Waters of discontent
India should press Pakistan for a review of the Indus Waters Treaty, says M.S. Menon
PAKISTAN’S recent attempt to hoist the Indus waters issue in the framework of the proposed composite dialogue process is a shrewd approach to divert public attention from the recurring water scarcity in many parts due to mismanagement of its resources.
A Tribune Special
Waters of discontent
India should press Pakistan for a review of the Indus Waters Treaty, says M.S. Menon
PAKISTAN’S recent attempt to hoist the Indus waters issue in the framework of the proposed composite dialogue process is a shrewd approach to divert public attention from the recurring water scarcity in many parts due to mismanagement of its resources. From past experience, Islamabad has learnt that by accusing New Delhi of impeding Indus flows with projects in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) provisions, it could escape criticism for giving preferential treatment to north Punjab by depriving water to some states and for its failure to build and maintain adequate storages to meet shortages.
Though Pakistan is aware that IWT has the mechanism of a Permanent Indus Commission to settle disputes between the two countries, it also knows that raising the issue in a different forum is a politically safe move to thwart Indian attempts to construct projects for infrastructure development in Jammu and Kashmir.
The IWT is hyped internationally as a model for sharing waters of trans-boundary rivers among co-basin states. The treaty is said to be a unique example of successful conflict resolution in international water disputes, particularly its inbuilt resilience to survive two wars. With Pakistan urging India recently to include the issue of water sharing in the agenda for talks to ventilate its unhappiness on the allocation, attempts are again being made to vindicate the fairness of the treaty. According to the fresh line of argument by some analysts, as both India and Pakistan are unhappy about the allocation, questions could be raised over the fair division of waters.
Apparently, the real facts in the treaty are concealed. In reaching conclusions, it has not followed any existing principles of law nor any prevailing theories as such — it is unique in ignoring accepted international practices.
The river basin extends over an area of 11,65,500 sq km with seven major tributaries draining areas of China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. However, in this treaty aimed at achieving the optimal development and utilisation of the Indus waters, the requirements of China and Afghanistan were ignored. For unexplained reasons, contribution of one tributary, the Kabul river, was combined with the Indus; and to give an impression of apparently equal share distribution, the resultant six tributaries were equally divided between India and Pakistan.
Accordingly, Pakistan got the western rivers (the Indus along with the Kabul, Jhelum and Chenab), and India, the eastern rivers (the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej). Consequently, the then assessed irrigable area of 39 million acres in India had to remain satisfied with the available water of 32.8 million acre feet (MAF) while Pakistan’s 26 million acres of irrigable area got a large quantum of 135.6 MAF of water from the Indus under the treaty. The fundamental principles of equitable distribution of the water resources were thus thrown to winds, thereby making a mockery of the model treaty.
Interestingly, while other similar international treaties executed elsewhere had a fixed period of validity, the IWT has no such fixed timeframe and hence is a permanent agreement with no exit option.
India was never happy with the Pakistan-biased conditions in the treaty, but agreed in the interest of peaceful neighbourly relations and early settlement of the dispute since the World Bank had brokered the treaty. The disenchantment is growing since the unprincipled method of allocation resulted in India getting only 20 per cent of the Indus waters against its rightful share of more than 40 per cent, causing water scarcity in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan due to constraints imposed by the IWT on water use.
Further, frequent wrangling in the interpretation of the treaty’s clauses affected India’s development plans in Jammu and Kashmir. For example, the construction of the Wular project on the Jhelum to provide cheap water transport had to be stopped due to Pakistan’s objections. The Baglihar hydel project got delayed only due to manipulations by our neighbour. Now it is targeting to delay the Kishan Ganga hydel project by making it a subject of endless debate.
Having raised the bogey of IWT violations, Pakistan has been successful in stalling or delaying about 27 projects planned for the development of Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, of 8769 MW of estimated hydro potential from these rivers, India has been able to tap only 1500 MW so far.
Despite these limitations, India tried its best to make the treaty a success, accommodating Pakistan’s tantrums. The treaty could survive the tempests of history only because of the conciliatory spirit shown by India. However, this is being considered as a weakness, encouraging Pakistan to take up the issue frequently in various forums to malign India.
Now with China having started its dam project in its part of the basin, the river flow patterns downstream are bound to be affected. India should view this seriously in the light of past experience in the Sutlej basin. In August 2000, flash floods left a trail of destruction in Himachal Pradesh. Prior to that, in the summer months, there were reduced river flows into the Bhakra reservoir, an unusual feature during the snow-melting season. The causes were not known then but were presumed to be due to Chinese construction activities in the river upstream. Again, in 2004 and 2005, heavy flows from China caused panic in India and even necessitated the closure of the Naptha Jhakri project for a couple of days.
Of late, Pakistan is blaming India for shortfalls in Indus flows even though they are aware of Chinese structures upstream which affect the flows. The experience of Thailand and other co-basin states of the Mekong basin due to operations of the Chinese dams upstream should also be a lesson to us. The indiscriminate upstream reservoir operations by China affected their agriculture, fisheries and tourism projects. The flood flows released from its reservoirs inundated many lands in these states. China never bothered about their protests and the Mekong River Commission (MRC) could not do much on the complaints of these states as China is not a member of the MRC.
Likewise, China is not associated with the IWT. Of the four co-basin states, India and Pakistan are only parties to the treaty. As such, there are no river water agreements between China and these countries except for a joint declaration made in 2006 between India and China to share the hydrological data of such rivers.
The existing international laws on trans-boundary rivers being weak, it is highly essential to have proper water-sharing agreements among the co-basin states to avoid future conflicts in the Indus basin. Hence, a comprehensive review of the IWT is a compelling necessity to address the changing geopolitical situation and emerging international norms for sharing these rivers. India has to press Pakistan for such a review.
If Pakistan does not agree for a review, India must draw its attention to relevant articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, to which it is also a signatory. Article 31 inter alia states that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context in the light of its object and purpose. In this case, the stated purpose is to achieve optimum development and utilisation of the Indus waters.
If Pakistan still does not accept our request for the review, India has to draw its attention to Article 62 of the Convention which permits terminating or withdrawing from the treaty due to a fundamental change of circumstances. India can exercise this option since this change has now occurred with China entering the scene to exploit Indus waters in its territory.
The increased demand for water from the Indus system is already triggering disputes among the basin states in India while Pakistan is blaming us for its water woes even when its surplus flows are discharging into the sea unused. It is therefore for India to seize this opportunity to call the bluff and insist for the review of the treaty taking into account the changes that have occurred since 1960.
