Talk:Indian rivers interlinking project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Aquatic Life

Has any study done on the impact of the proposed inter-link on the aquatic life in the rivers ? For that matter, are any studies done prior to building big dams is India ?Jonathansammy (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic, original research / personal opinion of an IP user at 49.207.241.167

Innovative solutions

Nearly 200

Western ghats located in Maharashtra, Karnataka & Kerala. "Spatial variation in water supply and demand across river basins of India" With 500 meters water lifting (maximum), 95% of this water can be pumped and used in all the water deficit rivers of Karnataka, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and western Rajasthan (up to Sikar
). Compared to bringing water from Ganga river located thousands of kilo meters away, this option is many times economical as it would supply water to all high lands and low lands of these states fully for three crops in a year.

locks for using the lagoon area for shipping, ship breaking, ship building, etc. purposes. The evaporation and seepage water losses from this man made lagoon would be less than the rainfall on the lagoon area. Maharashtra is contemplating to store fresh water in Mahim Bay for Mumbai city water supply."State revives reclamation plan along Mumbai coast"

There is no need of transferring Ganga river water to

Peninsular India if the water resources available in these states are put to full use with the cooperation of all the states."India’s River-Linking Scheme: A case of troubled waters"

Godavari river after sparing adequate environmental and salt export flows to the sea by transferring to its water deficit river basins by moderate lifts (less than 200 meters).Blue Print for Godavari River Water Utilization in Andhra Pradesh
As such there is no surplus water available to supply outside the basin states from the east flowing peninsular rivers.

Water can also be exported to

Persian gulf. The water available in the Arabian sea coast of India is the nearest Fresh water surplus region to the middle east countries. Cubic meter of Fresh water can be supplied at approximate price of 0.5 US$ which is less than the price of producing sweet water from sea water by energy/electricity intensive desalination process. 200 cubic meters of water can be exchanged for one barrel of crude oil. Nearly 40 bcm surplus waters of Sri Lanka can also be utilised by constructing similar man made lagoon around the coast line of Sri Lanka and interconnecting it with Indian system. Pakistan can also benefit by using some of the available Fresh water in return for allowing the lagoon extension up to strait of Hormuz 49.207.241.167 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Surplus Ganga river water transfer to peninsular rivers via Bay of Bengal sea

The better feasible way of transferring surplus water of Ganga river /

Chattisgarh and West Bengal states. Further, water can be pumped in to the Bagh reservoir (near 21°03′47″N 80°28′13″E / 21.06306°N 80.47028°E / 21.06306; 80.47028) and Upper Indravati reservoirs (near 19°20′29″N 82°51′59″E / 19.34139°N 82.86639°E / 19.34139; 82.86639) to transfer Ganga water in to Godavari River basin and further to southern river basins. The Hasdeo Bango reservoir (near 22°36′47″N 82°37′27″E / 22.61306°N 82.62417°E / 22.61306; 82.62417) would receive the Ganga water and further pumped in to the Narmada River basin for using in Madhya Pradesh high lands. See Google earth maps for more geographical information. The advantage of this scheme is that Ganga river water can be stored on Bay of Bengal sea area and more than 50 bcm water transferred throughout the year to other river basins at optimum pumping head. "The Encroaching Ganga and Social Conflicts: The Case of West Bengal, India"

creek of Hoogly river is connected to the fresh water reservoir and the left creek is open to the sea via locks for ships movement. The barrages across the creeks would reduce the transport of sediment in to the creeks / Hoogly river from the open turbid sea due to wave and tidal activity. 49.207.241.167 (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Bangladesh to benefit immensely by its river water transfer to peninsular rivers of India

The better feasible way of transferring surplus waters of Ganga and

Panama canal) would be provided for the movement of ships from the open sea to harbours located in Bangladesh and West Bengal in India. See also "Bangladesh, a physically growing country"

The sea dike extending 8 m above the mean sea level and 50 m wide at the top surface, would be nearly 520 km connecting Indian mainland to South east of Bangladesh forming transnational high way and rail route from the Indian subcontinent to East Asia up to Singapore and China. This off shore dike would protect the Bangladesh from the wave and tidal activity during the frequent cyclones /floods preventing human & property losses drastically.

