Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 1

Interlinking of Rivers in India

Dimensions of Social Impacts
There is a convincing case that ILR is neither desirable, nor needed for India’s water needs of 21st Century.
This paper concludes that the serious nature of social impacts of the project only reinforce that case. This
exercise of estimating the social impacts of the Inter Linking Rivers (ILR) does not assume or agree that ILR
is either desirable or inevitable. It only tries to give an estimate about the kind of social impacts that ILR may
bring about, if implemented.

Track record on addressing social issues The first issue that confronts us when looking at the social
impact of any new projects is the track record of the govt and project developers in addressing the social
impacts of the past projects. After displacing millions (the govt and the project developers do not even have
a credible figure about the number of people displaced by river valley projects in the past, some of the more
credible estimates put the figure between 33 and 50 millions) the project developers cannot claim to have
satisfactorily resettled the people displaced by even a medium size project. The people displaced by the
dams like the Bhakra, the Hirakud, the Pong, the Gandhisagar and so on remain to be resettled even as per
the norms accepted by the official agencies when these projects were taken up. Nor do we have proper
policy, law or institutional mechanism to ensure that resettlement actually happens. Most importantly, even
the appraisal of the social impacts of the projects has been shoddy.

In such a situation, it becomes important to map the possible social impacts of the mammoth project like the
ILR, as the official agencies call it. This paper attempts to do just that. It does not mean that in the ILR
project becomes justifiable in the unlikely scenario that the social impacts are adequately addressed.

Broad contours of ILR The Table 1 below gives broad contours of the Himalayan and the Peninsular
Components of the ILR in terms of number of links, number of reservoirs, cost, water transfer, claimed
benefits and so on.

Table 1. Broad Contours of ILR

Himalayan Component Peninsular component Total

Links 14 16 30
Reservoirs 16 58 74
Power Installed Capacity 30 000 MW 4 000 MW 34 000 MW
Cost, crores 454 000 106 000 560 000
Water Transfer 141.3 BCM 33 BCM 174 BCM
Additional Irrigation 22 M ha 13 M ha 35 M ha
Link Canal Length* 6100 km 4777 km 10877 km
Drought mitigation* 1.7 m ha 0.85 m ha 2.55 m ha
Source: NWDA 2005-I (183) and II (173)
*: PK Sikdar in Interlinking of Indian Rivers: An impact assessment edited by Mamata Desai et al, ACB
publications, Sept 2005 (p146-7)

Dimensions of Social Impacts There are many kinds of social impacts of a typical large river valley project
like a dam or a hydropower project. The social impacts are experienced in the upstream, downstream and
the command areas of the projects. The reservoirs behind the dams bring displacement for the upstream
communities. Those affected upto the Full Reservoir Level (FRL) are generally considered when talking
about Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R). However, the impact due to the reservoir is higher
considering the fact that water level is expected to go to Maximum water level and there is also the
backwater effect as the water flows in sloping profile. The dam and the related structures also require
colonies, roads, fine aggregates, coarse aggregates, steel and cement and each of which would bring its

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 2
own impacts. Generally, these additional impacts are not included by the official agencies in estimations of
displacement.

In the downstream areas, there are many dimensions of social impacts . Firstly, since the dams divert or
stop all the water in the river at least in the non monsoon months, the river is taken away from the
downstream people. Their source of drinking water, irrigation water and water for other needs is taken
away. Secondly, the groundwater is also affected as the recharge function of the river for the downstream
areas is destroyed. Thirdly, fisheries and other bio diversity in the downstream river is destroyed. Fourthly,
the concentration of pollution in the downstream stream increases due to stoppage/ diversion of freshwater
flow. Fifthly, in absence of freshwater flows, the river no longer can act for navigation for the downstream
communities. Sixthly, the construction of the dam changes the character of floods in the downstream areas
and the floods becomes sudden and many times more destructive. Seventhly, the geomorphological
behaviour of the river changes as the silt in the river water gets trapped in the upstream dam. The eroding
capacity of the silt free water flows increases significantly, which can bring fresh social impacts for the
downstream communities. Lastly, with the drastic reduction in freshwater flows at the mouths of the rivers,
the salinity ingress increases, which can affect the remaining freshwater in the river, the groundwater in the
coastal zones, and also the soil in the coastal areas. All these impacts need to be appraised and estimated
for each of the links. None of this has been done for any of the links, and hence our estimates do not
include them here.

The whole canal networks include the main canals, the branch canals, the distributaries, the minor, sub
minors and the field channels. Moreover, the impacts due to the structures along the canals, the drainage
network required to compensate for the drainage congestion and the additional capacity required to drain
away the water added in the area by the canals, and also the land required for the coarse and the fine
aggregates and the earth required for the canals should be included in the social impact assessment.
However, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has not included these impacts in the feasibility
studies for the 14 links that it have made public.

Information about how much forest land will be required for the ILR is even less satisfactory. Available
information suggests that the ILR will require at least 104 000 ha of forest land, but actual requirement is
likely be much larger. The destruction of such large quantity of forests will bring large scale social impacts.
In addition, the related works like the compensatory afforestation, the catchment area treatment, wildlife
protection measures are also likely to have significant social impacts. However, sufficient information is not
available to put numbers for these impacts.

Another class of impacts includes the impacts due to land slides, soil erosion and floods due to the ILR
dams and link canals. Similarly, the land required for the resettlement and rehabilitation of the affected
people will bring its own impacts. There is insufficient information about these impacts of ILR.

The social impacts will also be experienced in the neighbouring countries of Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh
due to the ILR, but we do not have sufficient information to assess these impacts.

Lack of Information Like in case of all water resources development projects, very little information has
been made public by the govt in case of ILR. It was a struggle to get the report of the National Commission
for Integrated Water Resources Development, which was set up by the Govt of India and which submitted
the report in Sept 1999. After a lot of struggle, the first volume of the report could be made available only in
2002. Then following repeated orders from the Supreme Court of India, the feasibility reports of only the 14
Peninsular links were made public in 2005. However, this still leaves out the remaining 16 links, about which
NWDA has not made any of its reports public. Moreover, the reports of the 14 peninsular links is far from
complete. To illustrate, the Ken Betwa link is supposed to involve at least five big dams, but the feasibility
report of the link includes detailed information about only one of these. Similarly, the Parbati-Kalisindh-
Chamal link is to include ten large dams, but the feasibility report includes some detailed information only

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 3
about three of these dams. The NWDA has refused to make the pre-feasibility reports, the water balance
studies and so on public for any of the links.