(The Tribune,dated, 4th April, 2010)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Chinese disastrous plans
Chinese disaster in the making
The damming of Brahmaputra by China is bound to cause untold misery and devastation. New Delhi should engage Beijing in serious discussions on trans-boundary rivers
According to media reports, the Brahmaputra river in China (known as Yarlung Tsangpo), is presently witnessing a damming spree with a major hydro-electric project under construction at Zangmu to be followed by five more dams across the river. Though the Chinese have denied having any such plans, and the Indian Government pleads lack of information thereon, data received from satellite imageries do indicate some activities in the reported area.
China has every right to build dams in their part of the Brahmaputhra and we cannot dispute their right to do so. But what we have to worry is about the impact of these dams downstream in Indian territory. With weak international laws and having no agreements on the river, India has presently no leverage with China to protect our interests.
One anticipated impact is the likely reduction in flow downstream, if China diverts the lean flows of the river outside the basin for power generation or to meet the water needs of its arid north-east. Another impact is the possible flooding downstream, from release of heavy flood flows during monsoons.
According to experts on China, the projects presently proposed by it need not be viewed with alarm since these do not cause potentially disastrous effects in the channel discharge. Further, Chinese authorities can ill-afford to trigger protests from locals due to the diversions causing a dry riverbed downstream. Dam experts point out that construction of mega-projects is not feasible, the terrain being prone to severe earthquakes.
Notwithstanding these optimistic observations, we should remain pragmatic about the signs emanating from across the border. The construction of the highway linking Bome to Medok city in the Nyingtri Prefecture to facilitate movement of material and heavy machinery, opening of an airport at high altitude in the Prefecture for providing easy access to the Tsangpo gorge, etc, are indicative of the Chinese plans.
The past experience of co-basin states like Thailand in the Mekong basin due to the dams constructed in the Chinese territory would be relevant here. These states had protested to the Mekong River Commission against the indiscriminate upstream reservoir operations which affected their agriculture, fisheries and tourism activities. The worst occurred in 2002, when China released flood flows from its reservoirs, inundating vast stretches of their territories. China did not bother about their protests, nor the objections raised by MRC stating that it is not a member of the commission.
India too had suffered heavy losses due to unprecedented floods from Tibetan rivers in the recent past.
The argument that it is not possible to construct huge diversion structures in this terrain has already been disproved by China’s Gigantic Water Diversion project for transferring 1.8 billion cubic metres of water to Dehuofang reservoir across the Hun river, through a 85 km-long tunnel driven in the mountainous north-east having similar problems.
The expectation that our neighbour would inform us about their plans on the river, is also unfounded. When they constructed the Senge-Ali hydro-project on the Indus (Western Tibet), Pakistan was not knowledgeable about it. Also, as per reports, the Chinese authorities did not bother about the locals protesting about a dry river downstream.
India, therefore, has to take immediate actions to engage China in serious discussions on the trans-boundary rivers since there are no agreements at present between the two in this regard, except for a joint declaration made in 2006 for sharing hydrological data. This alone is not adequate to address our concerns.
Being an upper riparian, China may not be keen to enter into any agreement with us on water sharing issues, but there is a possibility since it is interested in new relationships on environmental issues. This change is evident as revealed in the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, as it has sought India’s help in co-ordinating efforts with developing countries. Hence time is ripe for India to pursue with China to institutionalise a joint committee for environmental impacts on trans-boundary rivers, in which our concerns could be discussed. This golden opportunity should not be lost.
In the meanwhile, we should not remain as mute spectators watching helplessly our neighbour’s plans. We have to protect our interests. We have to construct storage structures in the river at any cost giving top priority, so as to regulate the wide water level fluctuations and floods caused by reservoir operations upstream. We should not allow another Mekong to repeat here due to China’s dams upstream.
(The Pioneer,dated,11th February,2010)
::
.
The damming of Brahmaputra by China is bound to cause untold misery and devastation. New Delhi should engage Beijing in serious discussions on trans-boundary rivers
According to media reports, the Brahmaputra river in China (known as Yarlung Tsangpo), is presently witnessing a damming spree with a major hydro-electric project under construction at Zangmu to be followed by five more dams across the river. Though the Chinese have denied having any such plans, and the Indian Government pleads lack of information thereon, data received from satellite imageries do indicate some activities in the reported area.
China has every right to build dams in their part of the Brahmaputhra and we cannot dispute their right to do so. But what we have to worry is about the impact of these dams downstream in Indian territory. With weak international laws and having no agreements on the river, India has presently no leverage with China to protect our interests.
One anticipated impact is the likely reduction in flow downstream, if China diverts the lean flows of the river outside the basin for power generation or to meet the water needs of its arid north-east. Another impact is the possible flooding downstream, from release of heavy flood flows during monsoons.
According to experts on China, the projects presently proposed by it need not be viewed with alarm since these do not cause potentially disastrous effects in the channel discharge. Further, Chinese authorities can ill-afford to trigger protests from locals due to the diversions causing a dry riverbed downstream. Dam experts point out that construction of mega-projects is not feasible, the terrain being prone to severe earthquakes.
Notwithstanding these optimistic observations, we should remain pragmatic about the signs emanating from across the border. The construction of the highway linking Bome to Medok city in the Nyingtri Prefecture to facilitate movement of material and heavy machinery, opening of an airport at high altitude in the Prefecture for providing easy access to the Tsangpo gorge, etc, are indicative of the Chinese plans.
The past experience of co-basin states like Thailand in the Mekong basin due to the dams constructed in the Chinese territory would be relevant here. These states had protested to the Mekong River Commission against the indiscriminate upstream reservoir operations which affected their agriculture, fisheries and tourism activities. The worst occurred in 2002, when China released flood flows from its reservoirs, inundating vast stretches of their territories. China did not bother about their protests, nor the objections raised by MRC stating that it is not a member of the commission.
India too had suffered heavy losses due to unprecedented floods from Tibetan rivers in the recent past.
The argument that it is not possible to construct huge diversion structures in this terrain has already been disproved by China’s Gigantic Water Diversion project for transferring 1.8 billion cubic metres of water to Dehuofang reservoir across the Hun river, through a 85 km-long tunnel driven in the mountainous north-east having similar problems.
The expectation that our neighbour would inform us about their plans on the river, is also unfounded. When they constructed the Senge-Ali hydro-project on the Indus (Western Tibet), Pakistan was not knowledgeable about it. Also, as per reports, the Chinese authorities did not bother about the locals protesting about a dry river downstream.
India, therefore, has to take immediate actions to engage China in serious discussions on the trans-boundary rivers since there are no agreements at present between the two in this regard, except for a joint declaration made in 2006 for sharing hydrological data. This alone is not adequate to address our concerns.
Being an upper riparian, China may not be keen to enter into any agreement with us on water sharing issues, but there is a possibility since it is interested in new relationships on environmental issues. This change is evident as revealed in the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, as it has sought India’s help in co-ordinating efforts with developing countries. Hence time is ripe for India to pursue with China to institutionalise a joint committee for environmental impacts on trans-boundary rivers, in which our concerns could be discussed. This golden opportunity should not be lost.
