National Water Grid

water-innovations-alliance-launches-lsquosmart,839294.shtml#

The challenge is to increase the area under Command Area of Irrigation from 90 m.ha. to 135 m. ha. to free areas from the vagaries and crop intensity limitations of rainfed agriculture.

Case for a fast-track National Water Grid

Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, Former Sr. Exec., Asian Development Bank (26 May 2009)

Power transfer and distribution by switching to demand centres is called a Power Grid.

Similarly, a National Water Grid can be created to distribute and make available water to the unreached.

Powerpoint presentation on National Water Grid for India.

The water Grid concept as a desirable national enterprise has found favour in UK which had the history of a Canals Age well before the Age of Industrial Revolution with UK criss-crossed with waterways initially designed as a cost-effective transport system.

Importance of the command area of irrigation development in India is demonstrated by the following figures:

Agricultural production increased from 65 m.tonnes in 1951 to 200 m.tonnes in 2001 due to the increase in the command area of irrigation from 22.6 m. hectares to 90 m. hectares during the same period of 50 years. India is endowed with rich alluvial soil and has the potential to quadruple the agricultural production by simply making available water for upto 4 crops per year and efficient soil health management.

In India, the interlinking of rivers at an estimated cost of Rs. 5 lakh crores has been mooted by National Water Development Agency of Ministry of Water Resources.

In addition to the transfers of water from flood waters of Brahmaputra river during the flooding season, the National Water Grid should incorporate many other water supply schemes such as the following:

1. Augmentation of groundwater resources by using the flood waters

2. Promotion of afforestation plans in the uplands of the country to augment regularity of monsoons (one proposal is to create a contour canal along the Sahyadri ranges to reach water to the uplands of Maharashtra and Karnataka and preventing the wastage of water through rapid flows in west-flowing rivers during the monsoon season.

3. Use of nuclear technology by use of mini-nuclear reactors carried on barges to desalinate seawater to m eet the drinking water needs of settlements along the long 7,500 km. coastline of the nation. Such a technology can also be used to desalinate entire saline rivers such as the Luni river of Rajasthan-Gujarat

4. Declaration of water as a national asset and ensuring drinking water and irrigation supplies at highly subsidized rates

5. Private-public sector partnership in educating the public about water conservation methods and to enforce regulations for maintaining levels of ground-water tables at sustainable levels

6. Idenifying potential areas for multi-cropping and even upto 4 crops per year with assured 24X7 supply of irrigation water

7. Use of solar pumps for harvesting groundwater and putting in place measures for rain-water harvesting

8. Involving the Panchayati Raj institutions as implementing agencies of the National Water Grid

The interlinking of rivers component alone of the National Water Grid has the potential to create 9 crore acres of wet land with assured irrigation (according to the Min. of Water Resources). Thus, a potential can be created to distribute 9 crore acres of this wet land to 9 crore poor, landless families to initiate a veritable revolution in the village economy of the nation and truly empower the local self-government institutions of the Panchayati Raj by making these institutions stake-holders and share-holders of the National Water Grid Authority. Experts opine that the interlinking project can be implemented in 5 years’ time. http://nwda.gov.in/indexmain.asp?linkid=88&langid=1 Supreme Court is also seized of the national issue and in one instance observed as follows on a writ Petition 724/1994: “It is difficult to appreciate that in this country with all the resources available to it, there will be a further delay of 43 years for completion of the project to which no State has any objection and whose necessity and desirability is recognised and acknowledged by the Union of India. The project will not only give relief to the drought prone areas but will also be an effective flood control measure and would be a form of water harvesting which is being rightly propagated by the Union of India and all the State.” http://nwda.gov.in/indexmain.asp?linkid=97&langid=1

A proposal to create a network of rivers and canals and formation of a national water grid was made in 1881, by Sir Arthur Cotton, who had constructed the Godavari anicut.

A good demonstration of the interlinking of rivers is the Sarasvati River project ongoing through Rajasthan Nahar Board. The reborn River Sarasvati now flows for over 1000 kms. utilizing the waters of Sutlej and Beas rivers from the Harike reservoir (created off Bhakra-Nangal and Pong dams) and waters have reached upto Gedra Road in Barmer District, Rajasthan.

