Research Reports

IWMI’s mission is to improve water and land resources management for food,
livelihoods and nature. In serving this mission, IWMI concentrates on the integration
of policies, technologies and management systems to achieve workable solutions
to real problems—practical, relevant results in the field of irrigation and water and
land resources.
The publications in this series cover a wide range of subjects—from computer
modeling to experience with water user associations—and vary in content from
directly applicable research to more basic studies, on which applied work ultimately
depends. Some research reports are narrowly focused, analytical and detailed
empirical studies; others are wide-ranging and synthetic overviews of generic
problems.
Although most of the reports are published by IWMI staff and their collaborators,
we welcome contributions from others. Each report is reviewed internally by IWMI’s
own staff and Fellows, and by external reviewers. The reports are published and
distributed both in hard copy and electronically (www.iwmi.org) and where possible
all data and analyses will be available as separate downloadable files. Reports may
be copied freely and cited with due acknowledgment.
Research Report 120

Hydrological and Environmental Issues of

Interbasin Water Transfers in India: A Case
of the Krishna River Basin

Vladimir Smakhtin, Nilantha Gamage and Luna Bharati

International Water Management Institute

P O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka
i
 IWMI receives its principal funding from 58 governments, private foundations, and
international and regional organizations known as the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Support is also given by the Governments of Ghana,
Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

The authors: Vladimir Smakhtin is a Principal Scientist in Hydrology and Water Resources;
Nilantha Gamage is a Research Officer in Remote Sensing and GIS; and Luna Bharati is
a Researcher in Hydrology and Water Resoureces, all at the International Water
Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Acknowledgements: The study forms part of the research project on the assessment of
the National River Linking Project. The project is funded by the CGIAR Challenge Program
on Water and Food. Some of the figures for this report were produced by S. Gunasinghe
and M. Anputhas (both of IWMI-Colombo). Continuing data acquisition efforts by A. Gaur
and K. Anand (both of IWMI-India) are gratefully acknowledged. The authors are grateful to
Hugh Turral (IWMI-Colombo) and to Tom McMahon (University of Melbourne, Australia) for
constructive comments on this report.

Smakhtin, V.; Gamage, M. S. D. N.; Bharati, L. 2007. Hydrological and environmental

issues of interbasin water transfers in India: A case of the Krishna River Basin. Colombo,
Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 35p (IWMI Research Report 120)

/ water transfer / river basins / case studies / water resources development / reservoirs /
dams / India /

ISSN 1026-0862
ISBN 978-92-9090-682-7

Copyright © 2007, by IWMI. All rights reserved.

Cover photograph: The collage on the front cover of this report was created by Mr. Sumith
Fernando, Layout and Graphics Specialist, IWMI, using two original photographs. The
photograph on the left shows the left bank main canal of the Nagarjunar Sagar Project on
the Krishna River in Andhra Pradesh State of India (photo credit: Mr. Jean-Philippe Venot,
IWMI, Hyderabad, India). The photograph on the right shows the Tungabhadra Reservoir
on the Krishna River in Karnataka State of India (photo credit: Mr. Daan van Rooijen, IWMI,
Ghana)

Please send inquiries and comments to: [email protected]

Contents

Summary V

Introduction 1

Water Transfers in and out of the Krishna River Basin: A Review 3

How Much Water Is Actually Available for Transfers? 9

Environmental Impacts of Reservoir Construction on the

Godavari and Krishna Deltas 18

Conclusions 26

References 29

iii

iii
iv
Summary

This report examines aspects of hydrological and based on the maximum projections for future
environmental feasibility of interbasin water transfers irrigation adopted by each state which falls within
in India and forms part of the larger research project each river basin. This boosts irrigation requirements
which deals with multiple aspects of the National and serves as the driver for future water resources
River Linking Project. The study uses the water development. It is emphasized that environmental
transfer links in and out of the Krishna River Basin water demand needs to be calculated (using the
as examples. It reviews the hydrological and desktop technique developed earlier) and explicitly
environmental sections of existing national feasibility included at the planning stage—similar to the
reports, analyzes the methodology used for the demands of other sectors. This “contingency”
assessment of surface water availability for each demand would reserve some water for environmental
transfer and illustrates the potential environmental use in the future, while more detailed national
impacts of the transfers in the deltas of the Godavari approaches for environmental flow assessment are
and Krishna rivers. It is shown that the planning being developed. Environmental impacts of reduced
process, as presented, has not considered the water and sediment inflows to the Godavari and
variability of flow within a year, which is high in Krishna deltas are examined in the context of the
monsoon-driven Indian rivers. As a result, much most downstream link from the Godavari (Polavaram)
more water may be perceived to be originally to the Krishna (Vijayawada). It is shown that the
available at a site of transfer. The use of alternative Krishna Delta has retreated noticeably during the
techniques, such as a low-flow spell analysis and a last 25 years. Environmental flows need to be
storage-yield analysis, to reevaluate the availability of provided to at least delay this “shrinkage” which
the surface water at proposed transfer sites is threatens agricultural production and mangrove
advocated. It is shown that water transfer planning is ecosystems.

