TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentIPL 2025
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Extra water meant for irrigation, not drinking: Punjab Govt note

The Punjab Government in a detailed note to the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) has said that Haryana would utilise the Bhakra waters for irrigation and not to meet the claimed drinking water crisis. The state said the per capita...
Photo for representational purpose only. File photo
Advertisement

The Punjab Government in a detailed note to the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) has said that Haryana would utilise the Bhakra waters for irrigation and not to meet the claimed drinking water crisis.

The state said the per capita requirement of water was only 135 litres per day.

Advertisement

This meant that the requirement of water for drinking purposes with a population of approximately 3 crore was not more than 1,700 cusecs.

The figures clearly showed that Haryana was demanding additional water for irrigating its fields, the note said. It added that Punjab could not afford to give surface canal water because groundwater was already depleting at a fast rate.

“At least, 115 out of 153 blocks in the state are over exploited,” the note added.

Advertisement

The communication has pointed out that the issue of water scarcity in Haryana has arisen because of the lack of planning by the state in operation of its canals for utilising the Yamuna waters through the Western Yamuna Canal (WYC). It was also pointed out that Haryana can divert discharge of the Yamuna water for drinking purposes through the Sirsa branch to Budhera head and then to the WYC.

Since repair work is taking place simultaneously in both branches, even this was not possible, it said.

“Haryana should have avoided taking up both works simultaneously and at this point of time”, the reply added.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement