PR O CE ED IN G S Strategic Analyses of the National River Linking Project (NRLP) of India Series 2 Upali A. Amarasinghe and Bharat R. Sharma, editors Himalayan component Peninsular component Proceedings of the Workshop on Analyses of Hydrological, Social and Ecological Issues of the NRLP i Strategic Analyses of the National River Linking Project (NRLP) of India Series 2 Proceedings of the Workshop on Analyses of Hydrological, Social and Ecological Issues of the NRLP Upali A. Amarasinghe and Bharat R. Sharma, editors INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ii The editors: Upali A. Amarasinghe is Senior Researcher, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), New Delhi; Bharat R. Sharma is Senior Researcher and Head, International Water Management Institute (IWMI) New Delhi Office. Amarasinghe, U.A.; Sharma, B.R., eds. 2008. Strategic analyses of the National River Linking Project (NRLP) of India, series 2. Proceedings of the Workshop on Analyses of Hydrological, Social and Ecological Issues of the NRLP. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 500 p. river basins / water supply / water demand / water transfer / dams / water storage / water balance / erosion / rain-fed farming / water harvesting / livestock / groundwater irrigation / surface irrigation / irrigation programs / crop yield / models / water market / tubewells / electricity / artificial recharge / social aspects / case studies / India ISBN: 978-92-9090-694-0 Copyright © 2008, by IWMI. All rights reserved. Cover photo by the National Water Development Agency shows the ‘Proposed Links of the NRLP’. (Peninsular component) 1. Mahanadi–Godavari; 2. Inchampalli–Nagarjunasagar; 3. Inchampalli– Pulichintala; 4. Polavaram–Vijayawada; 5. Almatti–Pennar; 6. Srisailam–Pennar; 7. Nagarjunasagar– Somasila; 8. Somasila–Grand Anicut; 9. Kattalai–Vaigai–Gundar; 10. Ken–Betwa; 11. Parbati– Kalisindh–Chambal; 12. Par–Tapi–Narmada; 13. Damanganga–Pinjal; 14. Bedti–Varda; 15. Netravati– Hemavati; 16. Pamba–Achankovil–Vaippar. (Himalayan component) 1. Kosi–Mechi; 2. Kosi–Ghagra; 3. Gandak–Ganga; 4. Ghagra–Yamuna; 5. Sarda–Yamuna; 6. Yamuna–Rajasthan; 7. Rajasthan–Sabarmati; 8. Chunar–Sone Barrage; 9. Sone Dam–Southern Tributaries of Ganga; 10. Manas–Sankosh–Tista-Ganga; 11. Jogighopa–Tista–Farakka (Alternate); 12. Farakka–Sunderbans; 13. Ganga (Farakka)–Damodar–Subernarekha; 14. Subernarekha–Mahanadi. Please direct inquires and comments to: iwmi-reseach-news@cgiar.org IWMI receives its principal funding from 58 governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations known as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Support is also given by the Governments of Ghana, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. iii Contents Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................... v Preface ............................................................................................................................................ vii Overview. National River Linking Project: Analyses of Hydrological, Social and Ecological Issues: Overview of the Workshop Proceedings .................................. ix Upali A. Amarasinghe and Bharat R. Sharma Paper 1. India’s River Linking Project: The State of the Debate .......................................................... 1 Tushaar Shah, Upali A. Amarasinghe and Peter G. McCornick Paper 2. India’s Water Supply and Demand to 2025/2050: Business-as-Usual Scenario and Issues .................................................................................... 23 Upali A. Amarasinghe, Tushaar Shah and B.K. Anand Paper 3. Analysis of the Inter-basin Water Transfer Scheme in India: A Case Study of Godavari-Krishna Link ................................................................................. 63 Luna Bharati, B.K. Anand and Vladmir Smakhtin Paper 4. Hydrological and Environmental Issues of Inter-basin Water Transfers in India: A Case Study of the Krishna River Basin ............................................................................... 79 Vladmir Smakhtin, N. Gamage and Luna Bharati Paper 5. In the Midst of the Large Dam Controversy: Objectives, Criteria for Assessing Large Water Storages in the Developing World .................................................................... 107 Zankhana Shah and M. Dinesh Kumar Paper 6. Economic Performance of Public Investments in Irrigation in India in the Last Three Decades ....................................................................................................... 139 Arlene Inocencio and Peter G. McCornick Paper 7. Benefits of Irrigation Water Transfers in the National River Linking Project: A Case Study of Godavari (Polavaram)-Krishna Link in Andhra Pradesh ......................... 173 Anik Bhaduri, Upali A. Amarasinghe and Tushaar Shah Paper 8. Benefits of Irrigation Water Transfers in the National River Linking Project: A Case Study of the Ken-Betwa Link ................................................................................... 195 Upali A. Amarasinghe, Om Prakash Singh, Tushaar Shah and Ravindra Singh Chauhan Paper 9. Social Equity Impacts of Increased Water for Irrigation ..................................................... 217 Amrita Sharma, Samyuktha Varma and Deepa Joshi Paper 10. Converting Rain into Gain: Opportunities for Revitalizing the Potential of Rain-fed Agriculture in India .................................................................................................. 239 Bharat R. Sharma, K.V. Rao, K.PR. Vittal and Upali A Amarasinghe iv Contents Paper 11. Crop per Drop of Diesel? Energy Squeeze on India’s Smallholder Irrigation ................ 253 Tushaar Shah Paper 12. Groundwater Externalities of Surface Irrigation Transfers under River Linking Project: Polavaram-Vijayawada Link .................................................................................................... 271 Bharat R. Sharma, K.V. G. K. Rao and Sylvain Massuel Paper 13. Rainwater Harvesting in Water-scarce Regions of India: Potential and Pitfalls .............. 289 M. Dinesh Kumar, Ankit Patel and O.P. Singh Paper 14. Decentralized Artificial Recharge Movements in India: Potential and Issues .................. 315 R. Sakthivadivel Paper 15. Real-time Co-management of Electricity and Groundwater: An Assessment of Gujarat’s Pioneering Jyotirgram Scheme ............................................................................... 327 Tushaar Shah and Shilp Verma Paper 16. International Experiences of Water Transfers: Relevance to India ................................... 345 Francis Gichuki and Peter G. McCornick Paper 17. Linking Rivers in the Ganges-Brahmaputra River Basin: Exploring the Transboundary Effects ..................................................................................... 373 Anik Bhaduri and Edward Barbier Annexes .......................................................................................................................................... 397 *Pictorial .......................................................................................................................................... 399 **Presentations ................................................................................................................................... 407 1. **National River Linking Project (NLRP) and Perspectives on Indian Irrigation .......... 407 Tushaar Shah 2. **Future Global Water Challenges: Insights from the Comprehensive Assessment ....... 413 Peter G. McCornick 3. **What Components of NRLP Will Work Given the Present Trends of Water Demand? ........................................................................................................................ 423 Anil D. Mohile 4. **Policy Directions National Rain-fed Area Authority (NRAA): Policy Directions ...... 427 J. S. Samra 5. **Sustainable Agriculture and Trade ................................................................................. 433 Yojindra K. Alagh 6. **Groundwater Irrigation in India: Future Directions and Policy Issues ........................ 441 B. M. Jha 7. **Restoration of Livelihoods of Involuntarily Displaced Communities ........................... 451 Madar Samad and Zankhana Shah ***Agenda of the Workshop ............................................................................................................. 469 ****List of Participants ..................................................................................................................... 473 v Acknowledgement The authors (hereinafter referred to as ‘We’) greatly appreciate the ‘Challenge Program for Water and Food’ of the Consultative Group of International Agriculture Research for providing financial support for the research project—‘Strategic Analyses and National River Linking Project of India’. We also appreciate the guidance of the project advisory committee—the chairman Prof. M.S. Swaminathan, and others including Prof. Yojindra K. Alagh, Prof. Vijay S. Vyas, Prof. Kanchan Chopra, Prof. Vandana Shiva, Prof. Frank Rijsberman, Shri Anil D. Mohile, Shri S. Gopalakrishnan and Shri Deep Joshi. Their comments and suggestions at various stages of the project were immensely helpful to us. We acknowledge the assistance of various government institutions, especially the Central Water Commission of the Ministry of Water Resources of India for providing the necessary data and published documents for the various research activities of this project. We thank Shri Suresh Prabhu, Shri A.D. Mohile, Dr. J. S. Samra, Prof. Y. K. Alagh, Dr. B. M. Jha, Dr. R. Sakthivadivel, Shri Ramaswamy Iyer, and Shri N. K.Bhandari for accepting our invitation to conduct the key-note presentations in the workshop. We also extend our thanks to the many national and IWMI researchers and NGOs for their support and collaboration in field data collection, research and preparation of draft research papers for this workshop. We thank all the participants from various government institutions, universities, NGOs and INGOs, civil society and students for their useful deliberations at the workshop, and also all others who have worked behind the scenes to arrange the logistics and other requirements for holding a successful workshop. We also thank all the participants from various government institutions, universities, NGOs and INGOs, civil society and students for their useful deliberations at the workshop, and also all others who have worked behind the scenes to arrange the logistics and other requirements for holding a successful workshop. Finally we express our thanks to Mr. Joseph Perera, Ms. Pavithra Amunugama and Mr. Nimal Attanayake for managing the editorial and production process of the proceedings. vii Preface In 2005, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) started a 3-year research study on ‘Strategic Analyses of India’s River Linking Project’. The primary focus of the IWMI-CPWF project was to provide the public and policy planners with a balanced analysis of the benefits and costs of the different components of the National River Linking Project (NRLP). The first national workshop of the project was held at the NASC Complex, New Delhi from October 9-10, 2007. The major objective of this workshop was to share the results of various research activities conducted so far in the project, with the public, planners and policymakers. Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, Chairman, M. S. Swaminathan Foundation, Chennai, India and also Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the IWMI-CPWF Research Project on NRLP, together with Shri Suresh Prabhu, Member of Parliament and former Minister of Water Resources, inaugurated the workshop. Dr. Madar Samad, Head, IWMI India Office, extended a warm welcome to the distinguished guests and invitees. He emphasized the importance of the project in the research program of IWMI in India and highlighted the contributions of the project to the present debate on the NRLP. Dr. Samad further explained that the national workshop was the culmination of a series of regional meetings held by IWMI. Dr. Peter G. McCornick, Director, IWMI Asia Program, in his keynote speech, emphasized the need to find timely solutions to the problems of rapidly changing environments of water demand and use in the world. He cited for example the emerging trends of scarcities as prompting possible substantial investments in water resource development and management in the future. He concluded it is, therefore, imperative that the research conducted under projects such as the NRLP need to keep pace with the changing ground realities in India and other countries across the world, and the best way to do this is to ensure quick dissemination of the wealth of research conducted by the NRLP teams. This compendium of papers expects to serve this purpose. It presents the summaries of keynote speeches and presentations of invitees, and the draft research papers shared at the national workshop. ix National River Linking Project: Analyses of Hydrological, Social and Ecological Issues Overview of the Workshop Proceedings Upali A. Amarasinghe and Bharat R. Sharma International Water Management Institute, New Delhi, India Introduction Coping with annual floods and droughts, both occurring at the same time in different parts, has been a major concern for India over the millennia. These concerns are more acute today as the growing population and the resultant increase in water demand place a heavy burden on the unevenly distributed water resources, and also cause huge economic losses to the financially vulnerable groups of the population. Additionally, there is a huge demand to enhance and diversify food production to meet the needs of a vast population with changing consumption patterns and higher disposable incomes. Designed to address these concerns, the National River Linking Project (NRLP) envisages transferring water from the potentially water surplus Himalayan rivers to the water-scarce river basins of western and peninsular India (NWDA 2006). The NRLP will build 30 river links and approximately 3,000 storages to connect 37 Himalayan and peninsular rivers to form a gigantic South Asian water grid. As Tushaar Shah et al. (Paper 1 in this volume) have pointed out, the NRLP concept perhaps originated at a time when there was stiff opposition to large dams. Environmentalists questioned the ecological cost of large dams, while the NGOs and civil society probed the social cost of people displacement. However, much of the discourse on the NRLP to date is filled with opinions and assertions, but many of the arguments for and against the project have little analytical rigor. The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) have designed a 3-year project titled ‘Strategic Analysis of India’s River Linking Project’ to qualitatively improve the issues and direction of the present NRLP debate (IWMI 2005). The primary focus of the IWMI-CPWF project is to provide the public and the water resource and policy-planners with a balanced analysis of the pros and cons of the NRLP components. The IWMI-CPWF study, ‘The Strategic Analysis of India’s River Linking Project’, assesses India’s water future from 2025 to 2050 and analyzes alternative options, including x U. A. Amarasinghe and B. R. Sharma the River Linking Project, and their adequacy to meet the demands of the proposed water future. The specific objectives of the project are to: • Assess the most plausible scenario of water supply and demand given the present trends of the determinants of water demand; • Analyze whether the NRLP concept can be an adequate, cost-effective and sustainable response in terms of the present socioeconomic, environmental and political trends, and if implemented, how best the negative social impacts can be mitigated; and • Prepare a plan of institutional and policy interventions as a fallback strategy for the NRLP and identify the best strategies to implement alternative options. Phase I of the project focused on analyzing India’s water future scenarios from 2025 to 2050 and the related issues. Phase II, which is ongoing, analyses aspects of social cost: benefits associated with NRLP without attempting a full social cost-benefit analysis. Based on the findings of the earlier phases, Phase III will explore alternative strategies for ensuring India’s future water security. Due to the paucity of information on many of the proposed links, Phase II’s assessment is conducted in two tracks. Research in the first tack assesses how NRLP as a concept can be socially acceptable and to what extent NRLP can contribute to meeting the water demand scenarios of the nation. Studies in the second track analyze the social cost- effectiveness of the few proposed river links. Under this track, we have selected the proposed Polavaram-Vijayawada and Ken-Bethwa links of the NRLP, and the existing IGNP canal project for detailed analysis. The social cost-effectiveness analysis of the links includes assessing: • Direct and indirect benefits of irrigation water transfers; • Groundwater externalities of surface water transfers; • Gender impacts and equity issues of new water transfers; • Benefits of domestic and industrial water transfers; • Environmental benefits and ‘dis-benefits’; • Hydrological feasibility; and • Resettlement and rehabilitation issues of large water transfers. The studies conducted so far have generated a large number of outputs of relevance for policymakers and the public. The major objective of the national workshop was to share the results of various research activities conducted in Phases I and II of the project, and add value to the ongoing debate on this subject, which remains of great importance to India and the region. This paper presents an overview of the keynote speeches and presentations of the first national workshop. Sections one and two are a summary of the keynote speeches presented at the inaugural session. The issues related to hydrological feasibility of water transfers are discussed in section three, benefits and cost of irrigation water transfers in section four, xi Overview of the Workshop Proceedings implications of improvements in rain-fed agriculture on NRLP water transfers in section five, contingencies for large inter-basin water transfers in section six, groundwater irrigation and future direction in India in section seven, issues of resettlement and rehabilitation in large water transfer projects in section eight, and transboundary issues of water transfers in section nine. We conclude this paper with an overview of the major issues raised in the discussions of the workshop. Inaugural Session The economic growth of a country is critically linked to water security, for which substantial investments are required. The Model by Grey and Sadoff 2005 (Presentation 1 of Tushaar Shah), which influenced the thinking of public investments in the past, suggests that poor countries require investments in water resources development that reach tipping point in order for these to yield positive returns. After a country reaches the tipping point the returns to investment increase, and after a country reaches a reasonable level of water security the returns to investment taper off. Many poor countries will have to invest several times more than their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) value in order to reach the tipping point. However, due largely to low-cost private investment, in South Asia in general, and in India in particular, investments have already reached this tipping point. As a result additional public investment in canal irrigation in these Figure 1. Dominant view of public irrigation investments and returns (Grey-Sadoff model), and South Asia investment patterns. Source: Tushaar Shah’s presentation 1 (see annex) xii U. A. Amarasinghe and B. R. Sharma countries now yields little returns. For example, India invested close to Rs. 100,000 crore (US$24 billion in 2006 prices) in surface irrigation since the early 1990s, but it has hardly resulted in any addition to the net irrigated area. However, use of groundwater, which is primarily private due to the source of investments, dominates irrigation now and is expanding further. Countries such as India, require re-thinking in their public investment strategies to shift the returns to an upward direction. The present trends of development indicate that the major challenges for India in the future lie in managing the colossal groundwater economy. Similar sentiments on the management of groundwater resources were echoed by Prof. M. S. Swaminathan in his inaugural address. Declining returns from past public investments in canal irrigation sector indeed raise many serious issues concerning ‘India’s Water Future’. Many a time, the performance of the irrigation sector in India tends to be measured by the quantum of total investment. However, even after huge investments many areas are still under agrarian distress. Irrigation is one of the important components of the relief packages to areas of agrarian distress. Yet, even after substantial investments, poor performance of the canal irrigation sector remains a grave concern. Statistics of irrigation potential are often overestimated for purposes of obtaining project approval, resulting in a substantial gap with the actual irrigated area. In this context, it is of concern how the 10 million ha of new irrigated lands can be created under the proposed Bharat Nirman Program, let alone the proposed 34 million ha under the NRLP. Although not much research has been conducted on these issues, a substantial part of this additional area could also come from groundwater irrigation. In such a scenario, rainwater harvesting and aquifer recharge become important and necessary. Given its contribution to irrigation and also to drinking and industrial water supplies, augmentation of supply and management of demand of groundwater are important. Accoding to Prof. Swaminathan, given the importance of local level water harvesting and aquifer recharge, grassroots level institutions could play a major role in addressing problems related to water, for which these organizations should be empowered with better knowledge and technology, and sound financial and legal frameworks. Two recent initiatives of the Ministry of Water Resources can contribute immensely to improve rural livelihoods through local planning. The first initiative is the ‘National Water Year Award’. Last year this was awarded to Hiware Bazar (Box 1), which is a classic case of how locally managed organizations can transform villages through better planning. Many National Water Awards, such as the one awarded to Hiware Bazar, could have significant uptake and impacts. Box 1. Water Budgeting in Hiware Bazar Hiware Bazar, a village in Ahmedngar district of Maharashtra, with slightly over 400 mm of rainfall, frequent droughts and degraded environments, is faced with an acute shortage of water. To regenerate its once rich natural resources base and to address current water scarcities, Hiware Bazar Panchayat has created a village level water budget. The village water budget first estimates water availability and then plans the allocation to different users. The local participatory democratic organization, called Gram Sabha, approves these plans, which then become law for the local people. These plans have helped Hiware Bazar recharge its wells, to increase from single to double cropping, to have stable production, and to increase income by 20 times over the last 10 years. xiii Overview of the Workshop Proceedings The second initiative is the 5,000 small experiments conducted by 61 agricultural institutions at 1-2 ha level, for improving water productivity. It is imperative to examine how these unique experiments, and also experiences such as Hiware Bazar, can be out-scaled to other areas or regions and up-scaled to bigger area or community units to achieve larger results, like more crop per land where land is scarce, more crop per drop in water-scarce situations, and more crop per drop of diesel in the context of the emerging energy crisis. According to Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, three important requirements need recognition in the future: 1) Water literacy - education and awareness of the efficient use of scarce water supply, especially given the wastage of water by the affluent ; 2). Social mobilization, where democratic grassroots level organizations that are empowered with knowledge, technology and financially and legally, can play a major role in water management, especially rain water harvesting and managing groundwater in a scientific way; 3) Regulation, which can be used as an instrument in reducing over-exploitation of the resources. These initiatives are important in the context