Nearly 1000 million tons of sediment from Ganga and Brahmaputra rivers is settling in the sea coast of Bangladesh and the sea area is shallow (up to 12 m ) for at least 50 km wide. Bangladesh plagued with high population density, can reclaim nearly 6,000 sq. km (4% of its total land) area of sea by excavating/dredging sediment from the fresh water reservoir bed without effecting the water storage of the off-shore fresh water reservoir. Presence of the protective sea dike, makes sub sea soil dredging more easier and economical by warding from rough sea waves. This reclaimed area from the sea, can be advantageously utilised for locating a megacity with international standards to cater to the modern needs of Bangladesh.

As explained another 200 bcm water (in addition to 50 bcm via Hoogly river in India) of entire Ganga and Brahmaputra rivers can be diverted to the peninsular rivers of India with the consent of Bangladesh. 49.207.241.167 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off shore fresh water reservoir to store Krishna river water for irrigation, etc requirements.

Presently, the rain water in the catchment area below the

msl high, would also drastically reduce the cyclone damages and reduce drastically flooding in Chirala, Bapatla and Nizampatnam coastal areas. It would also greatly improve the irrigated coastal lands drainage in Guntur and Prakasam
districts. The sea dike can also serve as an access way to a major deep sea port which can be located on the deep sea side of the 70 km long dike.

Vast lands in coastal districts of

Pulicat lake can be brought under irrigation by gravity canals. The total cost would be less than Rs 200 billions which is nearly Rs 1,00,000 per acre of irrigated land. 49.207.244.249 (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Gigantic multinational water export projects

If we include surplus waters of Ganga and Bramhaputra rivers after meeting total needs of entire India, nearly 700 billion cubic meters water can be exported to Middle East countries.

There are vast deserts in all continents (western part of South America, Northern and south western Africa, Middle East in Asia, South eastern part of USA, Australia, etc.) and also water surplus regions nearer to these deserts. It is technically and economically feasible to construct man made fresh water reservoirs / lagoons on the continental shelf of the sea up to 12 meters depth from the coast line to supply fresh water to desert areas from nearby water surplus/high rainfall areas. Excess water from the high rainfall regions will be collected in the man made lagoons at sea level and this fresh water is pumped to irrigate desert lands from the other end of the lengthy man made lagoons. In other words, the proposal is interconnecting rivers with a sea level / sub sea level contour canal (at least five km wide) to facilitate water transfer.

It is estimated that the construction cost of sea dikes would be of the order of 10 million US$ per kilometre length. The benefits in terms of agriculture production, shipping, road transport, rail transport, etc are enormous and the entire cost would be paid back within a decade. These massive multinational projects would galvanize the stagnating world economy and also create long lasting productive infrastructure. However the negative aspects of these man made lagoons are to be evaluated in detail and proper remedial steps shall be incorporated to minimize the damage to coastal ecosystem by the presence of fresh water lagoon as barrier to the sea.

The following are the possible projects in each continent:

The above gigantic projects would cover most of the desert areas of the world except the high lands of central Asian deserts. Thus most of the lands which are not available for cultivation and forestry can be turned in to habitat to copious greenery which would help to mitigate the global warming process. 49.207.200.133 (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Power consumption for lifting water

Hi, AmyNorth , It is a simple energy required calculation to lift 100 bcm water by 500 meters at 85% pumping efficiency. Regards. 49.207.198.0 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that original research? Please see
WP:OR. AmyNorth (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

NWDA document sourced content

@49.207.241.167 - your contributions are welcome.

  1. Please avoid phrases such as "our country". Wikipedia has an international audience, and the article must be written for a reader in or out of a country.
  2. I haven't checked for copyright violation. Please do check that there is no accidental cut and paste in the text.
  3. I trimmed the article to avoid repetition of the same point. The article should be neutral, not pro- or anti- project. I also fixed some format errors.