Asian Water Development Outlook 2007 published by the Asian Development Bank underscores the importance of appropriate water governance to ensure water for all. http://www.adb.org/Water/Knowledge-Center/AWDO/default.asp The report highlights that :

· water crisis in the future will not be caused by physical scarcity of water

· energy, food, environment, are interacting development sectors

· to avoid water stresses, research needs to be strengthened on issues related to climate change and water planning and management processes

· limited access to water is a key determinant of poverty and uncontrolled deforestation

· stable institutional frameworks and strong political will, are ingredients of successful water management practices in the region

National Water Grid can be put on fast-track to shield the nation from the impact of the global financial melt-down, by making it the centre-piece of a stimulus package for the infrastructure development in the nation.

This National Water Grid will generate employment for crores of youth. A National Water Grid Authority (NWGA) on the lines of the Konkan Railway Authority can be created to implement the Grid.

Regional aspirations can be met by organizing the NWGA in four zones, NWGA East, West, North and South and managed by competent management experts – a management technique successfully employed for projects such as the Delhi Metro Rail.

Annexes

National water grid is back on the agenda

7 May 2009 | By John McKenna

Measures included in the draft Flood & Water Management Bill will renew calls for a national water grid for the UK, it was claimed this week.

The bill, published for consultation last month, proposes regulations which will allow the creation of companies to deliver large infrastructure schemes.

Morrison Utility Services chief executive Charles Morrison said the prospect of raising much larger levels of finance than currently is possible in the water sector could finally make the idea of a national water transfer scheme a reality. “Logic dictates that [a national water grid] is a good idea,” said Morrison.

“There is lots of rainfall in the north of the UK but there are parts of southern England that are technically desert. From an engineering point of view creating a water grid is not rocket science. It is the funding that is key.”

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/water/national-water-grid-is-back-on-the-agenda/5201550.article

Draft Floods and Water Bill opens door for water grid

29 April, 2009 | By John McKenna

Measures included in the draft Flood and Water Management Bill will boost the case for a national water grid for the UK, it was claimed this week.

The Bill, published for consultation last week, proposes to make it possible for water companies to form consortiums which can deliver water mega-projects. It notes that “since privatisation, the significant majority investment projects have been relatively small scale.”

Shareholders in these consortiums would most likely comprise water companies and private investors.

Morrison Utility Services chief executive Charles Morrison said the prospect of raising much larger levels of finance than currently is possible in the water sector could make the idea of a national water transfer scheme a reality.

“Logic dictates that [a national water grid] is a good idea,” said Morrison.

The concept of a national water grid was last seriously debated in 2006, when an Environment Agency study rejected the idea on cost grounds.

It estimated that to build a national water grid which could include five pipelines carrying 1,100M litres a day over 560km would cost £15bn. This, claimed the study, would be four times more expensive than building new reservoirs to provide similar levels of water supplies.

http://www.nce.co.uk/draft-floods-and-water-bill-opens-door-for-water-grid/5201257.article

National water grid — A hundred-year-old plan

Ch. Prashanth Reddy

16 July 2003 (The Hindu)

MUCH is being talked and written about inter-linking of rivers. While there is a vague recognition that this is not a new idea, few politicians, engineers or members o the public know that the concept dates back at least 120 years.

According to Dr Gautam Pingle, Chairman, Public Policy Area, Administrative Staff College of India, the proposal to create a network of rivers and canals was made in meticulous detail way back in 1881, by Sir Arthur Cotton, that extraordinary engineer-economist who formulated a comprehensive sub-continental plan for the formation of a national water grid.

Dr Pingle says that Sir Arthur's scheme was elaborate and, needless to say, did not involve pumping of any description though locks for navigation were envisaged. The plan involved navigation and irrigation, storage as well as river training. His list of potential projects was exhaustive and the costing was also given (see infographic).

Dr Pingle stated that all this was put together by Sir Arthur in 1881, and the total cost estimated, with 20 per cent pre-operative costs, at 50 million pounds sterling, or the then equivalent of Rs 50 crore.