In the meanwhile, we should not remain as mute spectators watching helplessly our neighbour’s plans. We have to protect our interests. We have to construct storage structures in the river at any cost giving top priority, so as to regulate the wide water level fluctuations and floods caused by reservoir operations upstream. We should not allow another Mekong to repeat here due to China’s dams upstream.
(The Pioneer,dated,11th February,2010)
::
.
Flood threats from China
A flood of problems
China plans to divert Tibetan rivers to its water-starved regions, which is bad news for India both economically and environmentally, writes MSMenon
The Himalayas constitute one of the largest reservoirs of snow and ice in the world and the perennial flow of the rivers originating from the glaciers ensure a stable supply of water to regions dominated by the monsoon rains. Consequently, the hydrological regimes of the rivers –Jndus, Brahmaputhra, etc.-originating from Tibet, are sustained by this important feature.
For many years since independence, India held the view that there would not be any problem of reduced flows in these rivers considering the terrain and population conditions in Tibet. But recent Chinese activities to exploit the potential of Sutlej and Brahmaputhra (Yarlung Tsangpo) within its territory have fuelled many misgivings in India
One of the serious problems facing China today is water scarcity. The mighty Yellow river is presently reduced to a seasonal stream and Yangtse river, too, is in a critical situation. Since China does not want its aspiration to superpower status thwarted by water crisis, it decided to exploit the bounteous water reserves in the Tibetan region to augment its hydropower and irrigation needs.
Chinese experts have found the diversion of waters from the wet south to the arid north through three links- the eastern, central and western – to be the best option to ward off the crisis. The southern part of the western link envisages the diversion of the upper Brahmaputhra. They have also identified the huge hydropower potential available for cascade development in the upper Mekong (Lancang river),upper Brahmaputhra ( having hydropotential more than twice the Three Gorges Project) and Sutlej (offering immense power).
Based on these findings, China planned eight hydro –dams in the Mekong basin. Of these, two have been completed and one is under construction. The co-basin states of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand protested, but China did not bother; neither did it care for the objections raised by the Mekong River Commission, stating that it is not a member in MRC.
Subsequently, the downstream states alleged that the indiscriminate Chinese reservoir operations affected their agriculture, fisheries and tourism activities and the devastating floods of 2002 in their areas occurred due to China releasing more water than normal from its reservoirs into the river below during the period of heavy down pours . But China went ahead with its projects.
Reports on the Chinese plans to divert the Tsangpo had been appearing in the media since last few decades and China continued to deny these. The proposals quoted in the Executive Intelligence Review Special Report (1982) detailed the diversion plans for annual power generation of 240 to 330 billion units. A report in the Scientific American (1996) narrated the plans to divert the Tsangpo waters to Gobi desert blasting a 20km. Channel through the Himalayas using nuclear explosives.
After many such reports in the media, in 2003, Chinese official news agency, Xinhua, confirmed plans for Tsangpo Water Diversion Project having two components; one, a power plant with an installed capacity of more than 40,000 mw to utilise the potential of the river falling through 3000 m. in a length of 200 km; two, the diversion of water by pumping to the north-western provinces of Xingjiang and Gansu. The project will be sited at the Great Bend where the river takes a U- turn to enter India; the construction is scheduled from 2009.
The existing Sutlej barrage and the planned structures on Brahmaputhra have the potential to control river flows into India. For example, if the Chinese divert waters during the glacial melting periods and release large flood flows during the monsoon, Indian irrigation and power projects would suffer.
The flash floods in August 2000 when water levels in Sutlej rose by about 30 m. In two hours at the Nathpa Jhakri Project (NJP) left behind a trail of destruction in the state. Luckily, the Bhakra reservoir downstream could absorb the floods, thereby containing the devastation of lower reaches. Almost during the same period, floods from the Tibetan Brahmaputhra devastated many parts of Arunachal Pradesh. The flow patterns indicated dam failure. Though china denied it, satellite imageries confirmed broken structures in Tsangpo.
Similar flood situations in Sutlej necessitating closure of NJP and evacuation of people from adjoining areas had occurred on a few occasions since 2004.
Presently, there are no agreements between India and China on trans-boundary rivers. Even in the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan, China is not a party. Hence, regarding the utilisation of Tibetan rivers, China is not answerable to India under any treaty provisions. Hence, India has to strive to bring China under a treaty for the use of the Tibetan rivers. We should also use this opportunity to seek a review of the Indus Waters Treaty.
Interestingly, some time back, the Chinese National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage had shown interest to enter into an MOU with the Indian National Committee for exchanging information on water related issues. But the mandarins of India’s Water Resources Ministry, in their wisdom, decided not to encourage it. Recently, China has shown renewed interest to activate the joint mechanism set up in November, 2006 for sharing hydrological information on these rivers. It is for India to seize this opportunity.
Also, India has to take steps to minimise the impact on its rivers due to upstream operations such as reduced flows or flash floods. The actions include (a) setting up of more flow forecasting stations and (b) construction of cascade projects on rivers near the border to facilitate flood absorption and water conservation. Hence the proposed Khab project(s) on Sutlej and the Siang project(s) on Brahmaputhra have strategic importance.
India has to take special interest and act fast to implement these schemes to take care of the threats from the Tibetan rivers.
(The Pioneer, dated,18th December, 2007)
China plans to divert Tibetan rivers to its water-starved regions, which is bad news for India both economically and environmentally, writes MSMenon
The Himalayas constitute one of the largest reservoirs of snow and ice in the world and the perennial flow of the rivers originating from the glaciers ensure a stable supply of water to regions dominated by the monsoon rains. Consequently, the hydrological regimes of the rivers –Jndus, Brahmaputhra, etc.-originating from Tibet, are sustained by this important feature.
For many years since independence, India held the view that there would not be any problem of reduced flows in these rivers considering the terrain and population conditions in Tibet. But recent Chinese activities to exploit the potential of Sutlej and Brahmaputhra (Yarlung Tsangpo) within its territory have fuelled many misgivings in India
One of the serious problems facing China today is water scarcity. The mighty Yellow river is presently reduced to a seasonal stream and Yangtse river, too, is in a critical situation. Since China does not want its aspiration to superpower status thwarted by water crisis, it decided to exploit the bounteous water reserves in the Tibetan region to augment its hydropower and irrigation needs.
Chinese experts have found the diversion of waters from the wet south to the arid north through three links- the eastern, central and western – to be the best option to ward off the crisis. The southern part of the western link envisages the diversion of the upper Brahmaputhra. They have also identified the huge hydropower potential available for cascade development in the upper Mekong (Lancang river),upper Brahmaputhra ( having hydropotential more than twice the Three Gorges Project) and Sutlej (offering immense power).
