.png){kind=small}
The idea of “surplus water” in a river system has always puzzled me. From years of on-the-ground work across rivers such as the Cauvery, Kali, Netravathi, Sharavathi, Malaprabha, and others, one thing has become clear: every drop of water in a river already has a user. This blog entry examines why the notion of surplus water is misleading.
What is Surplus Water? (In the Context of Massive River Linking and Diversion Projects)
The idea of “surplus water” in a river system has always puzzled me. From my on-the-ground research and experience with various rivers—Cauvery, Kali, Netravathi, Sharavathi, Malaprabha, and others—I’ve realized that every drop of water in a river already has a user, whether it’s humans, wildlife, or ecosystems. Even in the case of the grossly polluted black waters of Vrishabhavathi and Arkavathi rivers, every drop has a user.
The users could be fishermen, industries, religious institutions, commercial establishments, farmers, plantation owners, estuary or delta communities, and the general population relying on it for drinking. Not to mention, wildlife and ecological users who depend on the river’s flow to survive.
These existing users (both human and wildlife) and the quantum of water they depend on are neither accounted for nor acknowledged by the government. Logically speaking, only what remains after this proper accounting could be considered surplus. However, no such system exists to account and acknowledge existing users and safeguard their rights. The absence of such a system lends undue legitimacy to the concept of “surplus,” which then becomes the foundation for justifying extremely costly and ecologically damaging river linking and diversion projects
Even in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), existing users are weakly and insignificantly acknowledged, posing a serious threat to their water security.
While we continue to execute projects aimed at ensuring water security for those without water—or, in some cases, for cities like Bengaluru, where water is grossly misused—we must ask: what happens to the water security of the people from whom we are diverting this water?
It seems to me that interlinking projects always end up robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then Paul, this new user, starts to believe that he has a rightful claim to the water—water that doesn’t actually exist. so, these projects are, in fact, creating water scarcity instead of alleviating it.
With their high financial costs, these projects are laying the groundwork for future water conflicts. We will not only be fighting with neighboring states but also with neighboring districts, taluks, and even our own neighbors.
It’s time for us to make do with what we have. We need to extract more value from each drop and become more efficient users of water. This approach builds resilience, not reliance.