of integrated water resources management at the basin level meeting India’s future water demand. What then is the role of large water transfers such as the National River Linking Project in meeting the future water demand? In his inaugural address, Mr. Suresh Prabhu cited two extreme opinions in the present discourse on NRLP. Both proponents and opponents think that the country will be doomed depending on whether NRLP is not implemented or implemented. In many instances independent analyses of large water transfers are lacking. In this respect, the analysis of IWMI is timely and could contribute to a proper evaluation of the NRLP process. Mr. Prabhu, however, emphasized that it is important to accept that India is having serious problems relating to water. These problems will only be aggravated by an increasing population, especially by an increasing young population. The acceptance of existing and also of impending problems relating to water could help people to think through and analyze the process, and arrive at a logical conclusion. Such an analysis needs a holistic approach. Every human intervention has ecological consequences. Therefore, analysis of water developmental projects should not only assess direct benefits such as hydropower generation, irrigation, groundwater recharge, transportation, employment generation etc., but also assess ecological cost, social and political cost, and the impact of international implications. Such a holistic analysis should also include: • Investigating the potential for up-scaling of micro level water management, such as the case in Hiware Bazar, and their implications; • Conducting scientific analysis of groundwater availability, use, management and of future potential; • Assessing reasons for the gap between irrigation potential that is created and utilized, and the potential for increasing the efficiency of existing irrigation systems; and • Exploring suitable/ optimum cropping patterns for different regions of the country. Furthermore, such an analysis should also consider projects that are already undertaken by different ministries. While the Power Ministry initiates various projects to harness the 150,000 MW potential, the Water Resources Ministry is undertaking projects to increase the irrigated xiv U. A. Amarasinghe and B. R. Sharma potential. In addition, the Forest Ministry conducts forestation activities and the Rural and Urban Development Ministries augment the water supply to meet domestic drinking and municipal and industrial demands. A holistic analysis in the water sector should consider all these factors and results and indicate further requirements for meeting India’s water and hydro-power futures. Only a comprehensive analysis of these complex interacting problems can provide scientific solutions and provide the options that India requires to face the serious challenges in the water sector. Such solutions will not only help the national and state governments, but also cities, communities, households and farmers to make proper decisions on water development and management. India’s Water Future: Scenarios and Issues Increasing demand for water at global, regional, national and local levels has received significant attention in recent studies. The ‘water future’ assessments of the recently concluded Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture highlighted many issues of global and regional importance (Paper 2 by Upali A. Amerasinghe et al)). Growing population, increasing income and urbanization, and associated changes in consumption patterns, especially with increasing income in developing countries, are changing the pace of water demand patterns. Along with changing patterns of food consumption and production, the increasing water demand in domestic and industrial sectors is changing the pattern of water use in developing countries. India is no exception to these changing patterns in the drivers of water supply and demand (Paper 2 by Upali A. Amerasinghe et al.). While demand for cereals in India has been decreasing since the early 1990s, the demand for non-grain crops and animal products has been increasing. As a response to the changing patterns of internal demand and also to the increasing export opportunities under global agricultural trade, cropping patterns in both irrigated and rain-fed areas are diversifying. Groundwater has been the major source of water supply for irrigation in the last two decades. Business-as-usual trends indicate that groundwater will continue to be the major source of water supply for irrigation, and the share of water withdrawals for domestic and industrial sectors will increase much faster than that for irrigation. However, the business-as-usual water use patterns will increase unsustainable water-use patterns, which will lead to water crises in many river basins in the country. Both, supply augmentation through groundwater recharge and irrigation demand management are two areas of immediate importance. Water supply and demand scenarios of the Godavari (Polavram)-Krishna (Vijayawada) link canal under the NRLP water transfers are the focus of Paper 3 by Luna Bharati et al. This study addressed the implications of alternative cropping patterns on the water demand in the command area and outside. Proposed water transfers and use would affect the downstream water users in the Godavari delta reservoir, and will not be able to meet the environmental water demand in the Krishna Basins. The study suggests that water resource development in the region should take into consideration the monthly variations in planning of water resource development. xv Overview of the Workshop Proceedings The discussion of this session highlighted that developing countries need to seriously consider and prioritize their investments in development , utilization and management of water resources, study the scaling implications and institutional requirements for wider dissemination of micro-level successes in water resources management, consider the environment and the project-affected people as important stakeholders in the planning, and identify potential interventions required to be adopted and take suitable action to increase the productivity of water by following environmentally-benign technologies. Hydrological Feasibility of Large Water Transfers The main objective of this session was to discuss issues relating to the hydrological feasibility of large water transfers, such as NRLP, in India. Anil Mohile’s (Presentation 3) keynote address noted the rationale for the planned water transfers in the NRLP project given the situation in the 1970s and 1980s; changes of key parameters in recent years, and the feasibility of proposed links under the changing socioeconomic scenarios. National food security, agriculture dominated economy, lack of electric power in rural areas, imbalance in international trade and strong regional and national view points were among the key drivers that justified the NRLP concept. But many of these key drivers and also agricultural water use practices have changed or are in the process of changing. Agriculture no longer dominates the economy, and agricultural demography is also fast changing. Groundwater is a major source for meeting agricultural water need, and the agriculture sector does not necessarily have priority over other economic sectors and the environment in water use. However, water scarcities are increasing in many regions and concerns do still exist as to the inequitable distribution of water in different regions and as to national food security. In light of these concerns many of the proposed links would generate significant benefits and attract medium to low inter-state and international concerns for implementation. Paper 4 by Vladmir Smakhtin et al. analyzed the hydrological feasibility of proposed water transfers through the links in the NRLP that flow into and out of the Krishna River Basin. This study suggests that the use of annual flow data, as indicated in the feasibility reports, may show that more water is perceived to be available for transfers at the respective site. If the environmental water demand, such as that which is critically required for the delta areas of the Krishna Basin, is also taken into account, the perceived water surpluses may further be reduced. The study suggests that intra-annual variability of water availability and environmental water requirements need be to taken into account in assessing the hydrological feasibility of large water transfers. Shah and Kumar (Paper 5) discussed the issues and controversies associated with the feasibility assessment of small and large dams. According to this analysis, the present criteria of classifying large dams according to the height of the dam, is not appropriate. The existing criterion often overestimates the social and environmental cost, which often leads to substantial interest and debate. It also leads to a significant underestimation of the indirect social and economic benefits that large dams generate. This paper argues that the new classification criteria could better assess the benefit and cost of large dams. xvi U. A. Amarasinghe and B. R. Sharma Cost and Benefits of Irrigation Water Transfers The economic cost and benefits of past irrigation investments and also of the proposed water transfers were the focus of this session. The study by Inocencio and McCornick (Paper 6), which is based on a global data set of 314 water development projects, included 37 projects from India that showed that although the economic performance of surface irrigation projects is increasing globally, it has been declining in India in recent years. However, large projects with many small schemes, projects with diversified cropping patterns, and projects that are farmer-managed and others managed by water user associations tend to have a higher economic performance. The finding of this study is indeed revealing in the light of the huge investments made and the decline in the canal irrigated areas in recent years. Anik Bhaduri et al. (Paper 7) and Upali A. Amarasinghe et al. (Paper 8) estimate the economic benefits of the proposed water transfers in the Godavari (Polavaram)-Krishna (Vijayavada) and the Ken-Bethwa links of the NRLP. A major part of the proposed command area in both locations is already irrigated. The study by Anik Bhaduri et al. (Paper 7) shows groundwater irrigates more than 90% of the command area of the Godawari-Krishna Link at present. Thus, the additional net value added as economic benefits per additional cubic meter of proposed water transfer, is estimated to be low. However, a substantial part of the command area has declining watertables due to overabstraction of groundwater, and is presently a constraint for further diversification and economic growth in the command area. The proposed water transfers will assist more diversification to high-value annual crops and recharge the depleting groundwater tables in the command area. The study by Upali A. Amarasinghe et al. (Paper 8) noted the importance of local level hydro-meteorological conditions and patterns of crop production in the planning of local level water transfers. Monsoons provide much of the rainfall in the Ken-Betwa link command area, thus, hardly any area is irrigated during the kharif season. However, a substantial part of the irrigation transfers is proposed for the kharif season. Moreover, rice is a major part of the proposed cropping pattern, whereas rice cultivation in this area, even under irrigation conditions, has decreased significantly in recent years. The study shows that the direct and indirect benefits per every cubic meter of water consumed or delivered is rather low even under the most optimistic scenarios of cropping patterns. The results of this study once again reaffirm the importance of giving due consideration to interests conducive to local conditions. Amrita Sharma et al. (Paper 9), while analyzing the impact of irrigation water transfers on gender and equity’, made a deliberate deviation, looking at different types of impact on irrigation within the command areas of a canal project. The benefits of irrigation are utilized differently across different communities, depending many a times on the social, political and financial capital of different communities. The existing inefficiency in water supply management and poor supervision from the irrigation