While some of the projects were subsequently taken up, many people are unaware that Sir Arthur first identified them. Many of the older engineers in South India are aware of his work and writings.

The concept of inter-basin transfers, of navigation along the coasts and across the peninsula are uniquely Sir Arthur's and to him must go the full credit of drawing up a master plan for India a hundred years before the idea resurfaced. Sir Arthur had also stated that four main canal lines needed to be established. They were: "From Calcutta to Kurrachee — up the valley of the Ganges, across the watershed of the Jumna and the Sutlej, down the valley of the Indus to Kurrachee. The worst part is already cut, the Srihind canal, across from the Sutlej to the Jumna, by the line of the Godavari, and the Tapti from Cocanada to Surat, up the valley of the Tungabhadra and the valley of the Kala Naddee, crossing the watershed near Darwar which is the worst one, at two thousand feet, reaching the sea at Karwar and by Palghat, a breach south of the Neilgherries, up the valley of the Ponany and down the valley of Amravatty, crossing the watershed near Coimbatore, on a level of about one thousand four hundred feet."

Speaking about Madras Presidency, his vision was clear: "As respects water transit, the whole presidency is perfectly capable of first-class water transit on all the important lines, and this almost everywhere, in combination with irrigation."

Yet his vision was not restricted to the Presidency he served so well: "The Coast canal from Bengal, by Cape Comorin to Karwar on the Western Coast, is all perfectly practicable at quite an insignificant cost. The main lines across the Peninsula from Madras through the heart of the Camatic to Ponany, and from the same city by Nellore through the Ceded District to Karwar and that up the Godavari and Warda, and by the line of the Tapti to Surat, are also all perfectly practicable at small cost compared to their effect."

He further stated that: "From these, thousands of miles of branch canals may be led so as to fully open this populous country. Further a contour line may be led from the Cauveri near Seringapatnam, through Mysore, the ceded districts, and Hyderabad, to the Godavari, in the heart of the upper country, thus putting the whole of the interior, by means of the east and west canals and rivers and the coast canals, in effective communication with the ports of both coasts, and with Calcutta and the plains of the Ganges and the Punjab. The conveyance of one ton from Lahore to Karwar, three thousand miles, would thus, at one-twentieth of a penny per ton per mile, cost about Rs 6 — about ten per cent of the value of grain."

K. L. Rao, in India's Water Wealth, stated that the navigation plan proposed by Sir Arthur Cotton "showed his remarkable mastery of the river systems of India. Needless to say, had such a plan been implemented in the last century, transport in India would have presented no problem".

Sir Arthur's plan also took into account irrigation of a vast extent of land and was not restricted to navigation alone. He realised that the two were complementary and need not, and should not, be separated.

Nearly a hundred years later, the UNDP mission on National Water Grid 1971-72 felt that "India's national economy in its development and growth will be confronted with the problem of increasing scarcity of water within the next thirty years. From basic compilation of future water demand and water yields it becomes evident that by the year 2000 or so, the National Water Grid will be a vital necessity".

Now, Dr Pingle feels that with the extensive current political interest in the national water grid — an interest that was lacking both in the 19th and 20th centuries — the twenty-first century may see Sir Arthur's plans being realised.

Sir Arthur Cotton died on July 14, 1899 at Dorking, Surrey, at the age of 97. But he is remembered quietly every morning by millions of farmers and ordinary people in the Godavari and Krishna deltas.

The Andhra Pradesh Government has installed his statue on the Tank Bund in Hyderabad along with the other heroes of Andhra.

He is perhaps the only Englishman whose statue was installed in India after Independence.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/07/16/stories/2003071601980900.htm

Supreme Court observations

We are distressed to note that milestone for the perspective plan indicated in the report of the Agency shows that even though the Pre-Feasibility Reports regarding the Peninsular & Himalayan projects are already completed, the completion of the link projects ultimately will be by the year 2035 in respect of Peninsular Link Project and 2043 regarding Himalayan Link Project.

It is difficult to appreciate that in this country with all the resources available to it, there will be a further delay of 43 years for completion of the project to which no State has any objection and whose necessity and desirability is recognised and acknowledged by the Union of India. The project will not only give relief to the drought prone areas but will also be an effective flood control measure and would be a form of water harvesting which is being rightly propagated by the Union of India and all the State.