AmyNorth (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmyNorth Reply to your observations
1)Rewording the content to deviate from the sourced document is no problem. The document is from NWDA web site and available for public access. The content is copied close to its original wording wontedly because some editors question every sentence branding the content as 'ones own research'
2)On the pretext of not meeting neutrality large chunk of content as given below is deleted. Please explain in what way it is biased or not present in the reference document or how the fact becomes anti / pro project.
"It has been assessed that at the most the plans evolved by State Governments can utilize not more than 540 MAF / 713 BCM. This includes the use from a large number of interstate schemes benefiting more than one State on which understanding would have to be reached on planning and implementation. However, if we take a national view and harness major inter-State and international rivers in the largest interest of the country as well as neighbouring countries, the benefit would increase considerably. At least 180 MAF / 236 BCM more could be utilized in our country, 40, 000 MW capacity power can be generated and perennial inland navigation could be provided. Also very large benefits of flood control would be achieved. This is feasible by providing storages at appropriate locations and inter-linking of the various river systems. If we look beyond the boundaries of the States and even beyond the boundaries of the national frontiers and conceive of the optimum development of the rivers of the sub-continent, each state in our country and each country in the sub-continent stands to gain by way of additional irrigation, hydro power generation, navigation and flood control. National perspective of water resources development therefore envisage optimum development of the major river systems of the sub-continent including inter-State and international rivers by exploring innovative solutions and state of art technology available to optimize the use of river water for achieving full food security to the peak population of India."
Please also reply some of my comments:
1)Whether the Section 'International comparisons' is relevant to this article. It is stated that "The Indian Rivers Inter-link project is similar in scope and technical challenges as other major global water way projects"
Indian rivers are multi purpose schemes for irrigation, flood control, power generation, etc. whereas the international comparisons included by you are purely navigational projects which are small navigational schemes compared to present day practices. That is the reason why the 'Ram sethu' navigation channel works are not taken off till now. I would advise to delete the section if the sole purpose of the unreasonable & unilateral edits is to trim the content / bytes. Otherwise, it may be clear cut lack of understanding on the subject.
2) The content under section '21st century' says
"In October 2002, in response to a Public Interest Litigation and widespread news coverage about floods, drought and farmers suicide from lack of water, the Supreme Court of India mandated that the Central Government begin work on a project to link all the major Indian rivers to provide water to the drought stricken southern states for irrigation and municipal use. This judicial intervention ordered the interlinking of 14 Himalayan and 16 Peninsular links."
To your information, after reading the SC verdict available as reference, it has not mandated the implementation of river linking schemes but said it has no powers to give writ of mandamus to legislative body (Central/ state Govts) as deciding about the implementation of the Schemes is in their domain. However, it formed a high powered committee to address the issue since no party has pleaded in the case against the implementation of the schemes.
The SC verdict is given in the year 20012 and not in 2002 after 10 years of lodging the the PIL.
You are of strong misconceived opinion that some 1100 BCM is the ultimate water requirement. These figures are stated by the experts at some point of time based on the technical and economic feasibility at that instant. Technology keep on improving reducing the cost. 140 million hectares is not fixed figure it can increase based on favourable demand for crops or if three crops are grown annually, then water needs per hectare enhances drastically. Ultimately projects would come on need based at appropriate time irrespective of what we visualise and quantify.
As a curious reader, I do not indulge at pointing others expressions / content which are incorrect to some extent or deviating from my views. It is always possible in this 'search engine' era to find a 'reference document' suiting favouring / not favouring a statement. An important article in Wikipedia would be read by thousands of people every year. When any objectionable statement is present, many readers will complain in the talk page for correction. You need not waste your time correcting others valid content based on your misunderstanding or bias. When you are taking instant liberty to edit other's content without prior discussion, will you state your relevant qualification / credentials on water resources subject. I would appreciate.
The way you are editing on silly context is not the conduct of matured editor. More over, I repeatedly find an editor saying "ones own research". If 1+1=2 is termed 'OWR' when reference is not made available, I would say that using 'OWR' is ones own research by commenter.
As a general contributor, I am not gaining any thing (unlike you) other than spreading an information/idea/thought for which there are many media in this internet era. Please express your self.