authorities and WUAs have made the head-tail divide much sharper. The rapid land transactions altered significantly the social geography of the area during the initial period of the study. While some communities with more social and financial capital are able to move up the economic order, many other landless people could not get adequate benefits. Thus, with the prevailing poverty situation, irrigation interventions have made little dents on unequal gender relationships. There is a little change xvii Overview of the Workshop Proceedings in women’s access to and control over key primary assets and with little impact on their personal lives and decision-making capacity. Future of Rain-fed Agriculture – Implication for NRLP Water Transfers Rain-fed agriculture covers 60% of the present crop area in India but contributes to only one- third of the crop production. Improving productivity could significantly increase crop production from the existing rain-fed areas and in turn reduce requirements for large scale intra- and inter basin water transfers for irrigation. Dr. J. S. Samra, Chairman of Rain-fed Agriculture Authority of India explained its role in improving agricultural productivity under rain-fed conditions (Presentation 4). The importance of supplemental irrigation in critical periods of water stress for higher crop yields, opportunities of runoff water harvesting and recycling of water for supplemental irrigation on crop yields are vital areas of research and development for the Indian rain-fed agriculture. Bharat R. Sharma et al. (Paper 10) showed that the productivity of rain-fed areas is indeed hampered due to mid-season and terminal droughts. Supplemental irrigation in these critical periods can significantly increase yields of many rain-fed crops. In large parts of rain-fed areas, water availability is not a constraint for supplemental irrigation. This analysis shows that 28 M ha of rain-fed lands, which can benefit from supplemental irrigation, generate about 114 billion cubic meters of runoff annually. Only a fraction of this runoff can provide critical supplemental irrigation to 25 million ha of crop lands during normal monsoon and 20 million ha during the drought seasons. Provision of this harvested water through one supplemental irrigation during the later stages of crop growth has the potential to enhance rain-fed production by more than 50 %.This analysis shows water harvesting for supplemental irrigation in rain- fed lands is indeed economically viable and socially equitable, and could have little negative impact in the downstream. Potential benefits are much higher for oilseeds, pulses and rain-fed rice areas as compared to coarse cereal areas. Contingencies that Could Justify Large-scale Water Transfers It is argued that uncertainties associated with international trade and the requirements for national food self-sufficiency, increasing use of biofuel and the associated increase in irrigation water demand, essential requirement of reliable water supply for crop diversification in high- value crops, the energy crisis and its impacts on smallholder farmers using groundwater, depleting groundwater tables in basins that are reaching closure, constraints for large-scale groundwater recharge in hard rock regions and increasing demand and willingness to pay from domestic and industrial users in exchange for reliable surface water supply, are several contingencies that could justify large-scale water transfers between basins. This session focuses on a few of the aforementioned important issues. Prof. Y.K. Alagh (Presentation 5) discussed how international trade can be used to avert large- scale water transfers between basins. Although internal demand is a major driver of crop diversification in India, international trade can increase this process. This kind of impetus xviii U. A. Amarasinghe and B. R. Sharma on crop diversification will also increase pressure on water and land availability. However, the trading trends between agricultural agroclimatic regions were the ones which often encouraged the implementation of sustainable land and water management policies. There can be considerable synergy between trade, diversification and sustainable development. However, the present agricultural policies of India are not conducive to a trading environment, which is dominated by the WTO and also confounded by highly distorted global agricultural markets. A major part of the present agricultural exports includes horticulture, dairy products and spices, most of them grown on drylands. However, the present crop diversification that is followed in many irrigated lands ignores these opportunities. The main crop diversification now includes switching to high-value cereal crops and following it up with non-cereal food or non-food crops. However, fodder or tree crops or horticulture in some areas, while improving trading opportunities, will decrease pressure on the demand for water. More than 15 million smallholder groundwater irrigators in India, of which many are water buyers, are under siege from an energy squeeze. Deteriorating farm power supply, increasing difficulty in acquiring new electricity connections and an eight-fold increase in prices of diesel, contribute to this squeeze. Surface irrigation is an alternative to this crisis, but that may require large water transfers. Tushaar Shah (in Paper 11) discussed the trends of recent energy prices, the energy crisis in agriculture and of the coping strategies adopted by small landholder irrigators in India. Increases in diesel prices and pump irrigation charges by six to eight fold in the last four decades have far exceeded the increases in prices for food crops. In the 1990s, selling one kg of wheat was sufficient for purchasing one liter of diesel. Today, it costs three to four times more than that amount to purchase a liter of diesel. The demand for groundwater irrigation is highly elastic to the irrigation cost. Energy squeeze is a major cause of severe agrarian distress, especially among the landless smallholder water buyers. Coping strategies to minimize the impact of the energy squeeze at present include diesel saving crop substitution or return to rain-fed farming; energy substitution of PDS kerosene to diesel and/or using low- cost Chinese diesel/kerosene pumps; adopting energy-saving irrigation practices or shifting to high-value and high-risk crops; and as a last option, an exit from unviable farming. Promoting fuel-efficient Chinese diesel/kerosene pumps, subsidizing diesel or providing rations for kerosene, increasing power supply or providing a separate electricity supply for agriculture, and targeting electric supply to poor or cooperative electric tubewells could ease the present agrarian distress. Surface irrigation is a major source for recharging groundwater and that in turn mitigates problems relating to the downward trend in the groundwater tables of water-scarce regions. However, positive and negative externalities of groundwater recharge in surface irrigation systems are often underestimated. The study of the Godavari (Polavaram)-Krishna (Vijayawada) Link of the NRLP by Bharat R. Sharma et al. (Paper 12) discussed the externalities of additional water transfers. The study also projects that surface irrigation in the Godavari- Krishna Link command would raise the groundwater level on average by 2 meters, and improve the groundwater profile from over-exploited to semi-critical blocks in the Krishna Basin. However, at the same time 16% of the command area could also be at risk of waterlogging. In addition, the study suggests that conjunctive water use with the existing infrastructure and with appropriate cropping patterns could mitigate waterlogging and, thus increase the economic benefits. xix Overview of the Workshop Proceedings Rainwater harvesting and artificial groundwater recharge are proposed as possible alternatives for large surface water transfers. Dinesh Kumar et al. (Paper 13), however, highlighted the limited opportunities that exist for rainwater harvesting and artificial recharge in the many arid regions of India. Low quantity and highly variable rainfall, fewer rainy days, high evaporation and hard rock geology in many water-scarce areas are the major limitations in the supply side. Due to high demand, many river basins in water-scarce areas are facing closure now. As regards these basins, the economic value of water is high in water-scarce areas vis-à-vis water surplus upstream catchments. Therefore, attempts to change hydrological impacts upstream could have severe economic impacts in the downstream regions. The study also noted the high unit cost of water harvesting associated with many known techniques. A better understanding of surface and groundwater and upstream and downstream interactions of water supply in a basin, basin-wide water accounts, and of the cost of various techniques for different environments, are necessary for designing cost- effective programs of water harvesting. Groundwater Irrigation – Future Directions for India Groundwater was the major driver of irrigation expansion in the past, and is the source for more than 60 % of the total irrigated area at present. This trend seemed to continue unabated albeit at a slower rate of growth. Mr. Jha, Chairman of the Central Ground Water Board, shared the vision of future direction and policy issues (Presentation 6). Due to an unprecedented increase in groundwater abstraction, the depth of groundwater in many regions is at a threateningly low level. About 30 % of the 5,723 assessment units are either over exploited or at critical to semi-critical levels. This includes much of the breadbasket of India—especially in the states of Punjab and Haryana. The present rate of abstraction of groundwater could even impact the food, health and environmental security of these regions, in particular, and the whole nation, in general. It is imperative that many effective policy measures are implemented quickly to avoid a widespread crisis. These policy options include: regulatory mechanisms for curtailing groundwater exploitation in the over-exploited areas; demand management strategies for reducing abstraction, which includes pricing, spreading micro-irrigation techniques, providing a reliable electricity supply etc.; supply augment measures through artificial recharge; plan for ownership and allocation of groundwater among different sectors; and judicious planning of groundwater abstraction in under-exploited areas in the flood-plain aquifers, alluvial plains in eastern and north- eastern India, and in the coastal areas. In spite of the limitation illustrated by Dinesh Kumar et al. (Paper 13), artificial recharge movement has a long history in India and is argued to have a significant potential for restoring depleted resources and thereby improving groundwater irrigation. R. Sakthivadivel (Paper 14), speaking on “Decentralized Artificial Recharge Movements in India: Potential and Issues”, showed the extent of artificial recharge movement in the country and the techniques of recharge, national status on artificial recharge technology, economic and environmental impacts, and cost of artificial recharge. This paper argues that a substantial part of the future water demand can be met from artificial and wastewater recharge. Sustainable groundwater recharge programs are necessary to reap the full benefits of artificial and xx U. A. Amarasinghe and B. R. Sharma wastewater recharge. Thus, groundwater recharge programs should be participatory where communities are involved in the planning and management of groundwater resources. The paper also suggested a systematic research program for identifying potential areas for artificial groundwater recharge and their benefit and cost. Tushaar Shah and Shilp Verma (Paper 15) discussed a possible demand side management strategy for groundwater overdraft. In 2002, IWMI, in its studies, argued that intelligent rationing of an electricity supply is the second best option to full metering. It suggested to separate the electricity supply given to tubewell farmers, provide electricity according to a pre-announced schedule, provide high-quality power supply during the peak irrigation demand periods of about 30 days and reduce the supply to 4-5 hours per day during the rest of the period, avoid metering cost for now, but gradually increase the flat tariff to meet the average cost, and enforce stringent controls on the new electricity connections and pump sizes. ‘Jyotirgram Yojana’, is the Government of Gujarat’s response to management of groundwater over-abstraction, in which they separated the power supply to farm tubewell irrigators and the non-farm sector, and implemented all but one of the IWMI recommendations. Today, the non-farm sector in Gujarat receives 24 hours of power supply, and the tubewell irrigators receive 3-phase uninterrupted power supply for 8 hours per day. ‘Jyotirgram Yojana’ is a successful effort on demand management in Gujarat, and an improved version with modifications will offer a way to reverse rural de-electrification in eastern India at a moderate cost. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Management in Large Dam Projects in India: The Lessons for India Resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) of involuntarily displaced populations continue to be a difficult problem, despite the vast national and international experiences in R&R, and the existence of several guidelines on resettlement management. Many attribute this to the limitations of policy guidelines and institutional limitations. This session, while acknowledging these limitations, deviated from a traditional analysis of issues relating to R & R. It discussed the long-term impacts of R&R by analyzing the new livelihood opportunities created by new water development projects and which displaced people benefited from these projects. Ramaswamy Iyer, former Secretary to the Ministry of Water Resources of India, illustrated the changes that are under consideration in the new policy on R&R. According to his opinion emerging enlightenment was reversed by the pursuit of growth and development accompanied by impatience with other concerns. He regrets the loss of a sense of justice and compassion, and outlined an approach to a more humane and equitable policy on displacement and rehabilitation. The study by Madar Samad and Zankhana Shah (Presentation 7) shows that enhanced livelihood opportunities in relocation sites can create longer-term benefits that compensate the short-term losses associated with such resettlement schemes. The study also tests the hypothesis that with proper risk management policies, the short-term negative impacts of the livelihood of displaced people can be fully averted in some cases and largely arrested or xxi Overview of the Workshop Proceedings to some extent mitigated in others. In these cases, livelihoods of resettled people are restored quickly to those levels at which they were before displacement. The study findings are based on field studies of the resettled population in Ujjani project in Maharashtra and Sardar- Sarovar project in Gujarat and Maharashtra. The hypotheses have been proven true for the ‘oustees’ in Gujarat, but their success in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh lagged in propensity. Although ‘oustees’ in Gujarat have encountered a period of initial stress and a decline in their standard of living, a majority of them have restored their livelihood to that of the pre-displaced level within 4-6 years. Unlike other states, Gujarat has a unique mechanism for acquiring agricultural land for replacement at market prices, and also has a special agency for implementation. In addition the state has well-developed special units for monitoring the resettlement and rehabilitation process. This study, although discourages forced displacement, adds a new dimension to the discourse on R & R of ‘oustees’ of major development projects. It reveals that not all is bad for R & R ‘oustees’, contrary to what is frequently highlighted in many large water transfer projects. Transboundary Conflicts in Water Transfers Water transfers in the Himalayan component of the NRLP are saddled with issues and conflicts relating to transboundary water diversions. However, many lessons can be learned from existing international agreements. Gichuki and McCornick ( Paper 16) highlighted international experiences from agreements on using water in the Aral Sea basin among Central Asian republics, and water transfers between Tagus and Ebro basins in Spain. Much of the initial agreements of water sharing are no longer functional in these basins, and many conflicts have arisen recently. Many of these conflicts are due to the unforeseen circumstances at the time of formulating the initial agreements. Thus, a holistic analysis of the water supply, its use and the future demand for it in different countries in a river basin could reduce these conflicts to a minimal. Can existing agreements also be modified to augment water supply by transferring more water between basins? A classic case is the agreement between India and Bangladesh on sharing the Ganga’s water. Under NRLP, surplus water of the Brahmaputra River is expected to be transferred to the Ganga basin to facilitate further transfers to the peninsular basins. Anik Bhaduri and Edward Barbier. (Paper 17) suggest that existing agreements can be modified to augment water supply, which in turn will benefit both countries. However this depends on the political altruism of India to transfer water to a downstream country such as Bangladesh. In the absence of political altruism, and if India unilaterally diverts water to her peninsular basins, Bangladesh would incur huge environmental losses. This research is still at an early stage and more work is required for quantifying the water transfers that entail a win-win situation for both countries, under many forms of possible contingencies. However, the study by Bhaduri et al. shows how two countries can transfer water between basins and benefit both if the up-stream country has political altruism to transfer water to the down-stream country or have sound legalistic insurance mechanism in place to safeguard the downstream country in the event of a negation in altruism. xxii U. A. Amarasinghe and B. R. Sharma Conclusions It is indeed important to acknowledge, as many participants of the workshop agreed, that if business-as-usual trends continue, India will face a severe water crisis. Inter-basin water transfers could certainly be a solution for water-scarce regions in peninsular India. However, the research conducted under this project, although raised many important issues, did not provide precise estimates of the quantity and the locations that can benefit from these water transfers. The discussion on the need for expanding surface irrigation was always overshadowed by the poor returns to investments in this sector. The colossal investments in the canal irrigation sector in the recent decades had hardly any impact on increasing the surface irrigated area and promoting diversified agriculture. It is indeed intriguing why such stagnation or in some areas declining trends of surface irrigated area continue. Most likely poor management of the created infrastructure, inefficient water institutions at various levels and economically unviable political policies in the water sector are the factors that lead to such a situation. In order to know the need for further surface water transfers, it is imperative to accurately assess the reasons for such underperformance in the canal irrigation sector, and the potential of other supply augmentation and demand management strategies in the existing irrigation infrastructure. There are no disagreements that groundwater, as in the past, will play a major role in shaping India’s Water Future. In fact, much of the proposed irrigated area, as in the Godavari-Krishna and Ken-Betwa, under the NRLP is already irrigated through groundwater. Many argued that harnessing the excess runoff through water harvesting and artificial groundwater recharge can provide supplemental irrigation for the rain-fed areas as well as sustain the groundwater irrigation in others. But, equally strong arguments are made that the potential for artificial recharge, especially in the water-scarce arid regions of India, is low due to vagaries of rainfall. And water harvesting, artificial recharge and upstream development in water-scarce basins can have a significant negative economic impact on downstream users. However, it is not clear where exactly and in what magnitude these negative impacts occur in India. This requires a thorough investigation. Studies also show micro irrigation, resource conservation technologies and other water saving technologies can contribute substantially to demand management and productivity enhancement as well. Change in consumption patterns and fast economic growth in large parts of the country require a shift in cropping patterns with much greater attention to diversified agriculture and animal/ fisheries based products. All this requires precise and reliable water supplies, especially for the smallholder farmers, located closer to the cities and towns. Supplies from groundwater and treated wastewaters have the potential to meet these fast growing demands. Additionally, the domestic and industrial water demands are expected to grow substantially resulting in high opportunity costs to meet the additional investment requirements. Future large, water transfer projects must make an adequate allocation to meet these demands. In fact, the Godavari-Krishna Link’s left bank canal has been designed mostly to meet the growing domestic and industrial demands of Vishakhapatnam city. Productivity enhancement is also mentioned as a critical tool for reducing further irrigation expansion. Estimates show only less than half of the water withdrawals are depleted beneficially at present. It is also true that although irrigation was a major determinant of productivity growth in India, the growth of yield has begun to decline in recent times. Therefore, it is important to xxiii Overview of the Workshop Proceedings identify locations of low productivity and high potential areas and where interventions for increasing the water productivity are required. Rain-fed agriculture shall continue to play an important role in meeting the existing and future food demands, especially relating to oilseeds, pulses, rain-fed rice and coarse cereals. Presently, in addition to the levels of productivity being low, the vulnerability of the farmers dependent on it is quite high. Improving productivity in rain-fed agriculture, with a small quantity of supplemental irrigation, is shown to have significant potential. Assessment of available water surplus in river basins should also receive significant attention. Future water requirements of different water users within the basin, whether for irrigation, domestic or industrial uses and most importantly for the downstream riverine environment should be assessed before deciding the surplus. Presently, in the entire discourse on water resources development, environment is a silent stakeholder. Equally important is to consider water availability at shorter time periods, at least monthly for evaluating the water availability. In the absence of such an analysis, more water is perceived to be available for transfers at different locations. When water is proposed to be transferred across the basins, on most occasions the interests of donor and the recipient regions (states/ countries) are at conflict and need to be resolved through innovative win-win solutions. In the absence of mature and experienced river basin organizations and well-established sharing mechanisms, the issues involved are sure to become more complex than the hydraulic structures and, have the potential to become the first stumbling block in the process of water transfer. The associated and equally important issue is the properly designed, disseminated and implemented rehabilitation and relief package for the project affected people. As the land is becoming scarce and valuable and civil society organizations more vocal and effective, the acquisitions must be handled with great sensitivity, tact and empathy. References IWMI (International Water Management Institute). 2006. Strategic Analysis of India’s National River Linking project (NRLP). Proposal accepted by the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. Available on line http://nrlp.iwmi.org/PDocs/PrjProposal.asp. NWDA (National Water Development Agency). 