Interlinking rivers

MEGA river-interlinking projects were conceived in the 1980s as an answer to the swelling water stress. That it has taken four decades for the first of such projects — the Ken-Betwa link — to take off underscores the long list of imponderables the highly ambitious and costly exercise entails. The Prime Minister’s remark at the foundation stone-laying event that water security is one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century indicates a determined push to river-linking. The intent is indisputable — transferring water from surplus to deficit river basins through reservoirs and canals, thus changing the fate of water-scarce regions. Despite claims of having assessed the environmental risks, serious concerns persist about the consequences of fiddling with nature on such a large scale.

The National Water Development Agency has identified 30 link projects, both Himalayan and peninsular, at a proposed budget of $168 billion. Greater equity in the distribution of water, flood control, drought mitigation and hydropower generation are compelling reasons to back the projects. Yet, it would be prudent to not disregard the alarm bells. Research studies claim that hydro-linking projects can alter monsoon cycles and disturb the intricate hydro-meteorological systems. The likely ecological destruction has also been highlighted. Going forward, a pragmatic approach becomes essential. Those executing the projects must be open to analysing informed feedback on making changes and redrawing plans. The Ken-Betwa project is a test case of making the best use of science — bringing to fore both the pros and cons — to provide solutions to complex environmental patterns.

A collective effort to conserve water remains a missing link in public policy. Along with prioritising massive projects, the government is duty-bound to aggressively fund research on developing affordable technologies for efficient irrigation practices, recycling of wastewater and sanitation of polluted water.