Based on these findings, China planned eight hydro –dams in the Mekong basin. Of these, two have been completed and one is under construction. The co-basin states of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand protested, but China did not bother; neither did it care for the objections raised by the Mekong River Commission, stating that it is not a member in MRC.
Subsequently, the downstream states alleged that the indiscriminate Chinese reservoir operations affected their agriculture, fisheries and tourism activities and the devastating floods of 2002 in their areas occurred due to China releasing more water than normal from its reservoirs into the river below during the period of heavy down pours . But China went ahead with its projects.
Reports on the Chinese plans to divert the Tsangpo had been appearing in the media since last few decades and China continued to deny these. The proposals quoted in the Executive Intelligence Review Special Report (1982) detailed the diversion plans for annual power generation of 240 to 330 billion units. A report in the Scientific American (1996) narrated the plans to divert the Tsangpo waters to Gobi desert blasting a 20km. Channel through the Himalayas using nuclear explosives.
After many such reports in the media, in 2003, Chinese official news agency, Xinhua, confirmed plans for Tsangpo Water Diversion Project having two components; one, a power plant with an installed capacity of more than 40,000 mw to utilise the potential of the river falling through 3000 m. in a length of 200 km; two, the diversion of water by pumping to the north-western provinces of Xingjiang and Gansu. The project will be sited at the Great Bend where the river takes a U- turn to enter India; the construction is scheduled from 2009.
The existing Sutlej barrage and the planned structures on Brahmaputhra have the potential to control river flows into India. For example, if the Chinese divert waters during the glacial melting periods and release large flood flows during the monsoon, Indian irrigation and power projects would suffer.
The flash floods in August 2000 when water levels in Sutlej rose by about 30 m. In two hours at the Nathpa Jhakri Project (NJP) left behind a trail of destruction in the state. Luckily, the Bhakra reservoir downstream could absorb the floods, thereby containing the devastation of lower reaches. Almost during the same period, floods from the Tibetan Brahmaputhra devastated many parts of Arunachal Pradesh. The flow patterns indicated dam failure. Though china denied it, satellite imageries confirmed broken structures in Tsangpo.
Similar flood situations in Sutlej necessitating closure of NJP and evacuation of people from adjoining areas had occurred on a few occasions since 2004.
Presently, there are no agreements between India and China on trans-boundary rivers. Even in the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan, China is not a party. Hence, regarding the utilisation of Tibetan rivers, China is not answerable to India under any treaty provisions. Hence, India has to strive to bring China under a treaty for the use of the Tibetan rivers. We should also use this opportunity to seek a review of the Indus Waters Treaty.
Interestingly, some time back, the Chinese National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage had shown interest to enter into an MOU with the Indian National Committee for exchanging information on water related issues. But the mandarins of India’s Water Resources Ministry, in their wisdom, decided not to encourage it. Recently, China has shown renewed interest to activate the joint mechanism set up in November, 2006 for sharing hydrological information on these rivers. It is for India to seize this opportunity.
Also, India has to take steps to minimise the impact on its rivers due to upstream operations such as reduced flows or flash floods. The actions include (a) setting up of more flow forecasting stations and (b) construction of cascade projects on rivers near the border to facilitate flood absorption and water conservation. Hence the proposed Khab project(s) on Sutlej and the Siang project(s) on Brahmaputhra have strategic importance.
India has to take special interest and act fast to implement these schemes to take care of the threats from the Tibetan rivers.
(The Pioneer, dated,18th December, 2007)
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Protests against Sardar Sarovar Dam
Downstream of Protest.
Professional agitators cannot be allowed to stall Sardar Sarover Project, M.S.Menon.
It’s curtains for the time being, on the ongoing drama against the construction of the Sardar Sarover Project (SSP) with the Supreme Court refusing to stay the work on the plea made by the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA). For the past few weeks, the project has hit rough weather, forced by political opportunists and nourished by anti-development ‘Jholawalas’ supported by page three socialites.
The crusade against SSP by the activists at the site, in the law courts and the media- all in order to ensure sustainable development in their career graph- has caused considerable damage to infrastructure development. The SSP could certainly get into the Guinness Book of World Records for the number of court cases it faces.
The recent surge in the agitation against SSP is the consequence of the Narmada Control Authority’s (NCA) permission to raise the height of the dam from the existing 110 metre to 121.9 metre after being satisfied on the much disputed resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) aspects of the project. A well-laid out mechanism for overseeing the implementation of the directives given by Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) and the apex court had provided the requisite inputs/clearances to NCA to approve the proposal to raise the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam recently.
The activists were itching to revive their agitation because they were upset with the dwindling interest in their anti-dam movement by the public. Desperate to create a framework to justify their war on SSP, they were even ready to embrace irrelevant issues because that was the only viable strategy left for them to sustain themselves. The NCA’s approval to raise the dam’s height gave them this opportunity.
Union Minister for Water Resources, Saifuddin Soz, fell into their trap when confronted by the activists about the project’s failure to settle all the project affected persons (PAPs), and suo-motto proposed to convene the review committee meeting of the NCA (RCNCA) and to review the decision taken. The Minister’s proposal encouraged the activists to take the matter to the streets. Soon, hunger strikes, relay hunger strikes and protests by page three personalities ensued, with an obliging media providing adequate coverage.
The outcome of the RCNCA meeting was a split decision on political lines regarding the project construction which necessitated the Central Government to set up a Group of Ministers (GoM) to visit the R&R sites and report on the progress therein. The Madhya Pradesh Government protested against the GoM site visits, complaining that the ministers visited only few villages hand-picked by NBA and GoM report failed to give a complete picture of the R&R activities in Madhya Pradesh. Mean while, the apex court in response to a court case filed by NBA, authorised the Prime Minister to take needed actions.
Based on the Supreme Court’s direction, the Prime Minister constituted a three member panel, chaired by Mr. V.K.Shunglu, to report within three months on the status of rehabilitation efforts in Madhya Pradesh and recommend a system to enable the concerned PAPs get the benefits within the next three months. As usual, NBA and the professional agitators objected to the setting up of the Shunglu Committee.
In the years since construction of SSP began, these activists, labouring under an ideology –induced myopia, had been attacking the project suggesting alternatives mostly amusing, many times bizarre. They kept pushing the option of small water harvesting structures for irrigation, of projects using solar energy, biomass, etc., to generate equivalent power, to replace SSP.
Luckily for them, the Report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD Report, December,2000) came in handy to espouse their cause. However, as the WCD Report got exposed as a frame work for sustained under development for countries like India, the activists turned to the campaign of ‘stop the dam’.