Previous estimates of Displacement due to ILR In several ways the govt has indicated how non serious
it is about the issues of Displacement, Resettlement and Rehabilitation. One of them has been the
ridiculous estimates put forward by the government officials. Let us look at the some such instances.

In a paper by the National Water Development Agency in the volume published at the time of Eleventh
National Water Convention on May 11, 2005, three senior officials of the Central Water Commission (SK
Sinha (a Chief Engineer), AK Sinha (Director) and Sharad Chandra (Deputy Director) have said, “It is
estimated that about 4 to 5 lakh people may get affected or displaced due to creation of reservoirs and due
to canals”. These senior govt officials go on to say, “It is expected that due to construction of storages about
79 000 ha forest land will come under submergence”. Available information shows that these figures are
going to be several fold larger.

Maj Gen (Retd) S Vombatkere (Medha Patkar, Jan 2004, p 46-7) estimates that total land requirement for
ILR will be 8 lakh ha, including 4.4 lakh ha for canals.

B Senapati and LM Garnayak from Orissa University for Agriculture Technology (NWDA 2005-II p 386)
estimate that 3.5 lakh ha of land of which 1.2 lakh ha will be forest land, will be submerged due to ILR.

Dr HH Uliveppa of Karnataka University estimates that the 10 500 km long canals of ILR will displace about
5.5 million people. (Singh and Shrivastava, 2006, p 104)

Rainer Horig (Water Management on a Grand Scale: India’s Programme of Interlinking of Rivers, Reuters
Foundation Paper no 260, July 2005) had made estimates of displacement due to ILR based on assumption
that ILR has 60 large dams and each dam submerges 8748 ha (based on figures of 213 dams in India
Country Study for the World Commission on Dams) or 13 000 ha (based on a World Bank study of 11 large
dams) or 24 555 ha (based on a 1992 study by Central Water Commission involving 54 dams). Horig
estimates that depending on the basis that you select, the ILR dams would submerge 5250 sq km, 7800 sq
km or 14750 sq km land. If each sq km involves displacement of 151 persons per sq km land acquired
(India country study for the WCD), the ILR dams would displace between 7.93 to 22.25 lakh people. Horig
also estimated that the 12500 km long main canal of ILR will need 625 1 sq km land assuming 50 m width of
land acquisition for the link canals. It further estimated that this will displace about 1.962 lakh persons
(considering average population density of 314 per sq km in India). Thus he estimates that ILR will take
away 5875 to 15375 sq km land and displace between 9.9 lakh and 24.21 lakh people. This is the most
elaborate estimate available so far on the issue of displacement due to ILR.

Available Information As mentioned earlier, sufficient information is not available to arrive at accurate
estimates of likely displacement due to ILR. We have relied mostly on official reports for this paper, where
available. Thus, we have relied on the feasibility reports of the 14 peninsular river links that have been
made public by the NWDA following orders of the Supreme Court of India. For the Himalayan links, we have
relied on the reports of the Bihar Govt and papers by officials of the W Bengal govt, where available. The
available relevant information about the Himalayan links is described in the following sections.

Himalayan Links Available information about Himalayan Links:

⇒ Sharda-Yamuna-Rajasthan-Sabarmati Link 1835 km long link canal, of which 75 km is in Gujarat
state. Total 14.52 MAF (Million Acre Feet), (or 17.906 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM)) of water to be

1
Here it should be noted that there is a slight error in Horig’s calculation, which has been corrected. Horiq estimated that if 50 m
width of land is acquired for canals, every km of link canal will require 0.5 sq km or 50 ha of land, where as the correct figure is
that every km of link canal will require 5 ha. Accordingly, corrected figures are given in the paragraph.
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007
Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 4
diverted, of which, Gujarat to get 1.32 MAF to irrigate 2.03 lakh ha in Gujarat. Rajasthan-
Sabarmati link to irrigate 7.38 lakh ha, of which 5.35 lakh lakh ha is in Rajasthan. (NWDA 2005 p 86)
o Sarda Yamuna link The 384 km long link canal will start from a major barrage on Sarda River near
Tanakpur town (Nainital district). The canal will have a bed width of 43.5 m and full supply depth of
7.8 m. (NWDA 2005-II p 192)
o Yamuna Rajasthan Link The link involves a barrage on Yamuna and a 786 km long canal off taking
from Right side of the barrage. 196 km of the link length lies in Haryana and 590 km in Rajasthan.
The full supply depth and bed width of the canal at head are 7 m and 53 m respectively.
o Rajasthan Sabarmati Link The total length of the proposed canal is 725 km, of which 650 km is in
Rajasthan and 75 km in Gujarat. The fully supply depth and bed width of the canal at head is 6 m
and 39 m respectively. (NWDA 2005 p 145-6)

Ghaghra-Yamuna Link The link is to divert water from the proposed Chisapani reservoir on Ghaghra River
(the river is called Karnali in Nepal), The height of the proposed Chisapani dam above mean bed level is
175 m. A regulating dam is also proposed downstream of the Chisapani dam site with FRL 200 m and
MDDL of 193 m. The 417 km long link canal will tail into Yamuna River at Etawah district in UP. The canal
width would vary from 85.5 m in the head reach to 18 at the tail end and depth would vary from 8 m to 5 m
in the same stretch. The canal is expected to irrigate additional 11.7 lakh ha in India and 2.54 lakh ha in
Nepal. (NWDA 2005 p 123) The link also involves construction of two barrages. (NWDA 2005-II p 328)

Manas Sankosh Teesta Ganga Link Water from Manas and Sankosh dams to go to existing Teesta and
Mahananda barrages through a link canal. The link canal outfalls into Ganga 60 km upstream of the
Farakka Barrage. From here through another link canal, water will go to a barrage on Subernarekha River.
A link canal from here will transfer the water to proposed Manibhadra dam on Mahanadi in Orissa. (NWDA
2005-II p 218) The 457 km link canal (full supply depth 10 m and slope 1:20 000 for the entire canal)
comprises of: Manas-Sankosh canal – 114 km (the design discharge 1370 cumecs and the bed width of
canal 66 m); Sankos-Teesta canal – 137 km (design discharge 2355 cumecs, canal bed width 121 m) and
Teesta-Ganga canal 206 km (design discharge 2355 cumecs, canal bed width 121 m). 151.2 km of the
canal will be in Bihar. The requirement of land in Bihar alone will be 7000 ha in thickly populated areas.
“The acquisition of such vast area of land in this thickly populated area will be difficult… will create a big
problem of rehabilitation”, says Govt of Bihar. (Govt of Bihar 2003 p V-1)

