|
|
|
|
|
Inter Basin Water Transfer Link Project of India |
|
|
Home • Feedback• Contact us |
|
Different Views |
||
|
|
'We've to take states along on river linking'
THE SURESH PRABHU INTERVIEW/VINAY PANDEY
At 50, Suresh Prabhu has the reputation of taking on tough
jobs and accomplishing them. As power minister from 2000 to 2002, he pegged
away at reform and drafted the Bill that was approved this summer. After
quitting the ministry last year, Mr Prabhu was asked to head a task force to
interlink rivers, a massive, 16-year project that could cost over $12
billion. In the 1970s, at least two such projects were thought up, but they
weren’t feasible. Is Mr Prabhu’s project headed the same way? No, he tells
Vinay Pandey, explaining why the project makes great sense. Excerpts: The river interlinking project sounds too big to be true. How feasible is it? Let me clarify. This is not a river interlinking project. It’s a project for optimum utilisation of water resources, taking into consideration various uses of water. Historically, we have not dealt with our water resources in a proper way. Now, one way to look at the water management issue is to deal with water so that intra-basin transfer takes place first, like Cauvery basin. Whatever is available is used within the basin most efficiently. But that may not be enough. At times, you have to do inter-basin transfers of water and that is what the concept is all about. It involves diversion of water from surplus river basins to water deficit basins. Overall, we will have 30 links.
We expect this to create 35 million hectare of additional
irrigation. It will create about 35,000 megawatt (MW) of hydroelectric
power. It’ll also develop waterways, which is a crying need for India
particularly for the landlocked Northeast. Agricultural production would
increase by 40-50 million tonne because of this project. It’s been shown
that intra-basin development alone will not create the kind of irrigation
potential for that kind of incremental food production. And of course, the
project will create 10 million additional jobs. We’re carrying out a
separate study to arrive at the exact figure. Is the project technically feasible? We have asked all the IITs, particularly IIT Roorkee, which is very good at hydrology, to look at the technological aspects of the project. Then there are environmental studies involving various institutions, NCAER and others are carrying out work on economic implications. Similarly, some institutions are looking at the financing aspect of the project. We have even tried to take care of local concerns. For instance, there was some concern in Assam that their water was going to be taken out. So, we asked IIT Guwahati to look at the links in Assam. They can suggest improvements. We have even involved ISRO and are even using remote sensing space engineering.
All the agencies are doing extensive modelling. So each and
every issue, for instance the likelihood of causing desertification or
salination, say, or the correlation between surface water and ground water
and so on is being dealt with through simulation studies. Also, with the
kind of agencies and data we are using, there will be 100% transparency. In
fact, most of these studies are already done. We would only do what is
feasible, based on what independent agencies say. In fact, the prime
minister has already announced that two links involving Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan would begin as quickly as possible. How are you going to raise finances for such a large project?
ICICI has already come out with a detailed paper on the
financing aspect of the project. The gist of the report is that considering
our GDP and the finance available within the system, it is possible to
finance a project of this magnitude. The question is merely of what
instruments are to be used to tap the money. That we are already working on.
Now, the Rs 500,000-plus crore cost of the project would not be needed
upfront but over a long period. We also need to include the spin off
benefits. Take the 35,000 MW of hydroelectric potential of this project. We
are anyway doing these projects because we need one lakh MW of
hydroelectricity. For this we would anyway need Rs 2 lakh crore. Similarly,
Inland Water Transport Corporation is doing inland waterways. They will also
be investing some money in any case. This project combines many benefits,
which at present we are achieving through different agencies. All those
resources can be pooled for this one project. Let me assure you, financing
is not going to be a major issue.
Will this project not involve constructing dams? Given the
opposition to large dams and environmental concerns, would the project work
out? True, we have to build some big and mid-size dams. Unless you have storage, this kind of inter-basin transfer of water cannot take place. But we have to realise that India’s per capita storage capacity is a lot lower than that of the US. We have not created as many dams as are required in the country. In fact, we need even more than the US because our peninsular water system is largely rain-fed and not snow-fed like the US. We get rain only for four months and for all practical purposes, good rain only for 15 days of the year, which has to be used for the other 350 days, maybe more in states that face recurrent drought. Therefore, we need dams in any case.
Ideally, we should be in a position to store all the
precipitation. But that would have seismic effect and displace a lot of
people. So there has to be a trade-off. We should have the maximum storage
with the least damage. Some damage is inevitable. But the benefits of the
project would far outweigh the damage. And that would be brought out clearly
in the project report. We would require more than 30 medium-size dams. Yes,
there is going to be opposition. This is a good reason for doing nothing.
But the point is whether we can afford to do nothing. Having decided on the
desirability and doability of the project, we have now to work on the
hurdles. We have not managed to solve even one inter-state river water dispute. How then will you get states to agree to this kind of proposal?
Yes, water is a state subject and the states have to agree
before this can take off. We have to cajole the states. We have to take them
along. And that is only possible if the project is a win-win proposition for
the states involved. So we are asking all the states to prepare a master
plan. That master plan will be integrated with this project. Therefore, this
will be a real optimal utilisation of water. In fact, some states even want
the first link to begin from their state. How will we get countries like Bangladesh with whom we share our rivers to agree? We are negotiating. Even Nepal and Bhutan must agree. In fact, if Nepal agrees, it would be the biggest beneficiary of this project. We have to convince them. Ditto for Bangladesh. You see, 80% of the water in Bangladesh originates from Indian rivers. Therefore, Bangladesh would actually be a beneficiary of this project. Anyway, our objective is to do what is within our best interests without violating any international law, without being unfair to Bangladesh. But if they still object then it is not right thing for them to do. Anyway, the per capita availability of water in Bangladesh is 12 times higher than in India. Source: The Economic Times.
|
|
|
Home • Feedback• Contact us |
||