Learned Attorney General states that a more realistic view will be taken and a revised programme on completion would be drawn up and be presented to the Court. We do expect that the programme when drawn up would try and ensure that the link projects are completed within a reasonable time of not more than ten years. We say so because recently the National Highways Projects have been undertaken and the same is nearing completion and the inter-linking of the rivers is complimentary to the state highway and the water ways which are constructed will be of immense benefit to the country as a whole.

The report of the National Water Development Agency refers to negotiations and signing of agreements. This aspect is also adverted to by the Union of India in its affidavit when it mentioned that consent of all the States affected by the Inter-linking of the rivers has to be obtained. Learned Attorney General would like to consider this aspect as it is contended by Mr. Ranjit Kumar that if a legislation under Entry 56 list I of the Constitution is made, the need for the consent would not arise and the Centre would be in a position to undertake the project and complete the same within a reasonable period of time.

It is not open to this Court to issue any direction to the Parliament to legislate but the Attorney General submits that the Government will consider this aspect and, if so advised, will bring an appropriate legislation.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus has drawn our attention to River Board Act, 1956 which has been enacted by the Parliament. Learned Attorney General would look into this in order to examine whether any further piece of legislation is necessary for bringing about the inter-linking of the rivers.

The parties are at liberty to file in Court any reports or papers containing studies in respect of the said project. To come up for further orders on 16th December, 2002.

Upon hearing counsel on 16th December, 2002 the Court made the following order:

Learned Attorney General has brought to our notice resolution dated 13.12.2002 passed by Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, inter alia, stating that National Water Development Agency has, after carrying out detailed studies and investigations for preparation of feasibility reports identified 30 links and prepared feasibility reports of six such links. It also notices that various basin States have expressed divergent views about the studies and feasibility reports prepared by the said Agency and with a view to bringing out a consensus among the States and provide guidance on norms of appraisal of individual projects and modalities for project funding etc. the Central Government has set up a Task Force details whereof are given in paras 3 & 4 of the resolution. Para 5 sets out the terms of reference of the said Task Force and para 8 sets out the time table for achieving the goal of inter-linking of rivers by the end of 2016. Mr.Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus curiae, prays for a short adjournment for filing response thereto. List on 20th January, 2003.

Upon hearing counsel on 20th January, 2003 Court made the following order:

It would be expedient if the matter is adjourned by about three months so that the Court is in a position to know as to what progress has been made in the matter. List the matter in the Ist weeks of May, 2003.

Upon hearing the case on 5th May, 2003, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following order:

Pursuant to order dated 20th Janury, 2003, an affidavit dated 5th May, 2003 has been filed by Mr.BP Pandey, Deputy Commissioner, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, annexing thereto the resolution dated 13.12.2002 constituting a Task Force, time table for interlinking of rivers, other resolutions nominating part time and full time members of the Task Force and few other documents. It seems that in last about four months three meetings of Task Force have been held on 6th January, 2003, 27th March, 2003 and 28th April, 2003. In the last meeting the first Action Plan as per Government Resolution was considered and adopted. Now as per Action Plan-I the schedule for impelementation is 10 years from the start. It stipulates that the work on the links can be started from 2007. It is envisaged to be completed by say end of 2016. Further it envisages that the group of Task Force of interlinking rivers will examine the two schedules and is expected to arrive at a reasonable and predicable implementation schedule in due course. According to Action Plan -I the said Task Force has laid emphasis on demonstrative value of starting work on a link or two, as soon as possible. The process of preparation of Detailed Project Report for an inter basin link need to cover also, Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Management Plan and R&R Plan for project affection persons. We find no substance in the apprehension that the Task Force will not implement the law. We have also no doubt that in case the other experts in the field provide necessary inputs to the Task Force, it will give it due consideration the same deserves. For the present, we would direct posting of the matter after six months.

Upon hearing the case on 10th Nov, 2003, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following order:

Union of India is directed to file an affidavit placing on record up-to-date progress in the matter within a period of six weeks. List the matters thereafter.