According to Biswatosh Sarkar, the then secretary, Irrigation and Waterways Dept, Govt of W Bengal, 192
km of the MSTG link will pass through W Bengal, and 4327 ha of land will be required for the same,
including 2133 ha of forest land and 2194 ha of private, tea garden and state govt land. “The cutting of the
canal will create huge amount of spoil to the tune of 1.8-2.5 million cum. This will create disposal problem
because it will require 13500 ha of land for disposal, 40% of which likely to be forest area, 30% tea garden
area… The canal will cut across the natural drainage of the area and so may cause drainage congestion as
well as flooding of the area”. (The Institute of Engineers, Sept 2004, p 121-2)

PK Basu, the then advisor, State Planning Board and former secretary, Irrigation & Waterways dept, Govt of
W Bengal, noted (WBAST 2004, p 62) some conclusions from the West Bengal govt study of the Sankosh
Teesta Link in 1997, “The alignment of the proposed S-T link canal would follow the foothills so that the
transferred waters have necessary elevation to reach the level of the existing Teesta barrage (113 m)
without pumping. Enroute, it would cross 22 tea gardens requiring acquisition of 530 ha of land. This would
mean sure death of tea gardens. It would pass through the Buxa Tiger Reserve and reserve forests of
Raidak, Upper Tandu and Appalchand, requiring 770 ha of land of the reserve forests. It would virtually
separate the Himalayan foothills from the N Bengal plains, creating very adverse impact on the flora and
fauna of the fragile forest cover that W Bengal still has in its northern parts. Land acquisition would lead to
displacement of indigenous peoples who live in these areas and is likely to highten the already existing
social tension between the tribals and non tribals.”

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 5
In another article, PK Basu estimates, “Total area of land to be acquired for the present proposal of
MSTG link is 27 020 ha, out of which forestland accounts for 20505 ha” (South Madras Cultural Association,
July 2003, p 36). It is not clear what components Basu includes in this estimates and if the land requirement
is only in W Bengal or it also includes land requirement in Bihar, Assam and Bhutan.

According to the Feasibility study of the Sankosh Project by the Central Water Commission (1997), totally
2834 ha of land will be required for the main canal from the Sankosh project, of which 260 ha is in Bhutan
(including 174 ha of forest land) and 2574 ha in India (including 1145 ha forest land). A strip of 200 m width
will be acquired for a canal bed width of 121 m and about 178 houses/ building will come in the way of the
canal.

Farakka Sunderbans Link This link involves use of 9000 MCM of water, out of which 2000 MCM is to be
used for activating moribund Jamuna & development of Kestopur Bhangarakata Khal and 7000 MCM for
diverting water to Hooghly to improve navigability of Kolkata Port. This link will require widening of the
Feeder Canal and acquisition of land in Murshidabad, not known to what extent. (Inst of Engineers Sept
2004 p 123)

Ganga Damodar Subarnarekha link This 394 km long link to transfer 28913 MCM will require about 8300
ha of land in W Bengal. (Inst of Engineers, Sept 2004, p 124)

Jogighopa Alternative In this option for the upper reach of MSTG link, there would be barrage on
Brahmaputra at Jogighopa, from where a 97.53 km long canal will take water to Sankosh barrage, rest of
the link from thereon remaining same as in MSTG proposal. In this proposal, it is proposed to have a 300
MW power plant at Jogighopa and a five stage 100 m lift involving pumping capacity of 1059 MW.

Kosi Mechi Link The 112.55 km long canal will have fully supply depth of 6.5 m and bed width of 155 m
and slope of 1 in 20 000 and velocity of 1.3 m/s. (GoB 2003, p V-8)

Kosi Ghaghra Link The canal is to off take from Chatra barrage, downstream of the proposed Kosi High
Dam, to outfall into river Gaura, a tributary of River Rapti, which joins Ghaghra. Out of the 428.76 km link
canal, 278.22 km is in Nepal and 150.47 km is in India. The canal bed slope is 1: 20 000. (GoB 2003 p V-
15)

Gandak Ganga The live storage of proposed diversion dam on Gandak is 1960 MCM. In addition, NWDA
envisages storage facilities on tributaries of Gandak to the extent of 13954 MCM. This total of 15 914 MCM
of storage capacity is for utilisation of 53 828 MCM of water. The link canal will be 639 km long, starting
from the right side of the proposed dam across Gandak in Nepal, falling in Ganga river near Mustafabad in
Rai Bareli district in UP. (GoB 2003, p V-37)

Chunnar Sone Barrage Link The link envisages transfer of 6 BCM water from Ganga at Chunar to River
Sone at Sone barrage. (NWDA 2005-II p 330) The link canal is to be 149.1 km long, 98 km being in Bihar,
the rest in UP. The Link canal has three lifts, of 38.8 m, 16.1 m and 4.4 m. About 251 MW of power will be
required for these lifts. A new barrage on Kudra Nadi is proposed. The link will require 92.25 ha forest land
in UP portion. Total 1614 ha land will be required in Bihar, including 42 ha for Kudra barrage. About 40
families (200 people) will be displaced due to the Kudra barrage. (GoB 2003 p V-39)

Sone Dam STG (Southern Tributaries of Ganga) link The proposed link canal is to off take from the tail
race of Kadwan HEP and outfall into Badua Left Bank canal after traversing a distance of 339 km. The link
includes a 32 m high dam across river Sone with gross storage capacity of 3100 MCM, having a power
house of 90 MW. The bed width and full supply depth of the canal are 30 m and 5 m respectively, with a
slope of 1:20000. The water velocity would be 0.986 m/s at the head. Kadwan reservoir will submerge
19300 ha (25 100 ha mentioned at another place), of which forest land is 4300 ha. Barrages are planned on
North Koel and Sakri Rivers, for which about 160 ha of land will be required. For the link canal, 4100 ha of
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007
Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 6
land will be needed. About 40 000 persons from 40 villages are to be displaced by Kadwan reservoir.
(GoB 2003 p V-56-61)