49.207.241.167 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read
WP:OR
.
The following assumptions and calculation are original research - computing a simple energy required calculation to lift 100 bcm water by 500 meters at 85% pumping efficiency. This is more than simple math, you need a source for this. Wiki is not the place to publish opinions, engineering calculations and private innovations, see
WP:NOT
.
The projects identified in international comparisons involve irrigation components. For example, the All-American Canal in irrigation is discussed here. Similarly, see this for irrigation and Illinois Waterway. Etc.
On the rest of your questions, they are answered by
WP:COMPREHENSIVE. AmyNorth (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Insertion of this talk page as reference

User at 49.207.210.165 and 49.207.253.23 - Please do not remove sourced content, and cite wikipedia talk page as source/reference in the article.

Read and respect wikipedia

WP:NOR guidelines. Wikipedia talk page is not acceptable, reliable source for any content, nor is any wikipedia page. AmyNorth (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

On your concern about irrigation from rivers inter-link projects elsewhere, please read the cited references. For example, read page 11 of this reference:
Water Budget of Tombigbee River – Tenn-Tom Waterway from Headwaters to Junction with Black Warrior River
It clearly mentions irrigation in the 2nd paragraph. Check other cites, similarly. Please check the sources before you allege something that is not true, and do not be disruptive by removing sourced content from this article. AmyNorth (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete the content without prior discussion. The only one cited above ref. says nearly (summed up) 0.2 billion cubic meters (bcm) of water is used for various needs including irrigation. This quantity of water use is peanut compared to Indian rivers inter link projects of the order 10 bcm average. My earlier edit did not delete the entire section and it toned down the importance given by you by keeping the project listing with wiki cross links. The wiki pages are not highlighting about their irrigation water use but you are terming them as major irrigation projects. Why did you give so many other non connected ext. references? (to fool others). If I am wrong, please give the page numbers of your ext. refs for my notice.
You have reinserted the map showing flood effected states in the year 2007. The ext. ref "State wise flood damage statistics in India" says Andhra Pradesh is the biggest sufferer of flood damage but it is not coloured so in the map. Why are you particular in inserting that map which is misleading?
The cost estimates of projects are in the year 2003 or before. what is the reason of deleting earlier note and inserting new pop up note. The US$ cost data gives an idea that project costs are nearly 6 to 10 times cheaper on latest costs. Are you fancy of correcting others contributions which are reasonably OK.
I have seen in many Wiki articles where a Wiki article is given as external ref. for the readers who want to know in depth information. It is not at all big deviation.
In your User:AmyNorth page, you are introducing yourself as a cancer patient with another 3 to 5 months life. Are you fooling the readers? If so really, you would not have been so rigid without concern for others views by committing unilateral edits, deleting relevant references, etc. The content in this talk page is evidence for your rigid behaviour. i do not think you are are knowing about water resources bur feigning to earn some income 49.207.210.165 (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read
WP:TALKNO
. No personal attacks, else you may get blocked.
Read
WP:RS
. If some people vandalize wiki articles or incorrectly cite other wikipedia articles as source, it does not mean that is right or wikipedia policy.
For irrigation application of other rivers inter-link projects, see this, page 783 of this, Chapter 1 and 2 of
ISBN 978-0520260108
(it is one of the world's largest irrigation interlink in use), etc.
I have no issues with cost pop-up or footnote. Either is okay with
WP:MOS
and me.
On rest, understand that this talk page is not a forum. Please identify reliable published sources for your assumptions such as "Indian Rivers Inter-link project is entirely an irrigation project", etc.; Blogs, wiki articles, your original research on this talk page, etc are not acceptable as source.
AmyNorth (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_rivers_interlinking_project&oldid=1207710782"