Upon hearing the case on 6th Jan, 2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following order:

The Task Force of Interlinking of Rivers has filed a Progress Report which deals with various aspects. It, inter alia, mentions that Interlinking of Rivers have two major components i.e. Himalayan Component (14 links) and Peninsular component (16 links) It further mentions that the former component i.e. Himalayan links requires an understanding with neighbouring countries like Bhutan and Nepal. We hope that steps are being taken to have requisite discussions with the said countries. Regarding Peninsular link, the progress report records that in respect of two links - (1) Ken - Betwa link (U.P. and M.P.) and (2)Parbati - Kalisindh - Chambal link (M.P. and Rajasthan), quick implementation is feasible in respect of the first link. In respect of the first link, feasibility Report is stated to be complete and Central Water Commission has been asked to initiate steps for preparation of Detailed Project Report. It is, however, not indicated as to when the said DPR is likely to be prepared. In respect of second, the Report notes that National Water Development Agency has been directed to take necessary steps to prepare Feasibility Report by March, 2004 so as to take action for preparation of DPR thereafter. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for Union of India that in respect of these two links the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan have given their consent and the discussions with State of Uttar Pradesh are at advance stage and the Feasibility Report shall be prepared once the consent is received from the State of Uttar Pradesh. Further Progress Report may be filed by Union of India by 23rd April, 2004 and the matter shall be listed in the last week of April, 2004.

Upon hearing the case on 26th April, 2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following order:

Pursuant to the order dated 6th January, 2004, an affidavit by Joint Commissioner (Basin Management), Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, dated 23rd April, 2004, has been filed. We have perused the said affidavit which details the progress in the matter of interlinking of rivers. Dealing with the follow up action on signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the affidavit states that the Government of Madhya Pradesh has communicated its consent to sign the MOU while the matter is under discussion with the Governments of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and efforts are being made to sort out the differences. With regard to the follow up action by Central Water Commission and National water Development Agency, it has been stated that the detailed project report for Ken-Betwa link is proposed be completed by Central Water Commission in thirty months. Our attention was drawn to the time table for interlinking of rivers already filed, according to which, for completion of detailed project reports, the time stipulated was 31st December, 2006. The feasibility report of Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link is stated to have been completed in March, 2004.

In respect of putting the feasibility report on website, an affidavit be filed along with the next progress report. Prima facie we cannot contemplate any reason for the feasibility report not putting on website. In the affidavit to be filed, the aspect of central legislation, as noticed in this Court's order dated 31st October, 2002, be also indicated.

Further progress report and the affidavit shall be filed within four months.
List after four months”.

Upon hearing the case on 30th August, 2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following order:

We have perused the affidavit of Mr. M.S. Gupta, Senior Joint Commissioner (Basin Division), Ministry of Water Resources; Government of India dated 24th August, 2004 along with which progress report in the matter of interlinking of rivers has been filed. The progress report being not very clear on our query, learned Solicitor General states that the Government has taken, in principal, decision to continue with interlinking of rivers. The matter, after comprehensive review is likely to be placed before the Cabinet after about six weeks. The report of the Standing Committee on Water Resources has been taken on record. Our attention has also been drawn by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Amicus Curiae to the Report of the Standing Committee on Water Resources 2004-2005 inter alia stating that the committee desires that the Government to make earnest efforts to get going the interlinking of the Northern and Southern rivers under ILR Programme in a definite time schedule which, in their considered view, would save the nation from the devastating ravages of chronic droughts and floods. Be that as it may, as prayed by learned Solicitor General, we defer the matter by eight weeks. The up-to-date progress report be filed within eight weeks and the matter be listed thereafter.

