By : Shaurya Agarwal

Abstract

On December 25, 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation for the Ken-Betwa River Link Project in an attempt to solve the water scarcity in the Bundelkhand region that covers parts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. This ₹45,000 crore project was inaugurated despite the objections raised by experts, including members of an empowered committee appointed by the Supreme Court of India. The inaugural river-linking project launched under the National Perspective Plan is intended to work towards alleviating the impacts of floods and droughts along with boosting income in rural areas. However, experts speculate it may lead to environmental catastrophes and cascading failures.

Introduction

On December 25, 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the Ken-Betwa River Link Project (KBLP), which aims to solve the problem of water scarcity in the Bundelkhand region that covers parts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The project aims to achieve this by interlinking major rivers and their tributaries with each other through a network of reservoirs and canals to facilitate drier regions with more water. The Ken-Betwa River linking project is expected to address the drinking and irrigation water needs of at least 10 districts of Madhya Pradesh and various districts of Uttar Pradesh. The project’s idea appears simple yet involves feats of human hydrogeological engineering as the project aims to transfer the supposed water ‘surplus’ from the Ken River to the Betwa River so that the latter can water the Bundelkhand region in Uttar Pradesh. The link connecting the rivers will be in the form of a canal fed by the new Daudhan Dam on the Ken. However, this dam is to be built within the Panna Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh, raising concerns about the submergence of parts of the reserve. The initiative is also aimed at generating more than 100 MW of hydropower and 27 MW of solar energy. The project is planned to be completed by 2030. This project, valued at around  ₹45,000 crore, was launched despite the objections raised by several expert bodies, including members of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) appointed by the Supreme Court of India.  The following segment of the article dives into some of the ambiguous clearances received by the project. 

Ambiguous Clearances 

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) went on record to state that the approval given to the project by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), was beyond the board’s legal authority. The committee subsequently submitted a report concerning this matter to the Supreme Court. The committee in its report cited that the facilitated approval of the (KBL) project marks a clear violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. The matter presently remains under judicial consideration. 

India enacted the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 at a critical juncture when its wildlife was in grave peril. The key provisions of the Act (Sections 18 and 35) relate to setting aside areas of significance to wildlife such as ‘sanctuaries’ and ‘national parks’ and restricting human activities within them without prior approval. Furthermore, as per the act, the diversion or enhancement of the flow of water into or outside of these protected areas is considered taboo unless doing so is deemed to be necessary to better manage the wildlife within a sanctuary or a national park. In the case of the Panna Tiger Reserve, the CEC has found such diversion to not be necessary to improve and better manage wildlife in the park. 

Further downstream from the tiger reserve is the Ken Gharial Sanctuary, which was established to safeguard the critically endangered Gangetic Gharial. The proposed dam’s potential to disrupt water flow into and out of this sanctuary highlights its destructive implications, directly violating the Act’s provisions for sanctuary protection. The CEC has explicitly noted in its report that the Standing Committee of the NBWL failed to assess the project’s impact on the downstream Gharial sanctuary, underscoring a significant oversight in the approval process.

The Indian government catalysed this approval despite an expert body created by the Standing Committee of the NBWL itself saying that “an independent hydrological study of river Ken is necessary” and that “no developmental project should destroy the ecology of remnant fragile ecosystems and an important tiger habitat in the country”. These oversights in approval have generated scrutiny for the project amongst the global research community, especially given the fact that such an independent investigation remains pending.

Impact on the Panna Tiger Reserve 

The Panna Tiger Reserve is celebrated as an outstanding tiger habitat, particularly for its remarkable success in reintroducing tigers a decade after losing its entire tiger population in 2009. However, environmentalists warn that the construction of the proposed dam could submerge the reserve’s iconic deep gorges, potentially negating a decade’s worth of efforts aimed at wildlife conservation. While the government proposes a larger Panna Tiger Landscape as compensation, experts argue that it is an inadequate replacement and fails to offset the ecological loss. They emphasize that such landscape-level initiatives are already essential for most wildlife areas, particularly in the context of the global commitment established at the COP15 biodiversity conference in December 2022, which aims to protect 30% of the world’s terrestrial and marine areas by 2030. 