Time and again, activists who have been churning out alternatives to SSP have been told that :
The limited monsoon periods and possible monsoon failures in the country necessitate large storages to ensure continued water availability every year during the eight non-monsoon months and the small storages get dried up when monsoon fails. Like- wise, the present shortage in the country’s peaking capacity of energy being more than 10000 mw and the capacity generated at present from solar and biomass energy world over being less than 5000mw, these options would have to remain confined to serve small areas under pilot projects at present.
The irony of these activists still supporting local small structures as a substitute to SSP is emblematic of the delusions of the country’s mis-informed elite. With the development agenda hijacked by individual micro-views and hostile attitudes, the country’s development plans are getting mired in endless debates with fact based reasoning becoming the casualty. The hijackers, a motley bunch, have all along thrived on trivialising projects of national importance.
Unfortunately, by accepting the easy path of ignoring rather than confronting eco- fascism, our present rulers are saddled with a problem that is turning into a night-mare in the field of water resources development (WRD) projects. Further, hydro -politics has contributed to our water woes and is the manifestation of the disease that threatens to infest all WRD projects. We have to be extremely concerned about this.
There is no second opinion that proper implementation of R&R packages would enable the displaced to lead a better life compared to the pathetically harsh conditions to which they are subjected in the interiors. The lapses in R&R, if any, have to be rectified. To achieve these objectives, the activists could sit together and collaborate with authorities to ensure proper implementation of R&R. The anti-dam brigade and their followers may treat this proposal as frivolous and amusing since, to them, publicity is more important than genuine service.
(The Pioneer, dated, 13th May, 2006)
Professional agitators cannot be allowed to stall Sardar Sarover Project, M.S.Menon.
It’s curtains for the time being, on the ongoing drama against the construction of the Sardar Sarover Project (SSP) with the Supreme Court refusing to stay the work on the plea made by the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA). For the past few weeks, the project has hit rough weather, forced by political opportunists and nourished by anti-development ‘Jholawalas’ supported by page three socialites.
The crusade against SSP by the activists at the site, in the law courts and the media- all in order to ensure sustainable development in their career graph- has caused considerable damage to infrastructure development. The SSP could certainly get into the Guinness Book of World Records for the number of court cases it faces.
The recent surge in the agitation against SSP is the consequence of the Narmada Control Authority’s (NCA) permission to raise the height of the dam from the existing 110 metre to 121.9 metre after being satisfied on the much disputed resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) aspects of the project. A well-laid out mechanism for overseeing the implementation of the directives given by Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) and the apex court had provided the requisite inputs/clearances to NCA to approve the proposal to raise the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam recently.
The activists were itching to revive their agitation because they were upset with the dwindling interest in their anti-dam movement by the public. Desperate to create a framework to justify their war on SSP, they were even ready to embrace irrelevant issues because that was the only viable strategy left for them to sustain themselves. The NCA’s approval to raise the dam’s height gave them this opportunity.
Union Minister for Water Resources, Saifuddin Soz, fell into their trap when confronted by the activists about the project’s failure to settle all the project affected persons (PAPs), and suo-motto proposed to convene the review committee meeting of the NCA (RCNCA) and to review the decision taken. The Minister’s proposal encouraged the activists to take the matter to the streets. Soon, hunger strikes, relay hunger strikes and protests by page three personalities ensued, with an obliging media providing adequate coverage.
The outcome of the RCNCA meeting was a split decision on political lines regarding the project construction which necessitated the Central Government to set up a Group of Ministers (GoM) to visit the R&R sites and report on the progress therein. The Madhya Pradesh Government protested against the GoM site visits, complaining that the ministers visited only few villages hand-picked by NBA and GoM report failed to give a complete picture of the R&R activities in Madhya Pradesh. Mean while, the apex court in response to a court case filed by NBA, authorised the Prime Minister to take needed actions.
Based on the Supreme Court’s direction, the Prime Minister constituted a three member panel, chaired by Mr. V.K.Shunglu, to report within three months on the status of rehabilitation efforts in Madhya Pradesh and recommend a system to enable the concerned PAPs get the benefits within the next three months. As usual, NBA and the professional agitators objected to the setting up of the Shunglu Committee.
In the years since construction of SSP began, these activists, labouring under an ideology –induced myopia, had been attacking the project suggesting alternatives mostly amusing, many times bizarre. They kept pushing the option of small water harvesting structures for irrigation, of projects using solar energy, biomass, etc., to generate equivalent power, to replace SSP.
Luckily for them, the Report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD Report, December,2000) came in handy to espouse their cause. However, as the WCD Report got exposed as a frame work for sustained under development for countries like India, the activists turned to the campaign of ‘stop the dam’.
Time and again, activists who have been churning out alternatives to SSP have been told that :
The limited monsoon periods and possible monsoon failures in the country necessitate large storages to ensure continued water availability every year during the eight non-monsoon months and the small storages get dried up when monsoon fails. Like- wise, the present shortage in the country’s peaking capacity of energy being more than 10000 mw and the capacity generated at present from solar and biomass energy world over being less than 5000mw, these options would have to remain confined to serve small areas under pilot projects at present.
The irony of these activists still supporting local small structures as a substitute to SSP is emblematic of the delusions of the country’s mis-informed elite. With the development agenda hijacked by individual micro-views and hostile attitudes, the country’s development plans are getting mired in endless debates with fact based reasoning becoming the casualty. The hijackers, a motley bunch, have all along thrived on trivialising projects of national importance.
Unfortunately, by accepting the easy path of ignoring rather than confronting eco- fascism, our present rulers are saddled with a problem that is turning into a night-mare in the field of water resources development (WRD) projects. Further, hydro -politics has contributed to our water woes and is the manifestation of the disease that threatens to infest all WRD projects. We have to be extremely concerned about this.
There is no second opinion that proper implementation of R&R packages would enable the displaced to lead a better life compared to the pathetically harsh conditions to which they are subjected in the interiors. The lapses in R&R, if any, have to be rectified. To achieve these objectives, the activists could sit together and collaborate with authorities to ensure proper implementation of R&R. The anti-dam brigade and their followers may treat this proposal as frivolous and amusing since, to them, publicity is more important than genuine service.
(The Pioneer, dated, 13th May, 2006)
Ken - Betwa Link Project
Linking Rivers to Prosperity
Conserving water will remove poverty, the worst environmental pollutant in developing societies, says M.S.Menon
The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by the Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and the Union Minister of Water, marks the beginning of a mega project of interlinking of rivers (ILR). This project is an important milestone for inter-basin transfer of waters. According to this understanding, a detailed project report on the link connecting the two interstate rivers will take into account all social and environmental aspects. Data gained will serve as a test case for undertaking more ambitious river link projects in the future.
The Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP), one of 30 links proposed under the national Perspective plan for which feasibility studies were carried out by the National water Development Agency, envisages diversion of surplus waters from the Ken river to the water deficit Betwa river, as both are tributaries of Yamuna. According to the proposal, 1020 million cubic metres of will be diverted from Ken basin in a link canal that will be 231 km. long. The canal will traverse both states to provide irrigation and drinking water benefits to the people affected. Apart from power generation, the scheme would also provide incidental benefits such as ground water recharge, reservoir pisciculture, and better communications system due to increased infrastructure such as canal, roads etc. Total cost of the project is estimated as Rs.1988.74 Crore (1994-95 price level.)
India’s water resources are characterised by uneven distribution in space and time, leading to endemic and sporadic problems of floods and droughts. The ILR project will provide one solution to these perennial problems. While the scheme appealed to water-deficit states, water-endowed regions were not in favour of diverting their surpluses to needy basins. Hence, the immediate task of authorities was to build a consensus of States in agreement with the proposal. The signing of the MOU on Ken-Betwa link is the outcome of such efforts.
The ILR project has attracted criticisms from environmental and social activists, cynics and self-appointed experts. According to them, instead of wasting money and time on this project, it is better to go for viable micro-level water harvesting alternatives. Some misguided prophets have also forecast that – just like the national highways under the Golden Quadrilateral Project became a conveyor belts of noxious emissions – the canal system under the project will become an open sewer garlanding the length and breadth of the country.
The criticism against the ILR project is mainly because critics have not got their fundamental facts correct. They forget that the development of local micro-water harvesting structures has its own limitations, such as, supplementing water resources availability due to failing monsoons. More over, most local options have become white elephants in their implementation, such as, the ‘Neeru-Meeru’ scheme of Andhra Pradesh, various structures built in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat, and the check dams in the Shivalik foot hills in Haryana.
The transfer of water from surplus to deficit areas to meet local requirements is not a new concept. Presently, more than 500 Billion Cubic Metres (BCM) of water are transferred through man-made links around the world. Even in India, long distance water transfer has existed for centuries and has served to help those in need.
Poverty is the worst environmental pollutant and its eradication will involve reform of land and water use. The ILR project will open up windows of opportunity for the poor struggling to survive recurring floods and droughts. Additionally, the major use of water is for food production. It is not that the farming community alone is responsible for the water crisis, but each of us, as consumers of food, is also contributing to the scarcity. As reported by the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage(ICID), in the process of producing a kilogram of food grain, 500 to 4000 litres of water are used, while to produce a kilogram of grain fed beef, 10000 litres of water are used. Thus, according to ICID, each of us, on a daily basis, ‘eats’ 2000 to 5000 litres of water, drinks 5 litres of water and uses 40 to 400 litres of water for hygiene and sanitation.
It is imperative that a detailed report be conducted to avert the looming water crisis that has arisen over the politicisation of water. Water surplus States must emulate the example shown by M.P and U.P. to shed hydro-politics and make the ILR project an immediate reality.
(The Pioneer, dated, 7th December,2005)
Conserving water will remove poverty, the worst environmental pollutant in developing societies, says M.S.Menon
The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by the Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and the Union Minister of Water, marks the beginning of a mega project of interlinking of rivers (ILR). This project is an important milestone for inter-basin transfer of waters. According to this understanding, a detailed project report on the link connecting the two interstate rivers will take into account all social and environmental aspects. Data gained will serve as a test case for undertaking more ambitious river link projects in the future.
The Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP), one of 30 links proposed under the national Perspective plan for which feasibility studies were carried out by the National water Development Agency, envisages diversion of surplus waters from the Ken river to the water deficit Betwa river, as both are tributaries of Yamuna. According to the proposal, 1020 million cubic metres of will be diverted from Ken basin in a link canal that will be 231 km. long. The canal will traverse both states to provide irrigation and drinking water benefits to the people affected. Apart from power generation, the scheme would also provide incidental benefits such as ground water recharge, reservoir pisciculture, and better communications system due to increased infrastructure such as canal, roads etc. Total cost of the project is estimated as Rs.1988.74 Crore (1994-95 price level.)
India’s water resources are characterised by uneven distribution in space and time, leading to endemic and sporadic problems of floods and droughts. The ILR project will provide one solution to these perennial problems. While the scheme appealed to water-deficit states, water-endowed regions were not in favour of diverting their surpluses to needy basins. Hence, the immediate task of authorities was to build a consensus of States in agreement with the proposal. The signing of the MOU on Ken-Betwa link is the outcome of such efforts.
The ILR project has attracted criticisms from environmental and social activists, cynics and self-appointed experts. According to them, instead of wasting money and time on this project, it is better to go for viable micro-level water harvesting alternatives. Some misguided prophets have also forecast that – just like the national highways under the Golden Quadrilateral Project became a conveyor belts of noxious emissions – the canal system under the project will become an open sewer garlanding the length and breadth of the country.
The criticism against the ILR project is mainly because critics have not got their fundamental facts correct. They forget that the development of local micro-water harvesting structures has its own limitations, such as, supplementing water resources availability due to failing monsoons. More over, most local options have become white elephants in their implementation, such as, the ‘Neeru-Meeru’ scheme of Andhra Pradesh, various structures built in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat, and the check dams in the Shivalik foot hills in Haryana.
The transfer of water from surplus to deficit areas to meet local requirements is not a new concept. Presently, more than 500 Billion Cubic Metres (BCM) of water are transferred through man-made links around the world. Even in India, long distance water transfer has existed for centuries and has served to help those in need.
Poverty is the worst environmental pollutant and its eradication will involve reform of land and water use. The ILR project will open up windows of opportunity for the poor struggling to survive recurring floods and droughts. Additionally, the major use of water is for food production. It is not that the farming community alone is responsible for the water crisis, but each of us, as consumers of food, is also contributing to the scarcity. As reported by the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage(ICID), in the process of producing a kilogram of food grain, 500 to 4000 litres of water are used, while to produce a kilogram of grain fed beef, 10000 litres of water are used. Thus, according to ICID, each of us, on a daily basis, ‘eats’ 2000 to 5000 litres of water, drinks 5 litres of water and uses 40 to 400 litres of water for hygiene and sanitation.
It is imperative that a detailed report be conducted to avert the looming water crisis that has arisen over the politicisation of water. Water surplus States must emulate the example shown by M.P and U.P. to shed hydro-politics and make the ILR project an immediate reality.
(The Pioneer, dated, 7th December,2005)
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Interlinking of Rivers in India
Part-1
Linking rivers, linking people.
