Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]Code Contextif (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 10674, 'title' => 'Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Many states had opposed river linking</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Down to Earth, 21 October, 2011, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/supreme-court-questions-viability-river-linking-project', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 10785, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 10674, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'metaKeywords' => 'Environment', 'metaDesc' => ' Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden...', 'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 10674, 'title' => 'Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Many states had opposed river linking</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Down to Earth, 21 October, 2011, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/supreme-court-questions-viability-river-linking-project', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 10785, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 10674 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty' $metaKeywords = 'Environment' $metaDesc = ' Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden...' $disp = '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. “My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts—cost and land acquisition,” said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that “inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.”</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. “We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,” says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. “Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,” says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan’s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. “The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,” says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $maxBufferLength = (int) 8192 $file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php' $line = (int) 853 $message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]Code Context$response->getStatusCode(),
($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')
));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 10674, 'title' => 'Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Many states had opposed river linking</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Down to Earth, 21 October, 2011, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/supreme-court-questions-viability-river-linking-project', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 10785, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 10674, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'metaKeywords' => 'Environment', 'metaDesc' => ' Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden...', 'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 10674, 'title' => 'Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Many states had opposed river linking</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Down to Earth, 21 October, 2011, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/supreme-court-questions-viability-river-linking-project', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 10785, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 10674 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty' $metaKeywords = 'Environment' $metaDesc = ' Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden...' $disp = '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. “My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts—cost and land acquisition,” said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that “inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.”</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. “We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,” says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. “Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,” says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan’s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. “The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,” says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $reasonPhrase = 'OK'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]Code Context$value
), $first);
$first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6801e05aacd66-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 10674, 'title' => 'Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Many states had opposed river linking</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Down to Earth, 21 October, 2011, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/supreme-court-questions-viability-river-linking-project', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 10785, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 10674, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'metaKeywords' => 'Environment', 'metaDesc' => ' Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden...', 'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 10674, 'title' => 'Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo; </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Many states had opposed river linking</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Down to Earth, 21 October, 2011, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/supreme-court-questions-viability-river-linking-project', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 10785, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 10674 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty' $metaKeywords = 'Environment' $metaDesc = ' Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden...' $disp = '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with &nbsp;Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. &ldquo;My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts&mdash;cost and land acquisition,&rdquo; said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that &ldquo;inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages &nbsp; and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. &ldquo;We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,&rdquo; says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. &ldquo;Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,&rdquo; says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan&rsquo;s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. &ldquo;The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,&rdquo; says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. &nbsp;While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. “My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts—cost and land acquisition,” said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that “inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.”</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. “We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,” says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. “Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,” says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan’s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. “The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,” says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $cookies = [] $values = [ (int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8' ] $name = 'Content-Type' $first = true $value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 10674, 'title' => 'Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. “My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts—cost and land acquisition,” said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that “inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.” </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. “We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,” says an official. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. “Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,” says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Many states had opposed river linking</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan’s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. “The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,” says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Down to Earth, 21 October, 2011, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/supreme-court-questions-viability-river-linking-project', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 10785, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 10674, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'metaKeywords' => 'Environment', 'metaDesc' => ' Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden...', 'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. “My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts—cost and land acquisition,” said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that “inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.”