Upon hearing the case on 1st November, 2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following order:

Pursuant to orders dated 30th August, 2004, a progress report in the matter of "Interlinking of Rivers" has been filed in the form of an annexure (Annexure R-9) to the affidavit of Shri M.S. Gupta, Senior Joint Commissioner (Basin Management), Ministry of Water Resources. Learned Solicitor General has also brought to our notice the presentation on the aspect of interlinking of rivers which was made by the Ministry of Water Resources in a high powered meeting, comprising of the Prime Minister, Union Minister of Finance, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, Member, Planning Commission, and Member Secretary to the Prime Minister amongst others. That presentation was made on 11th October, 2004. With reference to the project reports pertaining to link between Ken-Betwa which has a length of 231 Kms. and the link between Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal with a length of 243 Kms., in the first link there being two States (U.P. & M.P.) and in the second link again there being two States (M.P. & Rajasthan), it has been, inter alia, stated that the consensus group has been asked to intensify its efforts with a view to resolve technical issues with the State Governments and submit its report by November, 2004. The presentation, however, stipulates that after the receipt of the report that may be submitted by November, 2004, the Secretary (Water Resources) will hold discussions with concerned State Governments followed by political level meetings to reach an understanding so that preparation of Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) can start. It has also been stipulated that other apprehensions of States will be addressed at DPR stage. The presentation has priortised the different project components for preparation of DPRs and implementation.

In regard to involvement of environmentalists and others, this Court in its order dated 5th May, 2003 had directed that the process of preparation of DPRs for an inter basin link needs to cover also a detailed environmental impact assessment, environmental management plan and R&R plan for project affected persons. An apprehension was expressed at that stage that the matters of environment may be over looked in the implementation of this project. This Court found no substance in the apprehension that the Task Force would not implement the law. It was observed that in case other experts in the field provide necessary inputs, that would be given due consideration it deserves. Now, a perusal of the present report shows that it has been specifically noticed that a group of environmentalists, social activists and other experts will be constituted by the Ministry of Water Resources which will be involved in the consultative process for the project. In the order dated 26th April, 2004, we had observed that, prima facie, it is not possible to contemplate any reason for the feasibility report not being put on website. In the Status Report, it has been mentioned that the Chiarman, Governing Body, NWDA and Secretary (Water Resources) has directed NWDA on 13th October, 2004 to take further action for putting the feasibility report on Ken-Betwa Link on website. For further consideration the matter shall be placed before the Court in the last week of January or first week of February, 2005.

Upon hearing the case on 4th Feb, 2005, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following order:

The learned counsel for the Union of India prays for four weeks' time to file the status report. Prayer is allowed and the writ petitions are adjourned.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER on 8th April 2005:

We have perused the status report filed in the form of an affidavit of Shri M.S. Gupta, Senior Joint Commissioner (Basin Management), Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.

In so far as Ken-Betwa link is concerned, though the affidavit and the documents accompanying it state that the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, would inform the decision of the Government by the end of January, 2005, we are told by the learned Solicitor General that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has conveyed its consent, subject to certain conditions, in particular the condition of funding. The cost of preparation of the Detailed Project Report [for short, "D.P.R."] is proposed to be done from Central funding amounting to Rupees thirty crores. We take note of the fact that now a Memorandum of Understanding is required to be signed between the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Central Government.

In so far as Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link is concerned, the consensus group headed by the Chairman, Central Water Commission, held its meeting on 2nd November, 2004, and discussed the issues raised by the Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh regarding Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link. The group submitted its report to the Ministry. The Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh were asked to give concurrence for signing the Memorandum of Understanding so that the work for preparation of D.P.R. could commence. It seems that certain issues are still to be sorted out with the State of Rajasthan even after the inter-State meeting of Chief Secretaries held on 11th January, 2005. We hope that the issues would be sorted out without the intervention of the Court.

It further appears that the feasibility reports of three other links in Peninsular component, namely Par-Tapi Narmada Link, Godavari (Polavaram)- Krishna (Vijayawada) link and Daman Ganga-Pinjal link, have been taken up for initiating action for consensus building.

Annexure R-4 to the affidavit shows that the feasibility reports in respect of fourteen Peninsular component and two Himalyan components have been completed. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, submits that despite the orders of this Court, only one feasibility report has been put on the website. The order of the Court is clear and we direct its compliance in letter and spirit so that the feasibility reports shall be put up on the website soon after its completion. One of the objects sought to be achieved is that the concerned environmentalists and others can put forth their view-point which can be considered. The view-point can be placed before the Committee of Environmentalists, social scientists and other experts on inter-linking which has been constituted by the Government in terms of Office Memorandum dated 28th December, 2004. We feel that the Group shall also intimate and invite Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curaie, by giving sufficient notice of the meeting. The concerned persons, above noted, can also bring their view-point before Mr. Ranjit Kumar as well.