Interbasin transfer of water represents a great challenge and opportunity for the country, says M S Menon
The proposal for interlinking the rivers in the country is getting international media attention, thanks to the delegates present at the recently held ‘Peoples World Water Forum’ and ‘World Socialist Forum’ in the country. Using weapons of mass disinformation, some of them reported to have attacked the proposal terming it as ‘destructive’ so that these nation bashers could appear as liberals to ingratiate themselves to a class of people inside and outside the country. Such a brazen approach betrays lack of preliminary understanding of the proposal and reflects callousness in raising concerns in international fora.
During the same time, but at a different venue, the President of India, addressing a galaxy of top scientists, intellectuals and experts commended the proposal stating that it would provide a solution to the perennial problems of floods and droughts in the country.
The main characteristic of India’s water resources is its uneven distribution in space and time leading to endemic and sporadic problems of floods and droughts. Two-third’s of the annually available water resource of 1950 Billion Cubic Metre (BCM) is contributed by the Ganga- Brahmaputhra- Meghna (GBM) system, covering one-third of the country’s geographical area. Consequently, the remaining two-thirds of the country has to remain satisfied with the balance resource, and face scarcity while the GBM basin experiences floods. Hence if resource abundant rivers like the Brahmaputhra, the Ganga, etc. could be linked with the seasonal peninsular rivers, the available water resources could be optimally harnessed, and the miseries of recurring droughts and floods could be contained to a great extent.
Suggestions for the National Water Grid, ‘The Ganga –Cauvery Link’ were initially mooted in 1972 by Dr. K.L. Rao, then Union Minister for Irrigation and Power. Subsequently, many proposals were received by the Government for interlinking of rivers, notable among them being the ‘Garland Canal’ suggested by Capt. Dastur in 1974. However, all these proposals were found to be either prohibitively costly or not practical.
The continued onslaught of floods and droughts in the country prompted the Government of India to come out with the National Perspective Plan for interlinking of rivers comprising two components, namely- ‘The Himalayan river component ‘ envisaging storages and interlinking canal systems to transfer surplus flows from the Himalayan rivers, and ‘ The Peninsular river component’ envisaging similar works to transfer surpluses from the Mahanadi, Godavari and West flowing rivers to drought- prone areas.
Accordingly, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) was set up in 1980 to study and suggest possible links. As per the studies, when fully implemented the mega project is estimated to bring an additional area of 35 million hectares under irrigation and generate additional power of 34000MW with an investment of Rs. 5,60,000 crore spread over 30 years. The proposal got a boost after the President of India, Prime Minister, Judges of the Supreme Court and many political leaders endorsed it as a preferred solution for combating recurring droughts in the country.
Subsequently, a taskforce headed by the former Union Energy Minister, Suresh Prabhu, was set up to devise a frame-work for implementing the project. While the scheme appealed to water-deficit states, water endowed regions were not in favour of diverting their surplus to needy basins. Hence the immediate task of Suresh Prabhu was to get consensus of these states for the proposal.
Criticism against the project came from environmental and social activists, cynics and self- appointed experts. According to some, instead of wasting time and money on this grandiose project, it is better to go for viable micro-level water harvesting alternatives to get similar benefits with small investments. Others see the destruction of cultures, communities and eco systems. Doubts have also been raised not only about the engineering feasibility of lifting the water across basins but also on issues of environmental impacts, resettlement and rehabilitation of the displaced people, etc.
Criticism of the project has also come from some prophets of doom pointing out that the canal system under the project might become an open sewer garlanding the length and breadth of the country in the same manner as the works under the ‘Golden Quadrilateral Project’ converting the national highways into a network of conveyor belts of noxious emissions!
(The article is to be concluded)
(The Pioneer,dt.9th March,2004)
Linking rivers, linking people.
Interbasin transfer of water represents a great challenge and opportunity for the country, says M S Menon
The proposal for interlinking the rivers in the country is getting international media attention, thanks to the delegates present at the recently held ‘Peoples World Water Forum’ and ‘World Socialist Forum’ in the country. Using weapons of mass disinformation, some of them reported to have attacked the proposal terming it as ‘destructive’ so that these nation bashers could appear as liberals to ingratiate themselves to a class of people inside and outside the country. Such a brazen approach betrays lack of preliminary understanding of the proposal and reflects callousness in raising concerns in international fora.
During the same time, but at a different venue, the President of India, addressing a galaxy of top scientists, intellectuals and experts commended the proposal stating that it would provide a solution to the perennial problems of floods and droughts in the country.
The main characteristic of India’s water resources is its uneven distribution in space and time leading to endemic and sporadic problems of floods and droughts. Two-third’s of the annually available water resource of 1950 Billion Cubic Metre (BCM) is contributed by the Ganga- Brahmaputhra- Meghna (GBM) system, covering one-third of the country’s geographical area. Consequently, the remaining two-thirds of the country has to remain satisfied with the balance resource, and face scarcity while the GBM basin experiences floods. Hence if resource abundant rivers like the Brahmaputhra, the Ganga, etc. could be linked with the seasonal peninsular rivers, the available water resources could be optimally harnessed, and the miseries of recurring droughts and floods could be contained to a great extent.
Suggestions for the National Water Grid, ‘The Ganga –Cauvery Link’ were initially mooted in 1972 by Dr. K.L. Rao, then Union Minister for Irrigation and Power. Subsequently, many proposals were received by the Government for interlinking of rivers, notable among them being the ‘Garland Canal’ suggested by Capt. Dastur in 1974. However, all these proposals were found to be either prohibitively costly or not practical.
The continued onslaught of floods and droughts in the country prompted the Government of India to come out with the National Perspective Plan for interlinking of rivers comprising two components, namely- ‘The Himalayan river component ‘ envisaging storages and interlinking canal systems to transfer surplus flows from the Himalayan rivers, and ‘ The Peninsular river component’ envisaging similar works to transfer surpluses from the Mahanadi, Godavari and West flowing rivers to drought- prone areas.
Accordingly, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) was set up in 1980 to study and suggest possible links. As per the studies, when fully implemented the mega project is estimated to bring an additional area of 35 million hectares under irrigation and generate additional power of 34000MW with an investment of Rs. 5,60,000 crore spread over 30 years. The proposal got a boost after the President of India, Prime Minister, Judges of the Supreme Court and many political leaders endorsed it as a preferred solution for combating recurring droughts in the country.
Subsequently, a taskforce headed by the former Union Energy Minister, Suresh Prabhu, was set up to devise a frame-work for implementing the project. While the scheme appealed to water-deficit states, water endowed regions were not in favour of diverting their surplus to needy basins. Hence the immediate task of Suresh Prabhu was to get consensus of these states for the proposal.
Criticism against the project came from environmental and social activists, cynics and self- appointed experts. According to some, instead of wasting time and money on this grandiose project, it is better to go for viable micro-level water harvesting alternatives to get similar benefits with small investments. Others see the destruction of cultures, communities and eco systems. Doubts have also been raised not only about the engineering feasibility of lifting the water across basins but also on issues of environmental impacts, resettlement and rehabilitation of the displaced people, etc.