</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. “We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,” says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. “Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,” says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan’s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. “The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,” says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 10674, 'title' => 'Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. “My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts—cost and land acquisition,” said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that “inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.” </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. “We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,” says an official. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. “Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,” says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <em>Many states had opposed river linking</em> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan’s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. “The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,” says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. </div> <div style="text-align: justify"> <br /> </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'Down to Earth, 21 October, 2011, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/supreme-court-questions-viability-river-linking-project', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'supreme-court-questions-viability-of-river-linking-project-by-anupam-chakravartty-10785', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 10785, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 10674 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty' $metaKeywords = 'Environment' $metaDesc = ' Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden...' $disp = '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. “My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts—cost and land acquisition,” said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that “inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.”</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Feasibility report ready for 20 projects</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. “We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,” says an official.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. “Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,” says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Many states had opposed river linking</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan’s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. “The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,” says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
![]() |
Supreme Court questions viability of river linking project by Anupam Chakravartty |
Directs Centre to submit detailed report on project cost and land acquisition The ambitious river linking project, connecting rivers of peninsular India with Himalayan rivers through canals, has hit a roadblock after the Supreme Court's observation that the project would burden the Union government because of escalating costs. While environmentalists and activists have welcomed the order seeking detailed report on the project's cost, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has commenced work on two of 30 project components, which propose linking two or three rivers each. On October 17, a bench comprising chief justice of India, S H Kapadia, K S Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar reportedly said the project cost, initially estimated at Rs 500,000 crore, must have increased since land acquisition expenses had increased considerably. “My concern is what will be the financial burden. It is a huge project and land acquisition has acquired a different connotation now. So, we want to know the financial viability of the project on both counts—cost and land acquisition,” said Kapadia, while directing amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to submit a detailed report on the project cost by January. The bench further stated that “inflation is very high and economic growth is slow. We will not force any additional financial burden on the government.” Feasibility report ready for 20 projects NWDA, which is one of the implementing agencies for the ambitious project, says that the feasibility reports have already been prepared for 20 of the 30 proposed linkages. Meanwhile, work has started on the Ken-Betwa river linkages and the Par-Tapi-Narmada linkage. Senior officials refused to comment on the Supreme Court order, saying they are yet to receive a copy of the order. NWDA officials, however, add that when the Ministry of Water Resources filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2002, saying a task force was looking into the feasibility of the project, costs were not revised. “We do not think the project cost is now too much; we are now calculating the land acquisition and other costs for this projects,” says an official. Activists and environmentalists, however, say that the Supreme Court should have questioned the cost when the affidavit was filed. “Without considering the social and environmental impacts of this project, estimating the financial viability is impossible,” says environmentalist Shripad Dharmadhikary, director of Madhya Pradesh non-profit working on water rights, Manthan. A lot of land would have been required for this project, which would have displaced a lot many people. The social and environmental impact assessments (SIAs and EIAs) for existing projects have been shoddy as demonstrated in the Ken-Betwa linkage, he says. What's more, the concept of surplus water in some rivers as opposed to others is yet to be understood by the project proponents, and dividing this project into smaller components is not helping much because impact would be cumulative says Dharmadhikary. He adds the real solution for the problems which these projects purport to solve are micro-hydel projects, better watershed management projects, rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. Many states had opposed river linking Bihar non-profit Barh Mukti Abhiyan’s convenor, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, questions the Supreme Court monitoring the project, saying it lacks expertise and understanding of the project. “The original river-linking plan was drawn by British engineer, Arthur Cotton. In the early 20th century, Cotton wanted to connect all the rivers through canal linkages so that navigation for the ruling British officials becomes easy,” says Mishra. The plan did not aim at boosting agricultural growth. While promises made by former Bihar Cheif Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda in the 1960s that floods in Bihar would be controlled in seven years were never kept, this project was again proposed in the 1970s, he adds. Initially, it was the Supreme Court of India which entertained the affidavit by the Ministry of Water Resources. These projects were never open for a debate, while there were several contradictions in the statements of the members of the task force and the impacts that this project could have. Even if this project is allowed, it would lead to inter-state disputes as many states had opposed it, says Mishra. The project also found its place in the election manifesto of former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government during in 1997-1998. Vajpayee set up a task force, headed by former Shiv Sena member of Parliament, Suresh Prabhu, following drought-like conditions in the country between 2000 and 2002. On September 30, 2002, following a speech by the former president of India, A P J Abdul Kalam, the Supreme Court took up the project for monitoring. In its report, the task force had concluded that the linking of the rivers in the country would raise the irrigation potential to 160 million hectares for all types of crops by 2050, compared with a maximum of about 140 million hectares that could be generated through conventional sources of irrigation. |