2006. “The Need”, www.nwda.gov.in. 1 India’s River Linking Project: The State of the Debate1 1Tushaar Shah, 1Upali A. Amarasinghe and 2Peter G. McCornick 1International Water Management Institute, India 2 International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka Introduction For a people reveling in discord, Indians have become increasingly united when it comes to sharing the dread of their water-scarce future. Also visible with this growing concern is a rapidly spreading sense of disenchantment towards the inadequacy and apathy of governments in dealing with recurrent cycles of flood and drought, occurring simultaneously in different parts of the country. So when the President of India, in a speech addressed to the nation on the eve of Independence Day 2003, declared, “The first mission (of my government) is on the Networking of Rivers … This will eliminate the periodical problem of droughts and floods ... and provide both water and power security”, he was addressing this popular concern directly. For a long period of time, the notables in India have argued that the answer to the drought-proneness of western and peninsular India lies in the flood-proneness of the east, and vice versa. Sir Arthur Cotton, who restored the Grand Anicut on the Cauvery and has remained a cult figure in the Deccan villages since the early decades of the nineteenth century, had thought of a plan to link the rivers in southern India for inland navigation. More recently during the mid-1960s, Dr K.L. Rao, a well-respected technocrat, presented a crude proposal for a Ganga-Cauvery Link from a point below Patna. A few years later, Captain Dastur, a pilot, speculated aloud about a lateral Himalayan canal from the Ravi to the Brahmaputra along a constant 400-meter contour interconnected with a Garland Canal girdling peninsular India. But ideas like the Garland canal and the Ganga-Cauvery Link were routinely dismissed as too grandiose for a resource-strapped nation. The Indian psyche was, however, never fully disassociated with the idea; Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi constituted the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) to start detailed planning of a mega-project, which no one imagined would ever leave the drawing board. Implementing the mega-scheme, which required pre-feasibility studies, feasibility studies, environment impact studies and the like, was destined to be a long, drawn out process. But in 2003, acting on an innocuous petition from a lawyer, the Supreme Court of India decided that 1Draft prepared for a book volume of the RFF Press water policy series. 2 T. Shah, U. A. Amarasinghe and P. G. McCornick the time had come for the nation to pull its act together on the water front, and enjoined the Government of India to complete all planning required to launch the River Linking Project by 2006, and to complete the project itself, by 2016. Without losing time, Prime Minister Bajpai of the then ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government—who had so far been an avid advocate of local rainwater harvesting - constituted a high-powered, multi-disciplinary task force to embark upon the Project forthwith and asked Suresh Prabhu, a young, highly regarded minister, to lead it. Many expected the idea to be dropped on the wayside when the NDA government fell. Moreover, a groundswell of opposition had emerged from environmental groups and civil society organizations that have begun to question the basic model of water resources planning and management through the use of large-scale dams and canal networks. The new United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has waxed and waned the mega- project; however, it is hard to tell when the idea will rise from its ashes like the phoenix and bestride the Indian discourse on water scarcity like a colossus. Resuming the Global Experience Even as India has been procrastinating, the rest of the world has gone ahead with inter-basin water transfer (IBT) projects at a brisk pace during the past 50 years or so. Global and local opposition notwithstanding, China has steadfastly stayed on course in its own scheme of transferring 48 km3 of water from the Yangtze River to the Yellow River to improve water availability in the dry plains of North China. Elsewhere in the world, many IBT projects have faced a variety of problems and produced some unwanted side-effects; however, in overall terms, most have turned out to be beneficial on balance. Even a wary global environmental review of IBTs (Snaddon, Davis and Wishart 1999), which advocates using precautionary principles, concluded that: “In many parts of the world, water transfers have become the lifeblood of developing and extant human settlements, for which no alternative is currently perceived to be available.” If an IBT is viewed as ‘the mass transfer of water from one geographically distinct watershed to another’ (ibid), IBT has been the central theme in the story of human development over the last 6,000 years. Inter-basin water transfers are nothing new, even in India. Colonial irrigation works in the Indus and Ganga basins were early successes in large-scale inter-basin water transfers. Elsewhere in the world, we find much older cases. China’s Grand Canal, Roman aqueducts and quanats, or sub-surface water galleries from Spain through the entire Middle East down to Baluchistan, are some such cases. Diversion of the Periyar River in 1985 to augment the waters of the Vaigai in Tamil Nadu, the Krishna-Cuddapah (Pennar basin) Canal and the Telegu Ganga Canal that provide water to the Krishna resulting an increase in the drinking water supply to Chennai are some recent cases where IBT has been successful. In the case of the Indira Gandhi Nahar (IGN) or the Rajasthan Canal, each carries over 9.362 km3 (7.59 million acre feet) of Ravi and Beas waters through the Bhakra for irrigation in the Thar Desert. The Sardar Sarovar Project carries the Narmada waters across seven basins to the arid areas of North Gujarat, Saurashtra and Kutch (Verghese 2003). With the growth of science and 3 India’s River Linking Project engineering and the intensity of water scarcities, IBT projects during the past century have become increasingly large in the volumes handled and bold in their design. Moreover, with water and environment issues increasingly entering the public discourse, planning and executing IBT projects have involved not only considerable engineering and technological experience, but complex social management as well. We illustrate these issues with the help of two examples, one from a rich country context and another from an emerging economy context. The first is the 50-year old Colorado Big Thomson, USA, which illustrates the life-cycle of a water infrastructure project over a period of rapid socioeconomic change. Relative to the scale of water transfers India is contemplating, the Colorado Big Thomson is a minor intervention, yet it diverts approximately 0.284 km3 /annum (0.23 million acre-feet) of water from the upper reaches of the western flowing Colorado River, one of the most ‘closed’ basins in the World, and sends it eastward into the South Platte River basin, which is part of the Mississippi-Missouri basin. This project, implemented by the United States Bureau for Reclamation (USBR), was constructed between 1938 and 1957. Its primary purpose was to provide water for irrigation, and for municipal and industrial use along the front range of the Rocky Mountains in northern Colorado. It provides water to 29 municipalities, including Fort Collins, Boulder, Loveland, and Longmont; over 100 ditch and reservoir companies (water users associations), and 251,000 hectares (620,000 acres) of irrigated land (Colorado State University 2006). The water that flows down the Big Thomson River is also used to generate hydropower, which inter alia drives the pumps that lift the water on the western slopes into the diversion tunnel. In implementing the project, the USBR included the key stakeholders, particularly the irrigation districts (water users associations) which were to benefit from the increased and more reliable water supplies, and the relevant municipalities, all of which collectively formed into the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District (NCWCD). Even when this project was developed, the implementation had to navigate arguments between government agencies, protests from environmentalists concerned with the preservation of a National Park, disputes between the communities in the western and eastern slopes, heated arguments over water rights, and such things as labor and materials shortages brought on by World War II (Autobee 1996). Over the years however, the project has evolved. The NCWCD, effectively the water users, now operates the entire system. Also, growing awareness and new legislation have resulted in increased attention to the environmental needs in both the receiving and ‘donating’ river systems. Finally, while there remains a vibrant irrigated agricultural economy in the area that utilizes the bulk of the water supply, the relative role of agriculture in the regional economy has significantly diminished, and in the past two decades or so, municipalities, including those further to the south in the urban conurbation of greater Denver, have acquired certain water rights from farmers in order to meet growing domestic and industrial demands. Even today, decades after it was developed, the Colorado Big Thomson project has its detractors. To take a quote from a local newspaper: “New generations take an ample water supply for granted, and political clout has passed to environmental lobbies that have made water providers the goats instead of heroes.” (Hornby 1993). The second example is the well-known Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP), which, built and managed by Lesotho and South Africa, illustrates the dynamics of IBT in a developing 4 T. Shah, U. A. Amarasinghe and P. G. McCornick country context. This was developed to divert water from the relatively economically poor, yet water-rich country of Lesotho, to the prosperous but water-short South Africa, specifically to the wealthy province of Gauteng. The project transfers water from the upper reaches of the Orange/Sengu rivers and diverts it into the Vaal River. Initial investigations for this project began in the 1950s, but subsequent attempts to implement it failed as the two countries could not reach an agreement. In the early 1980s, after much deliberation and planning, feasibility studies were undertaken with the involvement of both Lesotho and South Africa, and the project as conceived at that time formed the basis of the treaty between the two governments, which was signed in 1986. As intended, the LHWP became one of the largest water transfer projects in the world, which was estimated to cost US$8 billion. Phase 1, which was completed in 2004 at a cost of approximately US$2 billion, diverts approximately 750 million m3 of water per annum. It comprised three storage dams in the upper reaches of the Orange/Sengu river system, 110 km of transfer tunnels leading to the Vaal River via a hydropower station, 300 km of access roads, and, while not included in the original design, a number of environmental and social mitigation and enhancement measures too, have been put in place (Earle and Turton 2005). Royalties and hydropower revenues from Phase 1 contributed approximately US$31 million to Lesotho in 2004, which was about 5% of their GDP. The location of the major works of the project is sparsely populated. The treaty allowed for the management of the environment, sustaining of existing livelihoods and set up compensation mechanisms for those negatively impacted by the project. The implementation of Phase 1, included environmental impact assessments and environmental action plans, which included resettlement and development, public health and natural environment, and heritage components (Mochebelele 2000). However, a thorough environmental flow analysis was not initiated until 1997, by which time part of the construction activities in phase 1 was already completed (IUCN 2003). The initial concept had been to maximize the quantity of water transferred with limited regard for in-stream flows, but the results from the environmental feasibility assessment (EFA) required that the releases from the already built facilities be increased and design changes be made to Phase 1, at least as much as could be done as the project was already at an advanced state of implementation by the