<p>Union water resources minister Nitin Gadkari’s announcement that work on three river-linking projects, estimated to cost about Rs 50,000 crore, would start in three months shows that the government is pushing ahead with the controversial scheme. The three projects to be taken up this year are the Ken-Betwa link, the Par-Tapi-Narmada link and the Damanganga-Pinjal link. All of them are in north and central India. The three projects are part of the Rs 5.5 lakh crore mammoth plan involving 30 projects which will link over 60 rivers -- big and small, Himalayan and peninsular, perennial and seasonal -- to tackle floods and drought, produce hydropower, provide water for drinking and irrigation and for other purposes. The NDA government is a big votary of the scheme which has been debated for more than a hundred years. While the government thinks the scheme will end the country’s water woes and make it an economic superpower on the strength of its water resources, there are valid reasons to think that it may be disastrous for the country economically, environmentally and in other ways. <br /><br />The scheme envisages the building of 3,000 storage structures with 15,000 km of canals and transfer of 175 trillion litres of water every year. Many experts feel that intervening with nature on such a big scale will have serious consequences because it is based on bad science and untested engineering. Rivers are not standalone water courses but complete ecosystems where living beings and non-living things have a mutually dependent existence. A change in the natural scheme will upset the balance. The classification of rivers into water surplus and water deficit ones has been questioned. The trapping of much of the water inside the country’s landmass may give rise to many problems. The problem of displacement and resettlement of people will be huge. The hydrological, geological and meteorological data on which the scheme is based is inadequate and unreliable. It is also argued that climate change may make the presumed gains from linking rivers more uncertain. Many feel that the scheme itself will lead to changes in weather patterns. There is also a view that a large network of reservoirs could turn out to be security hazard. <br /><br />Many scientists, engineers and experts like India’s “waterman” Rajendra Singh have opposed the project and suggested better, more viable and cheaper alternatives. Rajendra Singh has proposed rejuvenation of rivers and waterbodies as a better option. Another suggestion is for restoration of the lost links of rivers with the waterbodies connected with them. A number of small and individual projects at the micro-level will be better, safer and cheaper than a mega project with unpredictable consequences.</p>