Criticism of the project has also come from some prophets of doom pointing out that the canal system under the project might become an open sewer garlanding the length and breadth of the country in the same manner as the works under the ‘Golden Quadrilateral Project’ converting the national highways into a network of conveyor belts of noxious emissions!
(The article is to be concluded)
(The Pioneer,dt.9th March,2004)
Interlinking of rivers in India
Part-2.
Water for future perfect
There is no other option but to develop and manage scarce water resources, says M.S.menon.
There are suggestions that water availability can be ensured better by demand management rather than opting for supply management through costly water transfers. The option of import of food grains to meet its shortfall instead of investing in mega project s has also been mooted by some others.
The transfer of water from surplus areas to deficit areas to meet local requirements is not a new concept world over since presently a transfer of 540 BCM of water through man-made links is occurring globally every year. Even in India, long distance water transfer is in existence since centuries, such as the Western Yamuna Canal, Kurnool-Cuddappah Canal, etc., annually transferring 29 BCM of water through various links at present. People continue to reap benefits from these projects.
Why then there is so much criticism against the proposal for a national water grid? The reason is not far to seek. The critics have not got their fundamentals right. In a scenario of undependable and irregular monsoon like ours the suggested alternative of small storages would dry up with failing monsoons, negating the very purpose for which they are built. The oft repeated demand management option, by itself, cannot meet the needed future requirements of 1200BCM of water by the year2050 as we have harnessed only about 10% of the annual available surface flows at present.
Regarding imports, it is needless to say that the current world trade in food grains is too small to feed India’s surging population and hence, we cannot afford to be not self sufficient in food grain production. The objections raised on the feasibility of the water project construction quoting likely technical problems in pumping, tunnelling works, etc. have been ruled out by engineers since, according to them, these are not insurmountable with modern technology. Environmental awareness and related issues being recent developments at the international level, knowledge on environmental impacts is limited even to those who suggest concerned studies.
Interference with nature is not an abomination and with gaining experience, this issue would be addressed with great understanding to mitigate the adverse impacts as is being done in the ongoing projects in the country. There is also no dispute on the fact that for the resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected people, a humanitarian approach is needed. Considering the happenings in other water resource projects, it is certain that timely responsive actions would be taken by the experienced implementing agencies in this regard.
The country has no option but to develop and manage its fresh water resources or face increasing distress in coming years. The challenge is to cope with the entire gamut of needs; water needs, land use needs and terrestrial and aquatic eco-system needs. To reconcile the conflict of interests, balancing of human livelihood interests against unavoidable environmental consequences has to be achieved. Since humans are an evident part of the eco-system, it has to be realised that change and disturbances are unavoidable and are a part of the natural and human dominated landscapes.
Development has to be sustainable. But with a rapidly growing population living on the margin of subsistence, whether sustainability is possible without adequate development is the moot point, since poverty is the worst polluter and with growing population the pressure becomes greater. It is within these constraints that development must progress with sustainability a critical criterion.
Inter-basin transfer of water represents a great challenge and opportunity for the country. It is not an end by itself but a means to an end- the end is to alleviate poverty and improve quality of life while protecting the environment. The projects and links would make the states interdependent fostering day to day cooperation, thus proving as an integrating factor facilitating the discharge of responsibilities towards the states and citizens. Too much of analysis is paralysing us into inaction. Let us remain vigilant of the vested interests and embedded activists concerned only with their sustainability. We should not allow them to paint a bleak picture of our efforts for sustainable development. (concluded)
(The Pioneer, dt.10th March,2004)
Water for future perfect
There is no other option but to develop and manage scarce water resources, says M.S.menon.
There are suggestions that water availability can be ensured better by demand management rather than opting for supply management through costly water transfers. The option of import of food grains to meet its shortfall instead of investing in mega project s has also been mooted by some others.
The transfer of water from surplus areas to deficit areas to meet local requirements is not a new concept world over since presently a transfer of 540 BCM of water through man-made links is occurring globally every year. Even in India, long distance water transfer is in existence since centuries, such as the Western Yamuna Canal, Kurnool-Cuddappah Canal, etc., annually transferring 29 BCM of water through various links at present. People continue to reap benefits from these projects.
Why then there is so much criticism against the proposal for a national water grid? The reason is not far to seek. The critics have not got their fundamentals right. In a scenario of undependable and irregular monsoon like ours the suggested alternative of small storages would dry up with failing monsoons, negating the very purpose for which they are built. The oft repeated demand management option, by itself, cannot meet the needed future requirements of 1200BCM of water by the year2050 as we have harnessed only about 10% of the annual available surface flows at present.
Regarding imports, it is needless to say that the current world trade in food grains is too small to feed India’s surging population and hence, we cannot afford to be not self sufficient in food grain production. The objections raised on the feasibility of the water project construction quoting likely technical problems in pumping, tunnelling works, etc. have been ruled out by engineers since, according to them, these are not insurmountable with modern technology. Environmental awareness and related issues being recent developments at the international level, knowledge on environmental impacts is limited even to those who suggest concerned studies.
Interference with nature is not an abomination and with gaining experience, this issue would be addressed with great understanding to mitigate the adverse impacts as is being done in the ongoing projects in the country. There is also no dispute on the fact that for the resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected people, a humanitarian approach is needed. Considering the happenings in other water resource projects, it is certain that timely responsive actions would be taken by the experienced implementing agencies in this regard.
The country has no option but to develop and manage its fresh water resources or face increasing distress in coming years. The challenge is to cope with the entire gamut of needs; water needs, land use needs and terrestrial and aquatic eco-system needs. To reconcile the conflict of interests, balancing of human livelihood interests against unavoidable environmental consequences has to be achieved. Since humans are an evident part of the eco-system, it has to be realised that change and disturbances are unavoidable and are a part of the natural and human dominated landscapes.
Development has to be sustainable. But with a rapidly growing population living on the margin of subsistence, whether sustainability is possible without adequate development is the moot point, since poverty is the worst polluter and with growing population the pressure becomes greater. It is within these constraints that development must progress with sustainability a critical criterion.
Inter-basin transfer of water represents a great challenge and opportunity for the country. It is not an end by itself but a means to an end- the end is to alleviate poverty and improve quality of life while protecting the environment. The projects and links would make the states interdependent fostering day to day cooperation, thus proving as an integrating factor facilitating the discharge of responsibilities towards the states and citizens. Too much of analysis is paralysing us into inaction. Let us remain vigilant of the vested interests and embedded activists concerned only with their sustainability. We should not allow them to paint a bleak picture of our efforts for sustainable development. (concluded)
(The Pioneer, dt.10th March,2004)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)