<p>Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s attempt to breathe life into the much-debated interlinking of rivers project which has been hanging fire for long has predictably run into rough waters, with Karnataka, a BJP-ruled state, strongly opposing the move. In her 2022-23 budget speech, Sitharaman proposed five river linking projects in the country: Godavari-Krishna, Krishna-Pennar, Pennar-Cauvery, Dharmaganga-Pinjal and Par-Tapi-Narmada. The draft Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) have also been finalised. Of these, the projects related to Krishna, Pennar and Cauvery are of concern to Karnataka. Though river water disputes between riparian states have more or less been settled by various commissions, the sharing of surplus water continues to be a contentious issue. Karnataka’s stand which Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai had aired at the recently held Southern Zonal Council meet at Tirupati, was that peninsular rivers should not be interlinked before the state’s share of surplus water is finalised. Karnataka has also gone to the Supreme Court against Tamil Nadu’s proposal to link Cauvery, Vellaru, Vaigai and Gundar rivers to provide water to dry parts of the state on the same ground. Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, has opposed Karnataka’s Mekedatu project as it would hinder the free flow of surplus rainwater to the state. Karnataka has also objected to various irrigation projects being undertaken by Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as it fears that its share of surplus water would be unfairly usurped by these states. </p>.<p>The project which comprises three parts, the Himalayan and Peninsular component and the linking of 37 inter-state rivers has been mired in controversy right from the time it was first proposed by the British in the 19th century. Proponents of the project argue that among other benefits, it would address the twin issues of floods and droughts by ensuring the passage of water from surplus to deficit areas through a network of canals and reservoirs. Those opposed to the project are worried about the environmental impact of such large-scale tinkering with nature besides the social fallout due to the displacement of a large number of people, not to mention the submerging of forests. </p>.<p>All said and done, there appears to be no consensus not only among the states but also within the ruling BJP itself about the feasibility of the project. Though the interlinking of rivers cannot become a reality unless the states concerned first come on board, a complete and reliable assessment of the environmental and social impact is the need of the hour. The project should be greenlighted only if the benefits far outweigh the costs.</p>
<p>Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s attempt to breathe life into the much-debated interlinking of rivers project which has been hanging fire for long has predictably run into rough waters, with Karnataka, a BJP-ruled state, strongly opposing the move. In her 2022-23 budget speech, Sitharaman proposed five river linking projects in the country: Godavari-Krishna, Krishna-Pennar, Pennar-Cauvery, Dharmaganga-Pinjal and Par-Tapi-Narmada. The draft Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) have also been finalised. Of these, the projects related to Krishna, Pennar and Cauvery are of concern to Karnataka. Though river water disputes between riparian states have more or less been settled by various commissions, the sharing of surplus water continues to be a contentious issue. Karnataka’s stand which Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai had aired at the recently held Southern Zonal Council meet at Tirupati, was that peninsular rivers should not be interlinked before the state’s share of surplus water is finalised. Karnataka has also gone to the Supreme Court against Tamil Nadu’s proposal to link Cauvery, Vellaru, Vaigai and Gundar rivers to provide water to dry parts of the state on the same ground. Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, has opposed Karnataka’s Mekedatu project as it would hinder the free flow of surplus rainwater to the state. Karnataka has also objected to various irrigation projects being undertaken by Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as it fears that its share of surplus water would be unfairly usurped by these states. </p>.<p>The project which comprises three parts, the Himalayan and Peninsular component and the linking of 37 inter-state rivers has been mired in controversy right from the time it was first proposed by the British in the 19th century. Proponents of the project argue that among other benefits, it would address the twin issues of floods and droughts by ensuring the passage of water from surplus to deficit areas through a network of canals and reservoirs. Those opposed to the project are worried about the environmental impact of such large-scale tinkering with nature besides the social fallout due to the displacement of a large number of people, not to mention the submerging of forests. </p>.<p>All said and done, there appears to be no consensus not only among the states but also within the ruling BJP itself about the feasibility of the project. Though the interlinking of rivers cannot become a reality unless the states concerned first come on board, a complete and reliable assessment of the environmental and social impact is the need of the hour. The project should be greenlighted only if the benefits far outweigh the costs.</p>