Yamuna-Sarda Dams As MS Reddy, former secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt of India states
(NWDA 2005-II, p 99), Pancheshwar, Purnagiri, Kishau, Lakhwar, Vyasi, Renuka dams are imperative for
ILR, though they may not be mentioned separately in a Link project. [Similarly, Bodhghat and
Bhopalpattanam are imperative for the peninsular component of ILR, Reddy adds.]
Displacement in Nepal As a Superintending Engineer, NWDA (NWDA 2005-II p 55) notes, the Himalayan
component depends on construction of dams on the tributaries of Ganga in Nepal. Some of these dams in
Nepal include the following.
⇒ Pancheswar (Sarda) about 12 000 ha of land is likely to be submerged in Nepal due to this dam. This
dam and the downstream Purnagiri dam are crucial for the Sarda Yamuna and related links.
⇒ Chisapani Dam (Ghagra) This big dam is entirely in Nepal and will submerge only Nepali lands. At
least 34000 ha of land will be required only for the dam. The land required for the link canal in Nepal will
be additional.
⇒ Kosi High Dam (Kosi) The dam, part of the Kosi Mechi Link, is to be in Morang Dist in Nepal, 1.6 km
upstream of village Barahkshetra. The 269 m high dam with FRL of 335.25 m will submerge 19063 ha,
all in Nepal. It will have gross storage capacity of 13450 MCM and Live storage capacity of 9370 MCM.
A barrage near Chatra village 8 km downstream of Barahkshetra dam site is also planned. (GoB 2003 p
V-7-8) It will submerge the habitat of Rai tribals and that of Gorkhas. (NWDA 2005-II p 214-5) In
addition, at least 278 km of the Kosi Ghagra link canal would be in Nepal.
⇒ Gandak Dam The Gandak dam would be entirely in Nepal and will submerge significant amount land, it
is not clear how much. In addition, a number of reservoirs are planned on Gandak tributaries, no
information is available about them, but most submergence due to these reservoirs is likely to be in
Nepal. In addition, part of the Gandak-Ganga canal would also be in Nepal.
⇒ Link Canals Parts of Kosi-Ghagra, Kosi-Mechi, Gandak-Ganga and Ghagra-Yamuna link canals would
be in Nepal, requiring significant amounts of lands in that country.
Displacement in Bhutan
⇒ Manas Dam A 250 m high dam on the Manas River, a tributary of Brahmaputra in Bhutan, 4 km
upstream from Indo-Bhutan border is proposed with Live storage capacity of 8750 MCM.
⇒ Sankosh Dam A 253 m high dam with live storage of 4930 MCM on Sankosh river, a tributary of
Brahmaputra in Bhutan, 12 km upstream of India-Bhutan border is proposed. (GoB 2003, WBAST 2004,
p 62) However, the 1983 Indo Bhutan pre feasibility study had fixed 239 m as the height of the dam with
gross storage capacity of 4700 MCM and submergence area of 4700 ha. The proposal included 1400
MW power house at the main dam and a component of 125 MW lift dam. However the Feasibility study
of the project by the Central Water Commission in 1997 conceived the project as 265 m high and
included 62.5 m (above the deepest foundation level) high regulating dam in the downstream. The main
dam (4000 MW installed capacity) is to have a gross storage capacity of 6325 MCM and submergence
area of 6178 ha. (CWC 1997, p 1.1)
⇒ Sankosh regulating dam This 60 m high barrage will be 11 km downstream of the Sankosh Dam.
(GoB 2003, WBAST 2004, p 62) The dam height proposed was 62.5 m in CWC feasibility study in 1997.
the dam will gross storage of 144 MCM and live storage of 24 MCM would have submergence area of
821 ha. (CWC 1997)
⇒ The Link canal The Manas Sankosh link is entirely in Bhutan. In addition, part of the Sankosh Teesta
link canal would be in Bhutan.
Estimated displacement due to the Dams and the Canals Based on firm information about how much
land will be required for the various dams and link canals of ILR (see the Tables 3-6 at the end of this paper
for details), we arrive at the following table for the land requirement for the Himalayan and the Peninsular
components of ILR, for the dams and the link canals (only the main canals). Next step is to estimate how
many people will be displaced for these components of ILR. For dams, the most reliable figure one can use

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 7
is 1.51 persons per ha, based on a study of 213 dams done as part of India Country Study for the
World Commission on Dams. For canals, we have used the figure of population density in India (3.14
persons per ha), as canals pass through more areas with greater population density and canals are spread
all over India. The figures in the last column in Table 2 are thus arrived at based on these norms.
Table 2. Displacement due to Dams and Link Canals of ILR

Forest Land Total Land Estimated number of people that

required, ha required, ha may be displaced
Himalayan Dams 4 300 162 304 245 079
Himalayan Link Canals 16 758 99 315 311 849
Peninsular Dams 73 646 404 843 611 313
Peninsular Link Canals 9 165 99 046 311 004
Total 103 869 765 508 1 479 245

These estimates suffer from a number of limitations. Firstly, even for the two main components, there is no
information from the official agencies about a number of dams. Similarly, there is no official information
about the link canals for at least two of the Himalayan links: the Subernarekha Mahanadi link and the
Farakka Sunderbans link. Thus, while table 1 gives total length of the link canals as 10877 kms, the
information available is only for 9677.34 km (4833.31 km in Himalayan component and 4844.03 km in
Peninsular component) link canals.
Secondly, the estimates include land required only for the main canals, which would be around 0.8% of the
expected command area (from surface water use) of 25 million ha expected from the ILR. In reality, such
long distance canal based projects are likely to take up between 7.5 and 10% of the land projected to be
getting irrigation. Thus, ILR is likely to require 2 to 2.5 m ha for the total canal network.
Thirdly, these estimates do not include other dimensions of the social impacts like downstream impacts, the
impacts due to drainage network (or lack of drainage), the impacts due to water logging and salinisation, the
impacts due to “conservation” measures like the catchment area treatment, the compensatory afforestation,
the creation of new wildlife protection areas and the impacts due to the land slides.
Fourthly, these estimates do not include impacts due to the requirement of land for sand, fine and coarse
aggregates, the steel and cement that would be required on massive scale for these projects and the
impacts thereof. Following figures of requirements of fine, coarse aggregates and earth for three of the link
canals (all from NWDA feasibility studies) shows that this component of the project too will bring big social
impacts.
⇒ The Ken Betwa link will require fine aggregates of 2 million cubic meters and coarse aggregates of 8
million cubic meters.
⇒ The Krishna (Almatti) Pennar link will require 61.355 million cubic meters earth for canals.
⇒ The Cauvery Vaigai Gundar link will require 0.518 million cubic meters fine aggregates, 1.035 m cubic
meters coarse aggregates and 17.39 million cubic meters of earth.
Fifthly, this does not include the substantial impacts that the project construction brings in the surrounding
areas in the form of land slides, erosion, flooding and also tremors.
Finally, whatever resettlement and rehabilitation consequent to the projects would require land, which in
turn could bring fresh social impacts.
So the figures in table 2 provide far from full and complete picture about social impacts due to the ILR, but
they possibly give some idea of the situation, when taken with the above mentioned provisos.
NWDA on R&R The NWDA reports provide at best very sketchy information about what is planned about
the resettlement and rehabilitation of the people to be affected by the ILR. In the sections on R&R, there is
no provision of land for farmers and others affected by the projects. Only provision is land for housing plot