v
vi
Hydrological and Environmental Issues of Interbasin
Water Transfers in India:
A Case of the Krishna River Basin
Vladimir Smakhtin, Nilantha Gamage and Luna Bharati

Introduction

The National River Linking Project (NRLP) was justified if it satisfies the following broadly defined
proposed as the solution to water-related problems in criteria (Interbasin Water Transfer 1999):
India. It envisages transferring water of the Ganga,
1. The area of delivery must face a substantial
Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers through the Mahanadi
deficit in meeting present or projected future
and Godavari river basins, all normally referred to as
water demands after considering alternative
“water surplus” basins, to the “water-deficient” basins
water supply sources and all reasonable
in the south and west (e.g., http://www.riverlinks.nic.in/
measures for reducing water demand.
). The NRLP is a contentious issue in Indian society
and the media and amongst academics. Many 2. The future development of the area of origin
scholars argue that the needs assessment of NRLP must not be substantially constrained by water
is inadequate. Others are of the view that the scarcity; however, consideration to transfer that
assessment of water surplus/deficits in Indian river constrains future development of an area of
basins, conducted as part of the NRLP proposal, has origin may be appropriate if the area of delivery
ignored environmental issues. Yet, others think that compensates the area of origin for productivity
definitions of surplus and deficient basins need to be losses.
made more explicit and that alternative water 3. A comprehensive environmental impact
management options, those that are less costly, assessment must indicate a reasonable
easier to implement and more environmentally degree of certainty that it will not substantially
acceptable, have not been considered. degrade environmental quality within the area
Extensive work has been done in India on of origin or area of delivery; however, transfer
various aspects of water transfers related to the may be justified where compensation to offset
NRLP. However, the project as a whole has not environmental injury is provided.
reached implementation which, to a certain
4. A comprehensive assessment of sociocultural
degree, mirrors the fate of some other large-scale
impacts must indicate a reasonable degree of
water transfer projects in the world. At the same
certainty that it will not cause substantial
time, some individual NRLP links are about to be
sociocultural disruption in the area of origin or
constructed. Perhaps, one of the major reasons for
area of water delivery; however, transfer may be
the slow development of the project is the lack of
justified where compensation to offset potential
clarity and transparency in technical design,
sociocultural losses is provided.
justification of transfers and decision making on the
one hand, and the enormity of both the challenge 5. The net benefits from transfer must be shared
and the scale of the transfer on the other. In an equitably between the donor area and the
ideal world, any water transfer project may be receiving area.

1
 The International Water Management Institute is this report briefly describes the proposed links in
conducting a research project, which aims to and out of the Krishna River from/to adjacent river
highlight, discuss and – where possible – resolve basins (Figure 1). Krishna is a major river basin,
1
some of the controversial issues pertaining to the spanning three states in peninsular India. This is
NRLP thus stimulating the debate on India’s water followed by the discussion, using some links as
future. This report is one of the multiple outputs of examples, on how water transfer planning may be
this research project. The primary focus of the report affected by the resolution of the hydrological data.
concerns the hydrological feasibility and The report further focuses on the environmental
environmental impacts of NRLP, which are reflected aspects of one of these links: Godavari (Polavaram)-
by criteria 1, 2 and 3 above. It is not the objective Krishna (Vijayawada); Figure 2. This link is the most
of the report to analyze all NRLP links from all downstream one in the Godavari-Krishna system
possible angles of technical and environmental and one which is currently being constructed. A
feasibility. The authors rather aim to a) identify and companion report by Bharati et al. (n.d.) discusses
examine those technical and environmental aspects the multiple aspects of water management of the
which may have been underappreciated in previous Polavaram- Vijayawada link and examines the
discussions on NRLP and need to receive further impacts of water management options and
attention, and b) illustrate their importance on one scenarios using an Integrated Water Resources
or several (but very few) links. More specifically, first Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) model.

