Technical Audit of River Linking – Rs. 30,00,000 Crore Loss
Rs.153,000 Crore Loss Narmada River Linking in Gujarat
- An Intervention Dated January12, 2011
Honorable Chief Justice of India
Shri S H Kapadia,
Justice K S Radhakrishnan and
JusticeSwatanter Kumar.
Copy to the hon Prime Minister of India,
& MoWR hon Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal,
Copy to Amicus Curiae,Mr. Ranjit Kumar,advocateIntervener Mr. Prashant Bhushan, advocate
Petitioner: - Ravinder Singh,Inventor & Consultant, Y-77, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016
Executive Summary: -
It is erroneous to say that no DPR is ready for Interlinking of Rivers, fact is all top Engineers in Central Water Commission know that River Linking is unviable, undesirable and ‘Economic White Elephant’ and technically a Lunatic Project. Most Rivers are already bound by ‘Tribunal Awards’ limiting to minor projects within states, leaving few major opportunities in Ganga Basin – Study of all proposals from their Maps at a glance have Sources in Nepal and envisages building Dams & Barrages in Nepal, others provide little additional irrigation potential and many are in high rainfall zones, some are in desert that is waste of resources, for Delhi priority is to build‘Renuka, Lakhwar & Vyasi Dams to Capture Waters That Go Waste To Sea Than Sharda Yamuna Linksource in Nepal.’But strangely when Yamuna Carries nothing but Sewage, Yamuna – Rajasthan Link is also proposed originating in Panipat District in Haryana such is the poor credibility of National Water Development Authority (Brief Introduction of 14 Proposals in Annexure 1and maps are in CD.)
In fact GOI (UPA) had clearly indicated its disapproval by appointing ‘Anti Dams and AntiRiver Link’ activists to its panel like Rajinder Singh (Alwar Wale) and Himanshu Thakkar who promote even worse ‘15 Million Johads’. (Annexure II)
In Engineering we rely on low cost Scale Models to predict in advance the performance of actual projects before investing $billions whereas in the case of Interlinking Rivers, India has unique project in Linking Narmada River to all important rivers in Gujarat as a ‘Large Scale Model’ which is much more realistic.
Since this Controversial Unviable & Undesirable Inter Liking of Rivers PIL was admitted in the Supreme Court 2002 – there is Complete Disruption or Misdirection of Programs to Build Dams and IrrigationCanals in Conventional manner, hence Urgency of this matter before the Supreme Court to close it.
In mid 1999 this Petitioner advised GOI in a Petition hand delivered to then Hon. CJI in his home office, to Hon President and concerned Ministries – that 1. NarmadaCanal network is Four Times Over Designed – NWDT allows 10,000 cusecs of flows but Canal System is designed for 40,000 cusecs capacity. 2. Losses in Canals shall be so high very little water would reach the intended drought regions. 3. If Madhya Pradesh decides to use all its 18 maf entitlement nothing will be left for Gujarat.
Before 53rd National Development Council 29th May, 2007, CM of Gujarat claimed ‘Interlinking of 42 river streams successfully’which is a fact also since the completion of 458 kilometer long main canal and performance of this project was Audited by CAG and its report released to press on March31, 2010 ‘CAG raps SSNNL- Rs 18Kcr fund unfruitful’accessed through Google not directly available on CAG sites. (Clipping of relevant paragraph Annexure IV)
SSNNL Loss Rs. 73,000 crores + Rs. 50,000 crores = Rs. 123,000 crores.
CAG didn’t carry out ‘Technical Audit’ and didn’t compute ‘Losses Due to Delays’ in implementing Narmada Canal Irrigation Network. [30 Page CAG report is attached as evidence. Web links are also provided here and in email copy.]
- Project cost of Narmada Project in Gujarat was Rs.6406 crores in 1987 and 22 years later (March2009) utilization of command area is only 6.56% and revised cost in 2005-06 has escalated to Rs.35,045 crores to eventually cost over Rs.60,000 crores. Thus a loss of Rs.50,000 crores in construction. However it is important to state here Planning Commission Working Group figure for XI Plan 2007 is Rs. 45,673 crores. (As explained in para 5 here SSP was entirely designed to benefit Gujarat, least beneficial to MP and Maharashtra – so entire cost is charged to Gujarat for the purpose of evaluation.)
- In 1993 Gujarat, later in Supreme Court also, claimed Rs.4 crores daily loss to its economy due to delays in implementing Sardar Sarovar Dam and Narmada Canal Irrigation project. 20 years delay in implementing the entire system at Rs. 10 crore per day is Rs.73,000 crores.Even as cost index has gone up over 5 times lowest estimated daily loss of Rs.10 crores is modest and beyond challenge as Gujarat has earmarked three times more water for water supply and industry.
- In Table 2.9.1 out of 90,389 kilometers of Canals only 18,803 kilometers are ready and much less actually operational.