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 8
for the people who will lose their homes to ILR. The provision of cash compensation for the people who
will lose land due to the ILR shows that the govts do not intend to provide land for the displaced. The NWDA
reports do not mention the National R&R policy norms, but they state that each state will deal with the
affected as per the state policies.
The first objective of the current National policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation (NRP 2003) is “To
minimize displacement and to identify non-displacing or least-displacing alternatives”. If this objective were
to be applied to ILR, than we won’t need the ILR projects at all, as less displacing options for India’s water
needs even for the justifiable demands projected for the 21st century exists. Thus, even if the current
National Policy (with all the huge inadequacies it suffers from) were to be applied to ILR in an honest,
objective way, we won’t need the ILR.
Conclusion The govt and the NWDA have not made public any of the hundreds of studies done over the
last 24 years with public resources till recently. Recently, after repeated Supreme Court orders, the govt has
made public the feasibility reports of 14 of the ILR proposals. These reports suffer from serious
inadequacies.
This paper estimates that based on available information, the ILR will require at least 7.66 lakh ha land and
will displace at least 14.8 lakh people. In addition, ILR will need at least 20 lakh ha of land for the canal
network. ILR will also need at least 1.04 lakh ha of forest land as per available official information. ILR will
bring about significant displacement in Nepal and Bhutan due to the dams and link canals. The ILR will also
bring about significant social impacts in Bangladesh.
This exercise only helps get a picture of some dimensions of the possible social impacts of the ILR.
However, the exercise of doing such estimation does not mean that ILR is either necessary or desirable. As
said at the outset, there is sufficient case to show that ILR is neither desirable, nor necessary and we have
less expensive options for taking care of justifiable water needs of the 21st century.
Himanshu Thakkar ([email protected]) January 2007
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in) 8200 words
Delhi

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 9
Table 3. The Dams in the Himalayan links
Link Dam River Location Gross Water Height of the Submergence Displacement,
(country, storage dam area, Ha No of persons
state, district) (Live)
MSTG Manas Manas Bhutan (8750 MCM) 250 m 8000 ha2
Sankosh Sankosh Bhutan 6325 MCM 265 m 6178 ha
(LS of 4930
MCM for 253
m high dam)
Sankosh Sankosh Bhutan 144 MCM (24 62.5 m 821 ha
barrage MCM)
Sarda-Yamuna Pancheswar Kali River Pithoragarh, (6.56 BCM) 315 26000 ha 15400
Uttaranchal, (12186 in people, 65 vil
India & Nepal Nepal) in Nepal
Purnagiri Kali 145 5000 ha
Sarda Sarda Uttaranchal,
Barrage Tanakpur town
(Nainital Dist)
Yamuna Yamuna
Rajasthan barrage
Rajasthan
Sabarmati
Ghagra Chisapani Ghagra Nepal 20 BCM 175 m (above 33900 ha% Over 60 000
Yamuna (Karnali in (16.2 BCM) bed level); in Nepal
Nepal) 270 m (Bapa (Dhungel et
‘04) al, Nepal)
Karnali Ghagra FRL 200 m;
barrage-1 (Karnali) MDDL 193 m
Barrage-2
Kosi Ghagra Kosi High Nepal, 13450 MCM 269 m (FRL 19603 ha
(proposal to Dam Morang dist, (9370 MCM) 335.25 m;
construct 1.6 km u/s of MDDL 259)
barrages on barahkshetra
enroute rivers at
Chatra Nepal, 8 km Pond level
Kamla (121 km),
Bagmati (202.8 barrage d/s of 113.4
km) and Gandak barahkshetra
(333.7 km)
Gandak Ganga Gandak dam Nepal (1960 MCM) 6000 ha
More dams 13954 MCM 20000 ha
on Gandak
tributaries
Chunnar Sone Kudra Nadi Kudra Bihar 42 ha 200
Barrage link barrage Nadi
(129.2 km)
Inter Jirgo UP (12.9 km) (140) FRL 98 (4000 ha)
connecting Ahroura UP (20.9 km) (58.2) FRL 110
reservoirs Musakhand UP (46.55 km) (110.5) FRL 110.7
Kohira Bihar (67.3) (25.5) FRL 104.4
Sone Dam Kadwan Sone 3100 MCM 32 m (FRL 25100 ha (4300 40 000 (from
STG HEP 165) ha FL) 40 villages)
Barrage N Koel 160 ha
Barrage Sakri
Yamuna dams not Kishau Tons Dehradun dist, (1230) 253 3000 ha
direct part of ILR (Yamuna) Uttaranchal
but imperative for Lakhwar Yamuna Dehradun, before (333.04) 173 (above 2000 ha
the same (totally Tons meets Y riverbed)
11.98 bcm water
available in Upper Vyasi Yamuna 5 km d/s of 80 500 ha
Yamuna basin) Lakhwar
Renuka Giri Sirmour dist, 542 (498) 148 (above 2000 ha
(Yamuna) HP river bed)
%: (www.english.ohmy news.com, 091106)