Polavaram
2
Vijayawada
3

FIGURE 1. A schematic map of India, showing the boundaries of the major River Basins/drainage regions of the country.
1, 2 and 3 are Godavari, Krishna and Pennar Basins, respectively.

1
The Krishna River Basin is one of five “benchmark basins” in which IWMI conducts research, where the intention is to integrate
various strands of biophysical, socioeconomic and institutional research around the world.

2
FIGURE 2. A schematic diagram of the Krishna River Basin, showing all proposed interbasin water transfers in and out of the
basin (black lines with numbers) together with flow measuring points (stations) for which some observed flow data were
available for the study. Link numbers are circled and correspond to the overall NRLP numbering system. Station numbering
is for identification purposes only. Due to the low quality, short records or inappropriate locations relative to the link points,
only a few of the shown stations are usable. These include records at station 3 (Krishna at Agraharam) and part of the
record at station 1 (Krishna at Vijayawada).

Water Transfers in and out of the Krishna River Basin: A Review

In order to assess the degree to which criteria 1, Bedti-Varada Link (Link 14)
2 and 3 above are satisfied in planning of individual
links in and out of the Krishna, the relevant This is the only incoming link in the upstream part
chapters of the technical feasibility reports of the Krishna Basin for which no feasibility report
(Hydrology, Environment) produced by the is available at present. Salient features are listed
National Water Development Authority (NWDA) of on the NWDA web site, and some very limited
India have been reviewed. Most of the reports are anecdotal information is available (Dams, Rivers
available on the NWDA site in HTML format and People 2004). This proposal envisages the
(http://nwda.gov.in/indexab.asp?langid=1). A brief diversion of 242 million cubic meters (MCM)
summary of each link with the authors’ comments of “surplus” water of the Bedti Basin (in Western
is given below, starting from the most “upstream” Ghats–flowing west into the Arabian Sea;
link on Figure 2. not shown in Figure 2) to the water-“deficient”

3
Tungabhadra subbasin in Krishna (Figure 2). The water will be transferred through a 587-km canal
water will be used to irrigate some 60,200 hectares with an outfall into a tributary of the Pennar. A
(ha) of land and for hydropower generation. Two new (balancing) reservoir with a total (live) storage
new dams in the Bedti Basin will be constructed of 83 (73) MCM is to be constructed at the
with a combined total (live) storage of 98 (85.5) receiving end of the Pennar Basin at the Kalvapalli
MCM. The larger reservoir will be connected by a village, with an upstream catchment area of 5,616
2
link canal to a tributary of the Varada River. km . The need for this new reservoir may need to
So far, no environmental studies have been be better justified as there is another dam (the
conducted around this link. The small tributaries upper Pennar) which commands the catchment
2
involved in this project, however, may be very area of 5,245 km – just upstream of the
sensitive to flow changes. Also, located in the proposed new one.
tropical humid forests (75% of the area) and All water transfers in NRLP are planned from
declared by the International Union for the “surplus” basins or parts thereof to “deficit” basins.
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources The basin is declared “surplus” if the balance of
(IUCN) as a biodiversity hot spot, the basins to be water “naturally” available (assured) in a river, 75%
affected host 1,741 species of flowering plants and and 50% of the time on the one hand and the total
420 species of birds and other wildlife. These demand for the next 25-50 years upstream of the
numbers exceed those in the whole Kerala State, point of a transfer on the other, is positive. If this
where the Bedti Basin is located. The flow will be balance is negative, the basin is perceived as a
discharged into the Varada without a receiving “deficit” one (the details of the methods used to
reservoir, which may increase channel erosion in establish whether a basin is surplus or deficit are
localized parts of the river. Altered flow patterns described and discussed later in this report). At
may cause riparian zone degradation and create Alamatti, the “surplus” water at 75% and 50%
habitats for invasive species. The proposed project assurance (“dependability” – in Indian terminology)
is expected to generate 3.6 megawatts (MW) of is estimated to be 5,611 and 8,247 MCM,
power but it may take over 61 MW to lift the water respectively, while the corresponding values for the
to the Varada. receiving point of the Pennar at Somasila are -
3,820 and -3,590 MCM, respectively. Such a large
difference between surpluses and deficits of the
Krishna (Alamatti) – Pennar Link (Link 05) donating and receiving basins is the major
justification for the transfer.
This is one of the several links effecting water The major feature of this link is the long canal,
transfers from the Krishna Basin to the Pennar and a lot of attention is paid to the justification of its
Basin (Figures 1 and 2). The link starts from the design and cost. It will pass through reserved forests
existing Alamatti Reservoir on the Krishna River and a bear sanctuary, where 17 wildlife species are
(upstream catchment area 33,375 square reported including four endangered ones. Losses of,
2
kilometers [km ]). This link is seen as a partial and disturbances to, habitat due to the lined canal,
exchange for the Godavari water brought into the representing an obstacle to wildlife migration routes,
Krishna (links 02, 03 and 04 in Figure 2). are programmed into the project. It is suggested that
However, since all the inward links from the wildlife “will migrate to surrounding forests,” and thus
Godavari bring water to downstream parts of the impacts will be minimal. Possible measures to
Krishna, and since the inflow from the Bedti link mitigate the disturbance to the sanctuary include
(if constructed) is minor, this link effectively realigning it, including the establishment of a
transfers the existing “surplus” water from the “minimum protected area.” The Kalvapalli Reservoir is
upstream reaches of the otherwise “deficient” anticipated to provide a waterfront for wildlife. The
Krishna Basin into another “deficient” basin, the equivalent of about US$35,000 (in 2006 dollar terms)
Pennar. The purpose of the link is to satisfy en is allocated in the project for the improvement of the
route irrigation needs. A volume of 1,980 MCM of environment.