- In table 2.9.2 Out of 18.290 million hectares command area, CCA Developed is only 0.341 million hectares but utilization just 0.120 million hectares (6.56%).
- For the purpose of ‘Evaluating Cost of Interlinking of Rivers’ it is important to state that Sardar Sarovar Project is designed to benefit Gujarat – MP and Maharashtra ought to have developed two stage project with much less submergence and generating twice more power. (1200 MW river bed is operational mainly for 2-3 months and 250 MW Canal Bed Power House operates for 9-10 months. Instead 600 MW stage I operating 365 days and stage II of 600 MW operating 2-3 months and Canal Bed power house operating 9-10 months would generate twice more reliable power for MP and Maharashtra. It is important to mention that even at current 121 meter dam height storage capacity at SSP Dam is 4.4 million acre feet, 2.97 maf up to 110 meters and 1.43 maf between 110m to 121m. Canal Bed level is 80m. So there is considerable amount of water for irrigation supply stabilization.)
1450MW SSP produced 2500MUin 2009-10 FY– this is 20% Load Factor, 1325 MW Bhakra Dam produced 5459 MU.
Indira Sagar Dam and other storages in NarmadaBasin also serve Sardar Sarovar Dam for irrigation in Gujarat thus their cost ought to be included in Narmada Canal System in Gujarat. That would add up all losses to Rs.2,00,000 crores loss to India but other River Links would not have this arrangement. Loss Rs30,000 crores.
6. It was erroneousof CAG to ‘Divide Dam cost & Canal Network’ cost. SSP Dam is vital and integral part of the project and Inter Linking of Rivers too shall have Big Dams. Without Dams it is not possible to store and divert river waters in to main canals then on to distribute it.
Alternative – Madhya Pradesh Can Easily Transfer Narmada Waters in to Chambal, Ken, Betwa, Sone major Rivers and other medium rivers in state.
7. MPcould transfer its 18 maf entitlement in NarmadaRiver speedily and at low cost in to fertile area within Madhya Pradesh. NWDT award erroneous directed MP to build dams for water storage for Gujarat – Indira Sagar Dam, Omkeshwar and Maheshwar Dams than diverting Narmada Waters for the benefit of its own people. Loss due to this count is in addition to Gujarat’s loss.
8. CAG report noted SSNNL didn’taccount for Food Production – there is only marginal increase in food production since 1998 as per RBI report – there is increase in Cotton Production but decrease in groundnut production.
Scale Up of NarmadaCanal Performance To Inter Linking of Rivers
8. When Gujarat couldn’t execute ‘River Linking’ within state in spite of huge expenditure in 23 years as of today and utilization is just 6.56%, Inter Linking of Rivers involving many states cooperation it may take 100 years to execute at huge cost.
9. Gujarat has just 5% of Net Cultivable Area of India thus losses shall exceed Rs.30,00,000 crores – but unlike in Gujarat where most rivers connected are Medium Rivers spaced at 20 kilometers apart on average, Interlinking of major rivers with over 200 kilometer average spacing or more,losses shall be many-many times than Rs.30,00,000 crores and benefit only marginal or nothing.
10. NWDT stipulated release of 0.677 maf water every month – allowing for evaporation & leakage losses Capacity of Narmada Canal ought to have been 10,000 cusecs. (NWDT Award - ‘Making uniform monthly releases the amount of water to be released by Madhya Pradesh per month would be 834.65 M.cu.m. (0.677 MAF).’)But 40,000 cusec capacity system is huge waste of public money and substantially significant system losses.
11. In thefollowingstatement of CWC it is obvious KrishnaBasin has more Live Storage than IndusBasin and GangaBasin together home to 50% population. In all South Indian Rivers have 65 BCM live Storage and rest of India50 BCM but for 40 years River Linkers are directing Ganga Waters to Cauvery. (To erase any doubts while Indus & Ganga Rivers get glacial flows in summer months, it is important to state South Indian rivers get winter monsoon and South Indian River Basins get more Rainfall than North Indian River Basins.) (Annexure II)
Dam storage of 50 BCM for over 900 million population in rest of Indiais Poor Achievement whereas India need 500 BCM dam storage for 1.65b population by 2050.
REMEDY: -
12. Honorable Supreme Court may please ‘Dismiss PIL of September30, 2002’ on River Linking as ‘Premature’ and Hindrance in implementing On Going Projects, with express directions to Controller and Auditor General of India to carry out project wise Performance Audit of Canal Irrigation Projects and also table Food Production by each district in India.
As per Kosi Report, CAG reported Bihar government didn’t clean existing silted systems in spite of Huge Special Assistance but Bihar is interested in several ‘Inter Linking Projects’. First priority ought to be to improve and fully operationalize existing Infrastructure speedily.
Storage Dam building in Nepal and other places is a Priority for Flood Control, Regulating Water Releases and Supply Irrigation other needs of existing infrastructure but including Dams in River Linking projects makes the projects unviable and difficult to implement.