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 10
Table 4. The link canals in the Himalayan Links
Link Canal Length, km Canal bed Supply Canal carrying Water to be Approximate Irrigated
width at head, Water capacity at head, diverted, BCM land requirement Area, lakh
m (slope) depth at cumecs for the link canal ha
head, m
(velocity)
Kosi Mechi 112.55 155 (10 at tail) 6.5 (1.3 1407.8 (98 at 23.702 (0.883 2624 ha 4.74 (1.75
(1: 20 000) m/s) tail) trasfer to in Nepal;
Mahananda 2.99 in
basin) India)
Kosi Ghagra 428.76 (278.22 km (1: 20 000) 928 7.482 6992 ha: 4661 in 10.58 (1.74
in Nepal and Nepal and 2331 in Nepal;
150.47 km in India) in India 8.84 in
India)
Gandak Ganga 639 (tailing in 3000 53.828 (15.27 23170 ha 17.49 [CCA
Ganga river near MCM for Enroute 14.34 (9.95
Mustafabad in Rai use) in Bihar,
Bareli district in 3.75 in UP,
UP) 0.44 in
Nepal)]
Ghagra 417 (to tail in 85.5 (18 at 8 (5 at tail) 5796 ha 11.7 in
Yamuna Etawah district in tail) India & 2.54
UP) in Nepal
Sarda Yamuna 384 43.5 7.8 17.906 to be 4909 ha
Yamuna 786: 196 in 53 7 diverted, of 9360 ha
Rajasthan Haryana and 590 in which Gujarat to
Rajasthan get 1.628
Rajasthan 725: 650 km in 39 6 4325 ha 7.38 - 5.35
Sabarmati Rajasthan and 75 in Raj and
km in Gujarat 2.03 in Guj
Chunar Sone 149.1 (98 km in 405.09 (85.18 at 5.92 1572 ha in Bihar; 0.668 new
Bihar and 51.1 km tail) 800 ha in UP (92 area
in UP) ha FL - UP)
Sone-STG 339 (terminate in 30 (1: 20 000) 5 (0.986 190.43 (14.02 at 2.512 4100 ha 3.07 (2.39
Badua reservoir) m/s) tail) new area)
MSTG: Manas- 114 66 (1:20 000) 10 1370 43.208 (22.56 2280 ha 6.536 (2.64
Sankosh from Manas, in Bihar
MSTG: 137 121 (1:20 000) 10 2355 12.433 from 192 km of
Sankosh- Snkosh and Sankosh Ganga
Teesta 8.215 from Canal in W
intermediate Bengal, for
major streams; which 4327 ha
37.913 land (2133 ha
transferred to FL) for canal and
Ganga; 4027 13500 ha for
used for Enroute disposal of soil
irrigation and (40% land in FL);
1.268 in addition, 260
transmission ha in Bhutan
MSTG: Teesta- 206 (151.2 km in 121 (1:20 000) 10 losses; 15 to be 7000 ha in Bihar
Ganga Bihar) used at Farakka)
Farakka 9 BCM, of which Widening of
Subderbans 7 BCM for feeder canal will
Kolkata port need land in
Murshidabad
Ganga 394 1864 28.913 8300 ha in W
Damodar Bengal
Subarnarekha
Subarnarekhs
Mahanadi
FL: Forest Land; PL: Private Land

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 11
Table 5. The dams in the Peninsular links
Link Dam River Location Gross Height of the Submergence Displacement,
(district, state) storage dam (annual area, Ha No of persons
(Live) Irrigation – l
mcm ha)
Mahanadi Manibhadra Mahanadi Nayagarh, 6000 86 m FRL 63043 (4040 110 000 (2001
(Manibhadra)– Cuttack dist, (4290); (MDDL 73.15 ha FL + 5520 census) 15120
Godavari (d/s) Orissa for FRL m) figures h a village FL); PAFs, 266 villages;
at MWL 91.5 m,
86 m; given here, 70 000 ha at
218 vil fully & 114
for FRL NWDA FRL 91 m villages partially
91 m, proposal is for affected
8520 FRL 91 m
(6608)
Salim Dam Salia Khurda dist, 59.5 FRL up from 92 ha 44 PAFs (300
(increase FRL) Orissa (52.1) 58.52 m to additional sub, people)
63.3 m) totally 1365 ha
Godavari Inchampalli Godavari 10374 FRL 112.77; 94620 ha 10080, 229
(Inchampalli) – (4285) MDDL (30170 ha FL) villages (1991
Krishna 106.98 census)
(Nagarjunsagar) D/s dam for Godavari 34.2
pump storage
Peddavagu Pond level 4113 ha FL
140 m
Upper Pond level
Tummalagutta 197 m
Lower Pond Level
Tummalagutta 176 m
Nusi Pond level
140 m
Godavari Pulichintala Krishna Guntur Dist, 1296 FRL 53.34 14399 ha 25000; 5000
(Inchampalli) – AP (1026) m; MDDL PAFs; 16 vil
Krishna 42.7 m (1991 census)
(Pulichintala) Bhopalpatana Indravati Sironcha 9494 FRL 200.25; 77380 (10000+ Displacement
m tehsil, Mah (8421) MDDL ha FL) [CSE in Mah and CG
174.5; MWL 1985 p117-8]
201.1
Bodhghat Indravati CG 90 m high 13783 ha 10 000 tribal
dam (5704 FL) families; 42 vil
(CSE 1999 p
156; UNEP)
Godavari Polavaram Godavari W Godavari 5511 FRL 45.72 m 63691 (3705 144812; 16207
(Polavaram) – dist, AP (2130) Dead level ha FL) PAF; 250 vil;
Krishna 41.15 m 23095 houses
(Vijaywada)
Krishna (Almatti) Kalvapalli Pennar Anantpur, AP 83 (73) FRL 473 1323 ha (2 1333
– Pennar MDDL 466 villages) (Anantpur
dist), 249
houses
affected
Krishna
(Nagarjunsagar)
– Pennar
(Somasila)
Krishna Four balancing reservoirs are planned: Gorakullu (50.22 km) & Owk (112.73 km – tail) on SRBC and Velugoda
(Srisailam ) – (7.78 km) and Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmedra Swamy (106.66 km) on Telugu Ganga Canal. However no details
Pennar are given about these reservoirs.
Pennar
(Somasila) –
Cauvery (Grand
Anicut)
Cauvery Kattalai Cauvery Karur (TN) Pond level 910 ha (40 ha
(Kattalai) – barrage 101.2) FL)
Vaigai – Gundar