time the results were available (IUCN 2003). The project had assumed that those most affected by its development were the few people located within the inundation pools of the reservoirs, and that there would be little impact on the downstream dwellers. The EFA, however, concluded that there would be significant hydrological, ecological and socioeconomic effects on the people living downstream as well as on the riverine ecosystem. The EFA allowed compensation for these impacted persons, resulting in a doubling of the portion of implementation funds used for environmental- related works from Phase 1 The EFA also contributed to a major re-consideration of the next phases i.e., 2 to 5 of the project (IUCN 2003). The LHWP however, became infamous for corruption, due to accusations leveled at it and subsequent high profile court cases, some of which are on going. While the presence of corruption is not new in large-scale infrastructure developments and the victims are more often than not, those who are already marginalized, the only positive outcome here is that the offenders have or are being prosecuted, which in turn has improved the overall efficiency and transparency of doing business in Lesotho (Earle and Turton 2005). Earle and Turton (2005) concluded that civil society needs to be equipped and empowered to report corruption; that 5 India’s River Linking Project the authorities need the capacity to investigate; and that the institutional arrangements made should be up to the task at stake, including anti-corruption arrangements such as those that have been established in Lesotho at present. These arrangements included mechanisms to ensure that the contractors entrusted with work have not been involved in any form of corrupt practices in the past. These two examples illustrate that implementing IBTs is a considerable challenge in social and political terms, even in the best of environments. Nevertheless, if planned and executed in a participatory manner that takes into account the suggestions made by various stakeholder groups, sound IBT projects can truly become ‘the lifeblood of developing and extant human settlements’. The major challenge that India’s ILR project faces is how to negotiate with and reconcile the conflicting needs and aspirations of stakeholders to welcome a water enterprise that is of a scale, scope and socio-ecological complexity that the world has never encountered before. The Indian ILR Project The project that the Supreme Court and the President have enjoined the Government of India to implement may well be the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken in the world, transferring water from surplus river basins to ease the water shortages in western and southern India, while mitigating the impacts of recurrent floods in eastern India (NWDA 2006). The project will build 30 links and approximately 3,000 storages to connect 37 Himalayan and Peninsular rivers to form a gigantic South Asian water grid. The canals, planned to be 50 to 100 meters wide and more than 6 meters deep, will facilitate the navigation of water. The estimates of key project variables- still in the nature of ‘back-of-the-envelope calculations’—suggest that it will cost a staggering US$123 billion (or Indian Rs. 560,000 crore at 2002 prices), handle 178 km3 of inter-basin water transfer/per year, build 12,500 km of canals, create 35 giga watts in hydropower capacity, add 35 million hectares to India’s irrigated areas, and generate an unknown volume of navigation and fishery benefits (Mohile 2003; Institution of Engineers 2003; GOI 2003). Approximately 3,700 MW would be required to lift water across major watershed ridges by up to 116 meters. Far from 2016, most observers agree that this project may not be fully complete even by 2050. Verghese (2003), one of its few champions outside the government, suggests it should be viewed as a 50 to 100 year project. The ILR project is conceptualized in two distinct components: the Himalayan and peninsular (Figure 1). The former will transfer 33 Km3 of water, and the latter will transfer 141 Km3 of water through a combined network of 14,900 km long canals (NWDA 2006). The Himalayan Component (HC), with 16 river links, has two sub-components: the first will transfer the surplus waters of the Ganga and Brahmaputra rivers to the Mahanadi Basin and from there the water will be relayed to Godavari, Godavari to Krishna, Krishna to Pennar and Pennar to the Cauvery basins. The second sub-component will transfer water from the eastern Ganga tributaries to benefit the western parts of the Ganga and the Sabarmati river basins. Altogether, these transfers will mitigate floods in the eastern parts of the Ganga Basin, and provide the western parts of the basin with irrigation and water supplies. The Himalayan component needs several large dams in Bhutan and Nepal to store and transfer flood waters from the tributaries of the Ganga and Brahmaputra rivers, and also within India to transfer the surplus waters of 6 T. Shah, U. A. Amarasinghe and P. G. McCornick the Mahanadi and Godavari rivers. The peninsular component has 16 major canals and four sub-components: 1) linking the Mahanadi-Godavari-Krishna-Cauvery-Vaigai rivers; 2) linking west flowing rivers that are south of Tapi and north of Bombay; 3) linking the Ken-Betwa and Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal rivers; and 4) diverting the flow in some of the west flowing rivers to the eastern side. The en route irrigation under the peninsular component is expected to irrigate a substantial area as proposed under the NRLP. This area to be irrigated is situated in arid and semi-arid western and peninsular India. The total cost of the project includes three components: 1) the peninsular component will cost US$23 billion (Rs.1, 06,000 crore); 2) the Himalayan component will cost US$ 41 billon (Rs.1, 85,000 crore); and 3) the hydroelectric component will cost US$59 billion (Rs. 2, 69,000 crore). The quantity of water diverted in the peninsular component will be 141 cubic kilometers and in the Himalayan component it will be 33 cubic kilometers. The total power generated via the hydroelectric component will be 34 gega watts (GW) – 4 GW in the peninsular component and 30 GW in the Himalayan component (Rath 2003). What makes ILR unique is its unrivalled grandiosity. If and when completed, ILR will handle four times more water than China’s South to North water transfer project, which is one of the largest inter-basin water transfer projects implemented in the world at present (Stone and Jia 2006). ILR will handle four times more water than the Three Gorges Dam; five times all inter-basin water transfers completed in the U.S.A; and more than six times the total transfer of the six inter-basin water transfers projects already operational in India namely, Sharda- Sahayak; Beas-Sutlej; Madhopur-Beas Link; Kurnool Cudappa Cana; Periya Vegai Link; and Telgu Ganga. The ILR cost, as presently ‘guesstimated’, would be three times the cost of China’s South-North water transfers scheme; six times the cost of Three Gorges Project, and twenty times the estimated costs of the Red-Dead connection in the Middle East. ILR will require a larger investment than the sum total of all irrigation investments made by the governments of colonial and free India since 1830. And this cost is based on numbers that are little more than a conservative ‘guesstimate’ that more than likely excludes the cost of land acquisition. When the cost of land acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement, besides Figure 1. Himalayan and peninsular component of the ILR project. Source: NWDA (2006) 7 India’s River Linking Project the endemic cost and the inevitable time overruns, are factored in, ILR will most likely cost several times more than the present US$123 billion estimate. Only nine of the 30 proposed links are independent, and can be executed without working on other links. In the first stage of this mammoth project, which won government approval last August, a 230-kilometer canal will be dug to divert water from the Ken River to the Betwa River in the northern Madhya Pradesh Province. A dam and small hydroelectric plant will be built in the Panna Tiger Reserve. Work on this US$1.1 billion costing first component of the NRL project is underway and is scheduled to be completed in 8 years (Bagla 2006). Justification of ILR The most significant question being raised about ILR by critics is its justification. The raison d’etre of the project is the accentuating water scarcity in western and peninsular India. The low per capita availability of utilizable water, high spatial and temporal variability of rainfall and the associated droughts and floods are other major factors. By 2050, the per capita water availability in India is expected to fall from the present 1,820 m3 to 1,140 m3, far less than the water scarcity thresholds of 1,700 m3/person/year defined by Falkenmark et al. (1994) as necessary for civilized living. Spatial inequality too is extreme: the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna basins, which cover one third of the country’s total land area, are home to 44 % of India’s population, but drain more than 60 % of the country’s water resources.2 In contrast, the Krishna, Cauvery and, Penner river basins and the eastward flowing rivers between Penner and Kanyakumari cover 16 % of the total land area, host 17 % of the population, but drain only 6 % of India’s water resources (Amarasinghe et al. 2005). In India’s 19 major river basins, only 55 % of the total water resources are utilizable. As a result, more than 220 million people have a per capita water supply that is below 1,000 m3/ per year, indicating the emergence of severe regional water scarcities according to Falkenmark et al. (1994). Owing to these unequal endowments, India’s river basins are at different degrees of ‘closure’. The Indus Basin withdraws more than 1,600 m3 per person/year, whereas the Brahmaputra Basin withdraws only 290 m3 per person/year. The Indus, Penner, Tapi, Sabarmati — the west flowing rivers in the Kutch, Saurashtra and Rajasthan (Luni) regions, and the east flowing rivers between Pennar and Kanyakumari suffer over-development (Amarasinghe et al. 2005) and are physically water-scarce (IWMI 2000). The needs of these areas can be addressed, it is argued, by augmenting their natural flows through the transfer of surplus waters from the Himalayan rivers. It is argued that diverting a portion of the surplus flood waters from the Himalayan rivers into the drought-prone areas can only be a win-win proposition. Annual floods, on average, affect more than 7 million ha of the total land area, 3 million ha of the cropped area and 34 million people, mostly in the eastern parts, and inflicts an annual damage of well over US$220 2The Brahmaputra subbasin alone, with only 6 % of the land area and 4 % of the population, drains 31 % of the total water resources. And due to geographical restrictions, only 4 % of the Brahmaputra Basin’s vast water resources are potentially utilizable within the basin. 