4
 Water pollution in the Kalvapalli Reservoir is en route irrigation is planned: the transfer targets
anticipated through silting and sedimentation, exclusively the destinations of Pennar and Cauvery
nutrient leaching and agricultural runoff containing basins (it has to be noted however that older
fertilizers and pesticides while common mitigation transfers of this nature have resulted in the
measures, such as contour bunding, are planned. development of irrigation along the canal and
A beneficial aspect of the project is an anticipated capture of that water). As with other links,
increase in fish production. The link canal is seen no provisions exist for environmental releases
as a facilitator of cross-migration of fish species downstream of the Srisailam Dam. Some common
which will increase fish population overall, although impacts of water diversions (e.g., sedimentation of
no justification for this, or evidence from other reservoirs, changes in hydrological regime due to
similar cases, is provided. Most ecological issues flow regulation, waterlogging and salinity caused by
considered in this feasibility report are related to irrigation and drainage) are discussed in general
the link canal rather than to the donor or the terms.
receiving rivers per se. It is possible to suggest The major point made with regard to this link
that no “ecological” releases from the Alamatti is that since there is no new storage and water is
Dam are made or planned because there is no to be transferred through partially concrete-lined
mention of such releases. natural streams, there are no new submergence
areas, waterlogging, or adverse impacts on flora
and fauna. It is suggested that the conveyance
Krishna (Srisailam) – Pennar Link streams can easily carry additional 163 cubic
3
(Link 06) meters per second (m /s) of water (the amount of
water transfer for 6 months in a year) in addition to
This is one of the several links effecting water their own “natural” discharges. It remains unclear
transfers from the Krishna Basin to the Pennar how these streams will react to extra water during
Basin. The link starts from the existing Srisailam 6 months, what the riparian conditions are or how
Reservoir on the Krishna River (with an upstream embankments will affect fish spawning.
2
catchment area of 211,657 km ) at its confluence
with the Tungabhadra River (Figure 2). This link,
similar to the Alamatti-Pennar link upstream, Krishna (Nagarjuna Sagar) – Pennar
effectively transfers the existing “surplus” water Link (Link 07)
from the otherwise “deficient” Krishna Basin into
another “deficient” basin, the Pennar. This may This is a major transfer of 12,146 MCM of water
result in less water downstream of the Srisailam from, and to, existing reservoirs: Nagarjuna Sagar
Dam, and the reach between Srisailam and Dam on the Krishna (upstream area of 220,705
2
Nagarjuna Sagar dams will become even more km ) and Somasila Dam on the Pennar. The 75%
water-deficient. The 75% and 50% assured annual and 50% assured “natural” annual flows are 58,423
flows at Srisailam are estimated to be 57,398 and and 67,346 MCM, respectively. The purpose is to
66,428 MCM, respectively, although the final improve irrigation en route (where irrigation facilities
surplus at 75% assurance at the site after all are not adequate) and then to transfer water further
demands are satisfied is 6,017 MCM. to the south, where water shortages are said to be
A volume of 2,310 MCM of water will be diverted severer (a deficit of 3,820 MCM is envisaged at
through the existing Srisailam right main canal, 75% assurance in the Pennar River with all
which will operate 6 months a year from July to irrigation plans in place). A new 393-km lined link
December (monsoonal and post-monsoonal canal and an existing right-bank canal from
seasons). The water will be discharged into the Nagarjuna Sagar will run in parallel over 202 km,
3
Nippulavagu, a natural stream, and will reach the because the latter can carry only 3,979 m /s
Pennar River through the Galeru and Kunderu annually while the proposed transfer is for three
tributaries. No new infrastructure is required and no times more water. Such massive transfers may be