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 12
The dams in the Peninsular links (cont from previous page)
Link Dam River Location Gross Height of Submergence Displacement,
(district, state) Water the dam area, Ha No of persons
storage (annual
(Live) Irrigation –
mcm l ha)
Ken – Betwa Greater Ken Chhatarpur 2755 FRL 287; 8650 (6400 ha 8550; 900
Gangau dist, MP (2753 - MDDL FL) PAFs; 750
DSL) 268; DSL houses , 10 vil
238
Berari barrage (Betwa) (0.87009) 4350
Neemkhera (Betwa) (0.01053) 150
Richhan (Betwa) (0.36828) 1842
Kesari (Betwa) (0.1840) 920
Damanganga – Bhugad (1181 Damangang Peint Taluk, 426.4 FRL 1903 ha (890 ha 3046 (1991
Pinjal (for mld) a Nasik Dist (400) 163.87; FL) in Guj (916) census); 14 vil;
transfer of what MDDL & Mah 503 PAFs
to Mumbai as 124.83
mentioned in Khargihill Vagh Behadpada, 460.8 FRL 1558 ha (734 ha 1484; 10
bracket with the (1181+1193 Mokhana (420.5) 154.52; FL) in Mah villages – 220
names of the mld) Taluk, Thane MDDL PAFs
dams) 109.75
Pinjal Pinjal (T of Jawahar Taluk, 413.57 FRL 141; 1500 ha
(2374+1367 mld) Vaitarna) Thane (401.6) MDDL
92.4
Parbati – Patanpur Parbati Rajgarh dist, 156 FRL 419; 2998 ha (69 ha 4255 (1991
Kalisindh – MP (110) MDDL 407 FL) census); 22 vil,
Chambal 851 PAFs
Mohanpura Newaj (T of 140 FRL 400; 2510 2530 (1991);
Kalisindh) (87.5) MDDL 390 506 PAFs; 8 vil
Kundaliya Kalisindh 1234 FRL 378; 11800 ha (176 20270; 4054
(959) MDDL ha FL) PAFs, 35 vil
369.2
Chitabad (200) (0.52957) 6200 19 vil
Sonechiri (52) (0.14359) 2240 11 vil
Padunia (42) (0.11881) 1640 10 vil
Sewarkheri (37) (0.10066) 1150 9 vil
Sekri-Sultanpura (36) (0.10232) 2600 12 vil
Ramwasa (21.25) (0.05778) 650 3 vill
Bachora (15) (0.04127) 1280 7 vil
Par – Tapi – Jheri Par Peint Taluk, 203 FRL 246; 836 ha in Mah 14832; 75
Narmada Nasik Dist, (187) MDDL villages (24
Mah 203.7 fully and 51
Mohankavchali Par Dharampur 372 FRL 158; 1494 ha (1372 partially); 2247
Taluka, Valsad (158) MDDL 143 ha in Mah; 122 houses; out of
Dist, Guj ha in Guj) 7559 ha, 3572
Paikhad Nar (T of 229 FRL 248; 994 ha (894 ha- ha is FL
Par) (218) MDDL 190.22 Mah, 100 ha-Guj)
Weir D/s of Crest level
Parikhad 143
Chasmandva Tan (T of 82 (75) FRL 214; 615 ha (32 ha in
Auranga) MDDL Mah, 583 ha in
75.08 Guj)
Weir D/s of Crest level
Chasmandva 132
Chikkar Ambica Ahwa Taluka, 142 FRL 210; 1249 ha (Guj)
Dangs Dist, (130) MDDL 130
Weir D/s of Guj Crest level
Chikkar 129
Dabdar Kapri (T of 223 FRL 169; 1629 ha (Guj)
Ambica) (205) MDDL 137.1
Kelwan Purna 284 FRL 164;
(258) MDDL 136.1

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 13
The dams in the Peninsular links (cont from previous page)
Link Dam River Location Gross Height of Submergence Displacement,
(district, state) Water the dam area, Ha No of persons
storage (annual
(Live) Irrigation –
mcm l ha)
Bedti – Varda Pattanadahalla Bedti basin North Kanara 18 (13) 512.75 1005 ha (787 ha 1 vil, 967 PAPs
dist, Karnataka FRL FL)
Shalamalahall 80 480.4 FRL
a (72.5)
Netravati – Yattinhole Sekleshpr 900 m 295 ha (78 ha No
Hemavati Taluk, FRL FL) displacement,
Kerihole Hassan Dist, 866 m 120 ha (33 ha says NWDA
Karnataka FRL FL) website
Hongadhhallad 866 m 350 ha (97 ha
hole FRL FL)
Pamba – Punnamedu Pamba Kal 208 FRL 246; 440 ha
Achankovil – Ar (118.5) MDDL
Vaippar 212.7
Achankovil Achankovil 496.9 FRL 210; 1241 ha (871.67
Kal Ar (184.9) MDDL ha FL); 1270 ha
192.2 at MWL
Achankovil PS 30.6 FRL 65; 323 ha (218 ha 10 villages,
dam (27.8) MDDL 50 FL); 340 ha at 297 PAPs
MWL
T: Tributary; D/s: downstream; FRL: full reservoir level; MWL: maximum water level; FL: forest land; PAPs: project
affected persons; PAFs: project affected families; PS: pump storage; vil: villages