The Office Memorandum dated 29th December, 2004 shows that the task force on inter-linking of rivers, having submitted its report, has been wound up with effect from 31st December, 2004 and a special cell is constituted to look after the residuary work of the task force and for taking follow up action on the inter-linking of river programmes under the Ministry of Water Resources. That special cell was earlier headed by a Joint Secretary but now in terms of Office Memorandum dated 15th February,2005, it has been directed to be headed by the Commissioner (Project) in the said Ministry.

It may also be noted that the terms of reference of the Environmentalists Committee, above noted, seem to be quite comprehensive and that is the reason we have directed that all concerned may place their view-point before the said Committee. The next status report be filed within three months.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following Order on 8^th Aug, 2005:

Contempt Petition (C) No.163 of 2005:

The grievance made in this petition is that, despite repeated orders of this Court, the respondents have not put the feasibility reports on website, except the feasibility report in respect of Ken-Betwa Link project. The orders that have been passed by this Court for putting the feasibility reports on website are dated 26th April, 2004, 1st November, 2004 and 8th April, 2005. The advantage of putting the said reports on website has also been indicated in the order dated 8th April, 2005. With reference to the orders earlier passed, it was directed on 8th April, 2005, that feasibility reports shall be put on website soon after its completion. Pursuant to the order dated 8th April, 2005, Mr. K. Vohra, Senior Joint Commissioner (Basin Management), Ministry of Water Resources, has filed a status report in the form of an affidavit in respect of some of the links. It is stated that the Government of Gujarat has not agreed to put feasibility report on the website and the response of other concerned State, namely, Maharashtra, is awaited. This is in respect of Par-Tapi Narmada and Damanganga-Pinjal links. We fail to understand, where was the necessity for the Government of India to ask any other authority or State Government for its agreement for placing the feasibility reports on website when specific orders have been passed by this Court. If Government of India or any State had any difficulty in implementing the direction of placing the feasibility reports on website, it was open to them to approach this Court and seek further directions. Nothing of the kind has been done by any of the parties or the Government.

Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General, states that it appears that the feasibility report of Parbati Kalisindh-Chambal link project has also been put on website recently. At present, though we are not inclined to take any action as sought for in this contempt petition in view of the submission of the learned Solicitor General that there was some confusion in the mind of some officers in respect of the direction made for putting the feasibility reports on website, we direct that all such feasibility reports, which are ready and complete, shall be put on website without reference to any person or authority and without any further delay. This would dispose of the contempt petition.

In respect of Parbati Kalisindh-Chambal link, the affidavit shows that the matter has already been discussed at the level of Consensus Building Group. It is pointed out that the Chief Ministers of the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh are expected to meet shortly and discuss various issues. In respect of Ken-Betwa link, from the affidavit, it appears that though the Government of Madhya Pradesh has given its consent, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has not even responded. Reference in this affidavit has been made to the letter written on 19th May, 2005. It is stated that the response from the State of Uttar Pradesh is still awaited. The learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh is present but without any instructions. We direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to cooperate in the matter. For the present, we say no more. Further, it has been brought to our notice by the learned Solicitor General that papers for convening the meeting of the Committee of Environmentalists, Social Scientists and other experts have been processed and it is expected that a date for the said meeting will be fixed shortly of which sufficient notice would be given to Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae.

In respect of Godavari (Polavaram)-Krishna (Vijayawada) Link, Damanganga-Pinjal Link and Par-Tapi Narmada Link, it has been stated in the affidavit that sixth meeting of `Consensus Group' was held on 13th May, 2005, representatives of various states and officers from the Central Water Commission and National Water Development Agency participated and certain points were placed, which have been indicated in the affidavit. A meeting of that Consensus Group is stated to be now fixed for 23rd August, 2005.

In view of the aforesaid, we direct that the matter shall be listed again in the month of November, 2005, and status report be filed within three months from today.

http://nwda.gov.in/indexmain.asp?linkid=97&langid=1

Sarasvati

Navigation

Heritage