Potential Impact on the Indian Water Crisis 

Rising temperatures have intensified the frequency of floods and droughts, while declining groundwater levels and quality, coupled with urbanization and encroachment, have further degraded water bodies. According to the Central Water Commission, India’s per capita water availability, currently around 1,400 cubic meters, is projected to drop to approximately 1,200 cubic meters by 2050. Compounding the issue, the summer monsoon which is responsible for nearly 80% of annual rainfall has shown a steady decline in mean rainfall, with erratic patterns exacerbating floods, droughts, and water scarcity.

 In response to these challenges, the National Perspective Plan (NPP) for inter-basin water transfer was formed. The plan detailed 16 links under the peninsular rivers component and 14 links under the Himalayan component. These projects aim to transport 174 billion cubic meters of water annually through an extensive network of 15,000 km of canals and 3,000 reservoirs. Proponents claim the plan could expand irrigated areas by 30 million hectares, generate 34,000 MW of hydropower, create employment, control salinity, and reduce pollution, among other benefits. 

According to the Jal Shakti Ministry, the  Ken-Betwa River Linking Project is expected to provide annual irrigation to 10.62 lakh hectares (8.11 lakh ha in MP and 2.51 lakh ha in UP) of land, supply drinking water to about 62 lakh people, and generate 103 MW of hydropower and 27 MW of solar power.  It is the first project under the National Perspective Plan for the interlinking of rivers, which was prepared in 1980. However, several studies question the merit of these claims. Researchers suggest that the river-linking projects significantly alter the local monsoon patterns and qualities of the local ecosystem, exposing the region to the risk of cascading environmental failures. 

 A new study published in Nature Communications further provides examples of how hydro-linking projects in India and globally are altering monsoon cycles, disturbing complex hydro-meteorological systems, which in turn “may worsen the water stress across the country, making the interlinking projects ineffective or possibly even counterproductive.” The researchers found that surplus irrigation due to interlinking basins had altered spatial patterns of summer monsoons, and was responsible for a 12% decrease in mean rainfall in September across dry arid regions that were already experiencing water stress. Furthermore, the study elucidated upon global examples of river channelisation that have also proved to be major disasters For instance, the channelization of Florida’s Kissimmee River, approved by the U.S. Congress in 1954 to control flooding, turned into an environmental catastrophe, causing significant wetland loss. Extensive efforts and resources are now being allocated to restore its original state. Another example is the Aral Sea, once one of the world’s largest lakes, which has been reduced to a barren desert due to the diversion of its feeder rivers for irrigation projects during the Soviet era. These cases underscore how large-scale geoengineering initiatives can devastate natural ecosystems.

 The team, behind the study which included researchers from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay and the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, analysed major river basins— namely Ganga, Godavari, Mahanadi, Krishna, Cauvery and Narmada-Tapi— between 1991 and 2012. They used climate regional models to see how inter-basin water transfers impact the water cycle and different atmospheric variables, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which controls soil moisture across basins. The study further states that the government’s approach towards the projects underscores their undermining of the eco-services provided by free-flowing rivers. The eco-services of the free-flowing rivers include the flushing of silt from riverbeds to the coastal waters to form deltas. Flood water is not to be rationalised as ‘surplus’. It needs to be seen as the carrier of minerals for land fertility, groundwater recharge and sustenance of biodiversity, which finally helps the livelihood of millions of marginalised people.

Researchers further speculate that uncontrolled human-induced disequilibrium in natural hydrographic systems can potentially destroy associated ecological niches, with incalculable repercussions for society’s long-term well-being. We also have to factor in the consequences of climate change affecting rainfall and river flow, which will aggravate the situation. It is unclear how the nation’s declared commitment to mitigating human-induced climate change and river manipulation go hand in hand.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, while inter-basin water transfers are often promoted as resilient solutions to water scarcity, they inherently involve a tension between meeting water demands and ensuring ecological sustainability. Expert bodies such as the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), along with environmental activists and researchers across the nation, have echoed the concerns raised by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL). They emphasize the critical need to thoroughly understand complex hydro-meteorological systems when planning and executing infrastructure projects. Furthermore, it is essential to carefully evaluate the potential impacts of river interlinking on the nation’s water security and climate resilience to avoid unintended consequences. This balanced approach is vital for safeguarding both human and ecological well-being.

Author’s Bio 

Shaurya Agarwal is currently in the final year of his liberal arts program at the Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities. His research interest lies in the areas of environmental economics and public policy. 

Image Source : ANI