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 14
Table 6. The link canals in the Peninsular Links
Link Canal Length, Canal bed Supply Canal carrying Water to be Approximate Irrigated
km width at Water capacity at head, diverted, BCM land requirement Area, lakh
head, m depth at cumecs for the link canal ha
(slope) head, m
(velocity)
Mahanadi 210.45 m 73.5 (1:20 7 801.98 12.165 22267 ha (1098 3.52 in
(Manibhadra)– (Manibhadra- 000 through ha FL) 6048 Orissa: 0.91
Godavari (d/s) Rushikulya) out) PAPs to be in AP; 4.43
resettled due to total
436.05 43 7 500.23
(Rushikulya- LC
Sarada)
181.2 28 7 352.79
(Sarada-
Godavari)
Godavari 299.256 109.6 (1: 20 7.4 1090 16.426 7567 (661 ha FL 2.87
(Inchampalli) – 000 through + 300 ha FL for
Krishna out) colony/road)
(Nagarjunsagar)
21.8 km lead 9 (1:7500) 1.9 16 0.218 0.5686
canal
Godavari (Inchampalli) 312.2 (12.5 33.4 (17.9 6.75 (1.183 304 cumecs 4.37 4555; Pop 6.13
– Krishna (Pulichintala) km Tunnel) m at Tail) m/s) (187 cumecs at Density in
(1:20 000) tail) Command area:
6.7 per ha (2001
census)
Godavari 174 (Right) 68.5 (1: 20 4.9 (3.95 at 405.12 (280 at 8.233 24000* (pop 2.096 (CCA
(Polavaram) – 000) tail) (1.05 tail) density in of 1.4 l ha
Krishna (Vijaywada) m/s) command area in RBC and
is 4.97 persons transfter to
208 (Left)
per ha) 2265 mcm;
CCA of
1.75 l ha in
LBC)
Krishna (Almatti) – 587.175 32 (1: 20 5.25 230 1.98 (population 8500 ha; 71 ha 2.58 (1.46
Pennar 000 then 15 density in FL, 178 villages in Krishna
000 and command: 1.11 along the canal basin and
then 12 per ha) alignment 1.12 in U
000) Pnnr basin)
Krishna (Srisilam) – 204 (existing) 186 2.31 80 ha
Pennar (180 th natural (embankment &
streams) power house)
Krishna Offtake 21.3 7 488 12.146 (slope 9823.8 ha (895 5.81 (4.13
(Nagarjunsagar) – 202.75 67.5 6 565 varies from 1: ha FL) 5148 existing
Pennar (Somasila) 393.02 (tail) 58.9 6 498 2200 to 1: 20 PAPs, 9 villages area u
000) NSRBC;
1.68
proposed)
Pennar (Somasila) – 529.19 (1: 20 72.4 (39.55 6 603.33 (351.02 8.565 12708 ha (1025 4.91
Cauvery (Grand 000) – tail) at tail) ha FL)
Anicut)
Cauvery (Kattalai) – 255.6 (1: 13 20.4 (4.1 m 5 (3.4 m at 180.3 (30.03 at 2.252 3146 ha for main 3.38
Vaigai – Gundar 000) at tail) tail) tail) canal, 28 ha for
colony+offices,
includes 40 ha
FL
Ken – Betwa (1: 10 134 km 12 3.56 72 1.02 820 0.47
000) 61 9.7 3.56 62 enroute &
36.5 8.5 3.56 57 1.27 Betwa
basin
Parbati – Kalisindh – 55.37 19.5 (1: 10 5 (1.331 199.3 1.36 3449 ha 2.3 (1.19
Chambal (Patanpur- 000) m/s) enroute;
Mohanpura) 1.09 upper
73.17 21.3 (1: 8 5 (1.502 238 Chambal;
(Mohanpura- 000) m/s) 0.0215 Ex
Kundaliya) Kota
98.09 7 (1: 10 3.4 (1.07 49.1 Barrage)
(Kundaliya- 000) m/s)
G’sagar)

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 15
The link canals in the Peninsular Links (Cond from previous page)
Link Canal Length, Canal bed Supply Canal carrying Water to be Approximate Irrigated
km width at Water capacity at head, diverted, BCM land requirement Area, lakh
head, m depth at cumecs for the link canal ha
(slope) head, m
(velocity)
Par – Tapi – 205.34 km 6.6 3.12 44.13 – 90.9 1.35 1700 3.04 (0.52
Narmada (Par Tapi) enroute and
190.14 (Tapi- 12.5 3.5 196 (75 at tail 1.554 2.50 in
Narmada) end) Narmada
33.27 km command)
feeder canals
from Chikkar,
Dabdar and
Kelwan dams)
Damanganga – 16.85 + 25.7 0.287 ex
Pinjal km tunnels Bhugad+ 0.29 ex
Khargihill+ 0.332
ex Pinjal
Bedti – Varda 23.33 km (9 0.242 0.60200
km tunnel) (Tungabhad
ra IP)
Netravati – Hemavati 11 km (8.4 km 0.188 0.33813
Tunnel) (Hemavati
IP)
Pamba – Achankovil 51 km (+ 17 13.8 (1: 10 3.6 72 0.634 210 (125 ha FL 0.914
– Vaippar km tunnel) 000 to 1: for roads,
7500) colonies)
FL: Forest Land; PL: Private Land
*: As estimated by Venkat (see Dams, Rivers & People Feb-Mar ’06)

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007

Interlinking of Rivers in India: Dimensions of Social Impacts 16
References
Ahmed Feroze, Ahmad Quazi Kholiquzzaman, Khalequzzaman Md, Regional Cooperation o Transboundary
Rivers: Impact of Indian River-linking Project, Bangladesh Poribesh Andolan and others, Dec 2004
Bhattacharya SK, Biswas AK, Rudra Dr Kalyan (editors), Interlinking of Rivers in India: Myths and Reality,
Environmental Engineering Division, The Institution of Engineers (India), W Bengal State Centre, (8-9 Sept
2004), Kolkata 2004
Center for Science and Environment, State of India’s Environment-II, New Delhi, 1985
Central Water Commission, Sankosh: Feasibility Report, Govt of India, 1997

Dams, Rivers & People various issues, www.sandrp.in/drpindex

Desai Mamata, Mukhopadhyay Ananda Deb, Sikdar Pradip K (editors), Interlinking of Indian Rivers: An
impact assessment, ACB publications, Kolkata, Sept 2005
Govt of Bihar, Report of Expert Committee on Impact of Interlinking of Rivers on Bihar, Dec 2003
Govt of India, Integrated Water Resource Development: A Plan for Action Report of the National
Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi, Sept
1999
Govt of India, NATIONAL POLICY ON RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION FOR PROJECT
AFFECTED FAMILIES-2003, Gazette of India, Feb 17, 2004

Govt of India, Proceedings of the Eleventh National Water Convention (May 11, 2005), National Water
Development Agency, Vol I and II, 2005

Horig Rainer, Water Management on a Grand Scale: India’s Programme of Interlinking of Rivers Reuters
Foundation Paper No 260, Oxford, 2005

National Council for Applied Economic Research, Agro-economic, Socio-economic and Environmental
Survey of Six Link Projects, New Delhi, Oct 1993

National Water Development Agency, Feasibility Reports of River Linking proposals for 14 links and other
information, www.nwda.nic.in

Patkar Medha (editor), River Linking: A Millennium Folly? National Alliance of People’s Movements,
Mumbai, Jan 2004

Singh SR, Shrivastava MP, River Interlinking in India: The Dream and Reality, Deep & Deep Publications
Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 2006

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, Ken Betwa Link: Why it won’t click,
http://www.sandrp.in/riverlinking/ Oct 2005

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, Update on Par Tapi Narmada Link,
http://www.sandrp.in/riverlinking/ Dec 2006

South Madras Cultural Association, Linking of Rivers – Should we? (Juy 5-6, 2003), Chennai, 2003
West Bengal Academy of Science and Technology, Proceedings of the Workshop on Interlinking of Rivers,
(May 23, 2003), Kolkata, 2004
World Commission on Dams, India Country Study, www.dams.org

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & people January 2007