Ever-accelerating cycles of drought and flood, perceived surpluses of water in some parts of the country co-existing with deficits in other parts, and a mistaken notion that much of the river waters are flowing “wastefully” out to sea have led to increasingly vocal demands from political parties, national leaders, civil society and the media for urgent solution to these problems.  One of the proposals gaining widespread attention is for the ‘Inter-Linking of Rivers’, involving the large-scale and long-distance transfer of water from water-rich areas of the country to water-poor ones.  Preliminary estimates indicate that such a project would involve investments of the order of Rs 5,500,000 crores ($125 Billion), making it one of the biggest engineering efforts ever to be undertaken in our country – or, indeed, anywhere.   

In response to this rapidly growing concern, and with encouragement from the Supreme Court, the Government of India has appointed a Task Force mandated to “bring about a consensus among the states and provide guidance on norms of appraisal of individual projects” that will enable the mega-project or some effective alternative that can address the nation’s water problems to be planned and implemented.

Such a project clearly deserves a wider national debate, involving inputs from the broadest possible spectrum of stakeholders.  And, in some measure, such a debate has already started.  Widely different opinions have been expressed and strong feelings exposed.  But there has not been much opportunity for genuine dialogue, or the give-and-take discussion needed to come to the best possible solutions.  We believe that such a national debate is necessary to avoid creating conflicts, wasting money and engendering a bitter national divide.  Such debate will have to be open and transparent and must be based on objective and credible information. Civil society has a major responsibility to take active part in such a national debate and, if necessary, to establish a separate process for it.

The purpose of the debate should be not simply to oppose a specific course of action – a solution to the problem of water shortage does have to be found – but rather to identify the best possible one.  This means that it must be designed to explore the widest possible range of options and identify the full costs and benefits associated with each.  The history of past mega projects, many of which have often had disastrous long-term side-effects shows that the benefits of such projects are often exaggerated and the costs are usually understated.  Numerous evaluations of large scale water management projects have led to considerable scepticism among scientists and the public that they can provide results and impacts that are, overall, net positive.

To ensure that this does not happen with the current project, the government, its Task Force and the civil society discussions must work to identify the largest possible set of options for addressing the country’s water problems, including demand side management, conservation, reforestation, choice of crops and cropping patterns, small-scale decentralised solutions and many other ways to cut down demand and increase the supply of water in each community.  It must also evaluate the hidden (and usually neglected) costs of ecological and social disruption that any large scale project entails.