Thank you,
Faithfully,
Ravinder Singh*
(Intervener)
*Ravinder Singh is a WIPO awarded inventor specializing in Power, Transportation, Water, Energy Saving, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Technologies and Projects.
Web Links Are
1.CAG Report SSNNL March2010
2. Central Water Commission.
National Water Development Agency and KosiMechiRiver Link in Nepal
3.
4.
ANNEXURE I (Brief Introduction of River Links)
1. Sarda - YamunaLinkSardaRiver has long common boundary with Nepal and flows through Nepal and envisages building Dams.
2. Gaggar - Yamuna Link has source and dams in Nepal.
3. Gandak - Ganga Link – Source and dam in Nepal.
4. Kosi – Ghaggar Link Source, Dams and makor section in Nepal.
5. Kosi - Mechi - Link Dams, Canal entirely in Nepal.
6. Manas - Sankosh - Tista - Ganga Link hassources in Bhutan cuts through Chicken Neck area. High Rainfall Area.
7. Jogighopa - Tista - Farakka Link is shorter version of 3. High Rainfall Area.
8. Ganga (Farakka)-Damoda – Subernarekha Link – India already has a binding treaty with Bangladesh to maintain flows in Ganga at Farakka. High Rainfall Area.
9. Farakka – Sunderbans Link same as for
10. Chunar – Sone Barrage Link involves three stages pumping no real benefit.
11. Sone Dam – Southern Tributaries Link Marginal increase in command area.
12. Subernrekha – Mahanadi Link Marginal increase in command area, high rainfall coastal area.
13. Rajasthan – Sabarmati Link doubtful source,unproductive desert.
14. Yamuna – Rajasthan Link – There is no water in Yamuna.
ANNEXURE – II
‘Central Water Commission’ Report
There is Substantially More Live Storage in South
MonsoonEndBasin Wise Storages on September30, 2010
GANGABasin 12.358 BCM
INDUS Basin14.177 BCM
NARMADABasin12.455 BCM
TAPIBasin6.217 BCM
MAHIBasin2.494 BCM
SABARMATIBasin0.465 BCM
RIVERS OF KUTCH 0.581 BCM
Live Storage Rest of India= 50 BCM
South Indian Rivers
GODAVARIBasin11.386 BCM
KRISHNABasin29.753 BCM
MAHANADI & NEIGHBOURING Basins EFRS 9.713 BCM
CAUVERY& NEIGHBOURING Basins EFRS 4.981 BCM
WEST FLOWING RIVERS OF SOUTH 9.874 BCM
Live Storage South Indian Rivers = 65 BCM
TOTAL Live Storage September30, 2010 > 114.454 BCM
Last Year 2009 > 90.438 BCM
Average for 10 Years > 99.959 BCM
ANNEXURE – III
1 / Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India, New Delhi / Chairman2 / Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi / Member
3 / Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi / Member
4 / Chairman, Central Water Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi / Member
5 / Shri Z. Hasan, Former Secretary (WR), GOI, Noida / Member
6 / Shri A.C. KamrajChairman, NAWAD Council, Madurai, Tamil Nadu / Member
7 / Shri P. Sen, Rtd. Member, Central Water Commission, MemberKolkata, West Bengal / Member
8 / Shri Rajinder Singh, Noted Sociologist
Alwar, Rajasthan / Member
9 / Dr. Ms Mala Kapur Shankardass, Chairperson Development Welfare and Research Foundation, New Delhi / Member
10 / Dr. Ashok Khosla President, Development Alternatives, New Delhi / Member
11 / Prof. M. N. Madhyastha, Environmentalist, Centre for Ecological & Environment Studies, MangaloreUniversity, Karnataka / Member
12 / Dr. Vijay Paranjpe, President and Founder of Gomukh and Gangotree Trusts, Pune / Member
13 / Sh. Himanshu Thakkar, Coordinator of Centre for Water Policy & Editor of Journal title "Dams Rivers & People", New Delhi / Member
14 / Director General, National Water Development Agency. / Member-Secretary
Special Invitees:
1. / Additional Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India, New Delhi
2. / Commissioner (PR), Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India, New Delhi
ANNEXURE – IV
Speech of Gujarat Chief Minister at 53rd NDC Meet
29th May, 2007, New Delhi
Interlinking of rivers :
The state has successfully linked the river Narmada to the rivers of Heran, Orsang, Karad, Mahi and Mohor, in Central Gujarat and Watrak, Sabarmati, Khari etc. in North Gujarat.
Similarly, the Sujlam Suflam Project nearing completion will shortly provide linkage of the river Mahi to Bhadar, Shedhi, Mohor, Dhamni etc. in Central Gujarat and Khari, Watrak, Sabarmati, Meshwo, Mazam, Rupen, Pushpavati, Saraswati and Banas in North Gujarat.
Besides the above, a few other interlinking works have already been started. It is laudable that the NWDA has included study for intra basin transfer in its agenda.
However, without central financing for these projects, not much headway can be expected.
1