5
possible only due to the chain of transfers from however that aquatic life will develop in the new
further north. The restructuring of the existing right- reservoir and that, for example, the loss of
bank canal is not possible and therefore the breeding grounds of crocodiles in the river due to
construction of a new one is seen as a necessary submergence is negligible. The report indicates
option. Because no new storage is associated with that the project will have an impact on the
this link, the feasibility report envisages no Singaram sanctuary and submerge 65 hectares of
environmental impacts, and no costs are the Indravati National Park. It lists the known
anticipated for mitigation of such impacts. This link present fauna and birds in the area, which
is effectively part of the much longer water transfer indicates no endangered species. No adverse
line from the north to the south. Additional water impacts on aquatic life are identified, but no
transfer to the Nagarjuna Sagar Reservoir is studies done to this effect are cited. Afforestation
planned through the Inchampalli-Nagarjuna Sagar is proposed to compensate for the loss of forests
link (see below). to submergence.

Godavari (Inchampalli) – Krishna Godavari (Inchampalli) – Krishna

(Nagarjuna Sagar) Link (Link 02) (Pulichintala) Link (Link 03)

This link involves the transfer of 16,426 MCM of This link will divert 4,370 MCM from the Godavari
water and the construction of a new major storage into a new reservoir on the Krishna at Pulichintala,
reservoir on the Godavari at Inchampalli. The with a gross storage capacity of 1,296 MCM
upstream catchment area at this point is 269,000 through a new, 312-km link canal. The yields at
2
km and the gross (live) storage of the future dam 75% and 50% assurance are estimated to be
is 10,374 (4,285) MCM. A low ratio of a live 66,193 and 76,185 MCM and surplus surface water
storage to gross is noteworthy. The water yields balances after satisfaction of all projected
of the Godavari at Inchampalli at 75 and 50% requirements at Inchampalli are 20,327 and 29,987
assurance are estimated to be 66,193 and 76,185 MCM, respectively. Similar estimates are done for
MCM, respectively. The proposed irrigation plans Muneru, Palleru and Musi tributaries of the
are huge and, in all states involved, they exceed Krishna.
the sum of existing and ongoing irrigation The feasibility report explicitly suggests that all
projects. These plans are effectively the requirements of the Godavari downstream of
justification of the transfer. The irrigation Inchampalli can be met by the water available from
requirement projected for the year 2025 on the the incremental catchment area located between
basis of the states’ irrigation plans is 40,723 Inchampalli and the Dowlaiswaram Barrage and
MCM and the balance of all demands (irrigation with the surplus water transferred from Mahanadi.
plus others) at 75 and 50% assurance is 20,327 Therefore, no water is likely to be released from
and 29,987 MCM, respectively. The Krishna River Inchampalli downstream and all water at
at Nagarjuna Sagar is estimated to have a deficit Inchamapalli will be used for diversion to the
of 1,525 MCM at 75% assurance, which is Krishna. The feasibility report refers to simulations
another justification for the transfer. This water of the Inchampalli Reservoir at a monthly step over
transfer is justified by a large irrigation the period of 1951-1981 supplying both Pulichintala
development, which in itself will probably take and Nagarjuna Sagar links (4,370 and 16,426
many years to complete, and its feasibility will MCM). Simulations suggest that all requirements
depend on the cost of water provided. will be satisfied with a success rate of 76%. The
From the environmental side, the major environmental issues associated with this link are
impacts are perceived to be related to the the same as those with the Inchampalli–Nagarjuna
submergence area of the new reservoir, which Sagar link, as they are for a common storage
leads to major resettlements. It is suggested (Inchampalli).

