River-linking is not the solution

Union Minister Amit Shah's recent speech at the Southern Zonal Council's meeting has reignited the debate on water sharing in India. While Shah's call for an early resolution of water-related issues appears well-intentioned, the reality is that such complex matters are far from simple. The Union government's suggestion of linking major rivers, such as the Brahmaputra to the Godavari and the Cauvery, is met with skepticism due to the numerous challenges involved.

Tamil Nadu's ongoing demand for a tribunal to resolve the Pennaiyar river water dispute exemplifies the difficulties in implementing such solutions. Despite forming negotiation committees and holding multiple meetings, the Supreme Court has yet to establish the adjudicatory body. The Centre's suggestion to refer the Pennaiyar case to the Mahadayi Water Dispute Tribunal is deemed illogical, as the two disputes have no common features, and the Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not permit such a transfer.

Critics argue that linking rivers may incite demand from beneficiary regions, leading to disputes over water allocation. The ecological consequences of river linking are also a cause for concern. Keralam has strongly opposed the Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar link proposal due to its potential impact on the Vembanad wetland system. The history of inter-basin transfer projects in India has been limited, with only a few successful examples.

The government's focus on implementing mega irrigation projects, such as the Ken-Betwa Link Project, has faced opposition from tribal populations. Instead of pursuing supply-side interventions, stakeholders should prioritize demand-side management. This includes a massive program of sensitizing and incentivizing farmers on optimal water use and curbing excessive groundwater extraction, which poses an ecological threat. Without genuine water conservation efforts, disputes among stakeholders are likely to persist.