8 T. Shah, U. A. Amarasinghe and P. G. McCornick million (Rs.1,000 crores) (GOI 1998). In contrast, recurrent droughts affect 19 % of the country, 68 % of the cropped area and 12 % of the population (Nair and Radhakrishna 2005).The reservoir storages and the canal diversions in ILR are expected to reduce flood damages by 35 % (Sinha et al. 2005) and ease drought-proneness in semi-arid and arid parts, besides making 12 km3 of water available for domestic and industrial water supplies in these drought-prone districts. India is also blamed for having neglected storage creation, resulting in economic water scarcity that may impede its economic growth. Other arid and semi-arid regions of the world have invested heavily in storage creation; the U.S.A has a per capita storage capacity of 5,961 m3; Australia has 4,717 m3, and Brazil has 3,388 m3. Even China has increased its per capita storage capacity to 2,486 m3 while India’s per capita storage capacity is a puny 200 m3/person at present and declining with increasing population. It is imperative that India increases its storage for regulating the vast amount of runoff that otherwise cannot be beneficially utilized. The NRLP water transfers of 178 km3 will increase utilizable surface water resources by 25 % and improve water accessibility in water-scarce regions. As a concept, the ILR has been doing the rounds for over a century; however, as a serious proposition, it has “not been recommended by anyone” (Iyer 2003). Even the National Commission on Integrated Water Resources Development (NCIWRD), which considered the proposal in great detail, was lukewarm towards its implementation, and actually suggested caution in considering the project as a solution to water-distribution problems. Who then are the proponents of the ILR Project? This is a difficult question because besides a small group of large-scale irrigation proponents, the Supreme Court and the President of India, the votaries for the NRLP are far less vocal than the growing lobby of antagonists of the project. The NCIWRD report, which is widely viewed in lay circles as the first cut justification of the NRLP idea, emphasized self-sufficiency in food production and improved rural livelihoods as two key justifications for the ILR project. Assuming the criticality of maintaining national food self-sufficiency and agricultural exports, the Commission projected a grain demand in the range of 425 to 494 million tonnes for India by 2050 and argued for the need to increase the country’s irrigation potential to 160 million ha, which is 20 million more than what can be achieved without basin transfers. Thus, it is stated “….one of the most effective ways to increase the irrigation potential for increasing food grain production, mitigate(ing) floods and droughts and reduce(ing) regional imbalances in the availability of water, is the interlinking of rivers to transfer water from the surplus rivers to deficit areas...” (NWDA 2006). The surface irrigation of the river linking project alone expects to add 25 million ha of irrigated land. However, the NCIWRD commission was not unanimous in its support for river linking; some of the members issued a dissenting view that is included in the report itself. Improving rural livelihoods is advanced as another justification for the ILR project. The rural population in India is projected to peak at about 775 million by 2015 (UN 2004). The commission projects that the rural population will decrease to about 610 million by 2050, which will be similar to the rural population levels in 1988. The agriculturally active population estimated in 1988 was 488 million (FAO 2006). With the present level of economic growth however, one would expect that the population whose livelihood depend solely on agriculture to be inevitably much lower than today’s level (548 million in 2001). Thus it is not clear how total agriculturally dependent livelihoods in the future can be a justification for the NRLP irrigation transfers. 9 India’s River Linking Project None of the critics undermine the seriousness of the specter of water scarcity in western and peninsular India. But, according to them, just because the Brahmaputra, which accounts for the bulk of India’s water resources, flows rather inconveniently in a remote corner of the country, does not constitute a good enough reason for a canal and dam building spree on the scale proposed. Critics argue that there are other solutions besides ILR, which have not been properly considered. A strong and strident army of ‘water-warriors’ argue that if the precipitation within the watersheds or subbasins is harvested and conserved properly, meeting domestic water needs will not be a problem in most parts of the country. They also argue that dams waste more water than meet the requisite water needs. While the whole country needed about 30 km3 of water for meeting annual domestic needs in 1997-1998, India experienced a loss of 36 km3 in that year alone through evaporation from the reservoirs. Some critics point to desalination as a viable component in creating an alternative to the NRL project, especially as desalination is no longer considered prohibitively expensive. The capacity for desalinating water has increased globally from 1.5 million m3 per day to the current figure of more than 20 million m3 per day. This has reduced the cost-price of desalinated water to less than US$1.00/m3 for seawater and less than US$0.50/m3 for brackish water (Bandyopadhyaya and Praveen 2003). Arid countries such as Saudi Arabia already depend heavily on desalination for meeting a substantial part of their non-irrigation water demand. Closer to home, companies are now ready to market drinking water at a price of 5 paise per liter. The emerging technology of rapid spray evaporation (RSE) is likely to cut costs further. However, with the recent escalation in energy costs, desalination also needs to be looked at with a more critical eye. Water demand management in agriculture offers enormous scope that remains untapped for meeting future water demand. According to Bandyopadhyaya and Praveen (2003), “Irrigation is no longer ‘watering the land’ but supplying water for growth of crops…”; and Iyer (2003) argues that “the answer to the sharing problem in the Cauvery lies in both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka learning to reduce their excessive demands on the waters of the river through a combination of measures; the ‘shortage’ will then disappear.” Emerging Critique of the ILR Proposal ILR has generated a highly polarized debate on its pros and cons, with its supporters—a small band—coming largely from government advocates of large-scale irrigation and the political class, and a much larger, vocal and strident group of critics and opponents from civil society and academia. In a single issue of Himal, a South Asian journal, Verghese (2003) found ILR described in a variety of ways such as ‘frighteningly grandiose’, a ‘misapplied vision’, ‘extravagantly stupid’ ‘annihilatingly wrong’, a case of putting the ‘cart before the horse’, a ‘sub-continental fiasco’, ‘a flood of nonsense’, a ‘dangerous delusion’ or a case of ‘hydro-hubris’. According to Iyer (2003), “It amounts to nothing less than the redrawing of the geography of the country.” According to Bandyopadhyaya and Praveen (2003), the proposal claims to package an uncertain and questionable idea as a desirable one. Some of the major criticisms of the project are about its socioeconomic viability, environmental impacts, displacement and rehabilitation of affected people, the challenge of resource mobilization, geo-political constraints as well as domestic political dynamics. 10 T. Shah, U. A. Amarasinghe and P. G. McCornick Benefits and Costs The ILR project envisages many benefits. It expects to: add 34,000 MW of hydropower to the national grid of which 3,500 MW would be used in various lifts; supply much needed drinking water to several millions of people and industrial water supplies to drought-prone and water- scarce cities in the west and south; mitigate floods in the east and droughts in the west and the south. The large canals linking the rivers are also expected to facilitate inland navigation. Increased irrigation—25 million ha through surface irrigation and 10 million ha through groundwater irrigation—in water-scarce western and peninsular regions is the top benefit envisaged from the ILR project. This is expected to generate more employment and boost crop output and farm incomes, and provide multiplier benefits through backward linkages such as farm equipment and input supplies and forward linkages such as agro-processing industries. This key plank of the project has come under scathing criticism. The most eloquent has been from Rath (2003). Based on simple, back of the envelope calculations, Rath shows that assuming a 7 % interest rate per year, the annual capital costs and interest to recover the total capital over a period 50 years will be US$110/ha (or Rs.2,015/acre ) in the peninsular component and Rs.15,030/acre in the Himalayan component. For irrigating hybrid jawar (sorghum) in peninsular India, he shows that the required annual capital recovery cost alone will be US$221/ ha (Rs. 4,131/acre). Similarly, the annual capital recovery cost at 7 % interest over 50 years amounts to US$0.30 (Rs.13.3) per watt of hydropower. If we assume a 7 % interest rate to be charged on the capital during the construction period, the total cost of the three components will amount to US$252 billion (Rs.11,47,873 crore), approximately double of what is now suggested. On the further assumption of a 5 % annual rate of inflation, the project will commit India to a project outlay of US$22 billion (Rs.100,000 crore) per year. Environmental Concerns Environmentalists are worried about the ecological impacts of the project of such a massive scale. In May 2003, the Government of India’s own Ministry of Environment and Forests raised 23 environmental concerns about ILR. Independent researchers too worry on many counts. Some have pointed to the dangers of the seismic hazard, especially in the Himalayan component (Bandyopadhyaya and Praveen 2003), and many worry about the transfer of river pollution that accompanies inter-basin water transfers. The loss of forests and biodiversity, of course, are recurring themes. Many others have questioned the subjective concept of the availability of ‘surplus’ flows in some river basins that lie at the heart of inter-basin transfers. An extreme view, according to Bandyopadhyaya and Praveen (2003), is “…from a holistic perspective, one does not see any ‘surplus’ water, because every drop performs some ecological service all the time. The ecosystems evolve by making optimal use of all the water available. If a decision is taken to move some amount of water away from a basin, a proportional damage will be done to the ecosystem, depending on the service provided by that amount of water…there is no ‘free surplus’ water in a basin that can be taken away without a price.” Proponents of this view argue that the water flowing into the sea is not waste, but rather a crucial link in the water cycle. With the link broken, the ecological balance of land and oceans, fresh water and sea water, is also disrupted (Shiva 2003). But others argue differently. They opine that some Indian river basins have vast non-utilizable water resources, even after meeting all human and eco-system services needs. The 11 India’s River Linking Project Brahmaputra River basin’s renewable water resource capacity is about 584 km3, which is about a quarter of India’s total water resources. And only about a quarter of that is potentially utilizable within the basin. Water accounting of a few other basins also show significant non-utilizable water resources. A part of this non-utilizable water resource can be beneficially used for the rapidly expanding population, without a noticeable impact on the eco-systems. The recent groundswell of worldwide opposition to large dams and irrigation projects that interfere with nature in a drastic manner has found a window of expression in the debates on ILR. Shiva (2003) considers ILR to be an act of violence against nature: “Violence is not intrinsic to the use of river waters for human needs. It is a particular characteristic of gigantic river valley projects that work against, and not with, the logic of the river. These projects are based on reductionist assumptions, which relate water use not to nature’s processes but to the processes of revenue and profit generation…Rivers, instead of being seen as sources of life, become sources of cash. In Worster’s words, the river ends up becoming an assembly line, rolling increasingly toward the goal of unlimited production. The irrigated factory drinks the region dry.” Iyer (2003) is acerbic in his comments on IRL projects: “Are rivers bundles of pipelines to be cut, turned around, welded and re-joined? This is technological hubris – arrogance – of the worst description, prometheanism of the crassest kind. The country needs to be saved from this madness.” Yet more recently the pendulum has begun to swing back towards investments in water infrastructure, and in some countries, most notably in China, which did not have to depend on external sources to secure the necessary financing, there have been many dams constructed in the recent past. The ICOLD World Register of dams shows that China has 4,434 dams (ICOLD 2000). Other sources estimate much higher figures for dam construction in China, as high as 22,000 large dams (WCD 2000). At WSSD in Johannesburg, recognition was given to hydropower as a renewable resource for power generation, and the World Bank water strategy