How much additional water? 300 BCM (President of India speech on May 11, 2005)
No of reservoirs: 60 (Rainer Horig)
Estimated cost: Rs 5 60 000 crores
1 675 000 ha (Rainer Horig: 625 000 ha for canals and 1 050 000 ha for reservoirs)
0.45 M (official document)
3.47 M (Rainer Horig)
Some basic Questions
Is the need for the ILR established?
Has it been established if some basins are surplus or deficits?
Definitions of Surplus and Deficit
Is any basin really water surplus?
Question on hydrologic viability
Is the feasibility of the proposal established?
Is the Optimality of the proposal established? Is it the least cost option?
Has the social, environmental viability been established?
Is the economic and financial viability of the project established?
Is ILR feasible in current constitutional set up?
Is the project desirable?
Can ILR solve flood “problem”?
According to President (speech on 110505) flood affects 8 major basins, 40 m ha and 260 m people
ILR is to have Lined Canals with 1:3,000 to 1:5,000 slope or 0.33 to 0.20 m per km. Maximum flow velocity 2 m/s. A 100 m wide & 10 m deep lined canal can carry about 1,000 cumecs.
Average flood discharge(cumecs)
Water to be diverted through ILR canal(cumecs)
(Figures thanks to SG Vombatkere, ILR figures from official website: www.riverlinks.nic.in)
ILR can clearly not help solve flood problem
What about these floods of 2005, Mr President?
The Central Gujarat region that experienced serious floods were to receive MORE water from Paar-Tapi Narmada Link proposal.
Mumbai that experienced unprecedented floods was to receive more water from Damanganga Pinjal link proposal.
The Krishna basin areas of Maharashtra and Karnataka were to receive more water from other basins.
The ILR could have done nothing about the floods in Sutlej basin.
And what about the floods of Cauvery basin in October 2005?
What do experts say about ILR and Floods?
Dr. Bharat Singh, Professor Emeritus at the Water Resources Development Training Centre at the IIT, Rourkee, and Member of the National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (1996-99), has said, “any water resources engineer will immediately discard the idea of the inter-linking of rivers as a flood control measure” (A big dream of little logic, The Hindustan Times, 9 March 2003).
John Bricoe, Senior Water Resources Expert of the World Bank has said, "River linking per se will do little to reduce flood damage since the size of the link canals would usually be miniscule compared to flood flows." Junaid Ahmad, Senior Manager, Social Development, World Bank was also said ILR won’t help flood problems.
Can ILR help the drought areas?
According to President (speech on 110505) 86 m people, 14 states and 116 districts are affected by drought annually
“The Himalayan Component data are not freely available but on basis of published information it appears that this component may not be feasible for the period of review up to the year 2050.” (Executive Summary, pp (ix))
Further it says about the Himalayan links, “the costs of construction and environmental problems would be enormous. These links should only be taken up if and when they are considered unavoidable in national interest.” The Commission also noted, “On the basis of published information, the commission is of the view that the Himalayan component would require more detailed study using systems analysis techniques.” (p 187-88)
National Commission about ILR-2
“As regards east flowing peninsular rivers, the studies indicate that based on mean annual flows except for Krishna (if irrigation intensity is adopted at a rather high 45 %), Cauvery and Vaigai, the balances are positive in other cases. The shortage in Cauvery is 12 % of gross demand and that in Vaigai 16 %. These shortages result from increasing the present irrigated area to 1.4 times in case of Cauvery and 1.6 times in case of Vaigai and assuming return flows at 60 % of the imbalance. In case the return flow is taken as 80 % of the imbalance, there is no shortage in Krishna and those in Cauvery and Vaigai are reduced to 5 and 8 % respectively. Thus, there seems to be no imperative necessity for massive water transfer. The assessed needs of the basins could be met from full development and efficient utilization of intra-basin resources…” (Executive Summary, pp (ix))
Par-Tapi-Narmada Link proposal: “Taking the entire system, the cost of water delivered is high and can hardly be borne by the farmers at prevailing agricultural prices. The irrigation rates may have to be very heavily subsidized which is not in conformity with current thinking. It is felt that these links should be deferred till the impact of the SSP is seen and need for additional water is clearly established.”
Netravati-Hemavati link: “The cost is rather high due to requirement of lift.”
Some Eminent persons on ILR:
Bharat Singh: “There really seems to be no convincing argument or vital national interest which can justify undertaking this mammoth undertaking”.
Jairam Ramesh, Member of Parliament said in a Short Duration Debate in Parliament on July 26, 2005, “To imagine that we are going to be able to solve our annual problems of flood and drought by a massive programme of inter-linking of rivers, in my view, there would be no greater calamity than massive inter-linking of rivers.”
Do we have options?
Options for Power
Better performance of existing infrastructure (see next slide for performance of existing hydro)