6
Godavari (Polavaram) – Krishna The National Council of Applied Economic
(Vijayawada) Link (Link 04) Research (NCAER), New Delhi, India, was
entrusted with the studies of socioeconomic and
This is the most downstream link in both the environmental implications of six interbasin water
Godavari and the Krishna basins, and the one transfers including this one (Agricultural Finance
which is scheduled for construction. It is planned Corporation Ltd. 2005). Their report indicates that
to divert 1,236 MCM of water from the new the wild sanctuary in the proposed Polavaram
Polavaram Reservoir on the Godavari (with a live Reservoir area will be marginally affected by the
storage of 2,130 MCM) to the existing Prakasam submergence, and the list of fauna in the area
Barrage on the Krishna through a new 174-km link coming under submergence is given district by
canal. The transfer is designed to substitute district. It is also suggested that wildlife conditions
releases for the Krishna Delta from the Nagarjuna will actually improve due to the broad expanse of
Sagar Dam and to allow “saved” water to be used water in the new reservoir which is conducive to
for other projects in the Krishna. The canal, breeding of wildlife. The scientific basis for these
operating throughout the year, will discharge into conclusions is however unclear from the report. It
the Budameru, a river which flows into the Kolleru is envisaged that endangered species (tiger,
Lake (which is now effectively a large collection of panther) will move to deeper forest areas away from
aquaculture ponds), and from there the transfer will the submerged areas.
go through the Budameru diversion canal, It is indicated that after the Dowlaiswaram
discharging into the Krishna 8 km upstream of the anicut has been constructed on the Godavari, fish
Prakasam Barrage. There is already considerable migration (e.g., hilsa) from the sea to inland has
infrastructure in the Lower Godavari below the become obstructed. It is stated that dams convert
proposed Polavaram Reservoir. Lift irrigation stations a river to a more placid lotic environment with
along the river provide irrigation in the Lower reduced velocities, which impacts fish species and
Godavari Delta. This may decrease the total area composition and size. However, no quantitative,
claimed to benefit from the Polavaram link. There link-specific conclusions are presented. Generic
is also no mention of how, and if, the existing statements are also made about phytoplankton,
canals will be integrated into the new canal seasonal flow pattern changes, etc. It is also
system. admitted that the entire command area lies in the
Approximately US$600,000 (0.2% of the coastal belt with high rainfall, enhancing the risk
project cost) is allocated a) to study the of malaria, while a few general statements are
“environmental and ecological” aspects of the made about vector breeding and a possible
project by various organizations, and b) for increase in waterborne diseases.
protective measures as may be necessary. Since The Environmental Management Plan describes
both donor and receiving points are nearly at the a variety of relevant measures including catchment
outlets of the Godavari and Krishna rivers, area treatment through vegetative measures and
environmental impacts may only be felt in both structures (to reduce inflow of extra sediments into
deltas and en route the canals, where new the reservoir), development of flora and fauna
irrigation, domestic and industrial requirements are through compensatory afforestation, enhancing
targeted. Possible adverse impacts mentioned in aquaculture through stocking of the new reservoir
the report include resettlement, submergence of with exotic fish species, relocating some
forests, waterlogging and salinity in the command archeological structures and disaster management
area. Planned mitigation measures include drainage (concluding that there is no possibility of dam
systems in the command area to mitigate salinity, failure because probable maximum flood will be
fish ladders through the Polavaram Dam to allow passed by the structure). The report however does
for movement of migratory fish, and studies of the not address deltas – relevant environmental issues
nature of existing aquatic weeds in the submerged such as reduced flow and sediment to deltas due
area and some others. to dam construction, resulting in stunted delta

7
growth, seaside erosion or degradation of links need more clarity. For example, Bedti-Varada
mangroves. link does not seem to be justified from the
hydropower angle (as it will produce far less energy
than that used to get the water to it). Links starting
General Observations from the Lower Godavari include the construction of
a new Inchampalli Reservoir, which is designed to
Overall, all NWDA feasibility reports are succinct have a very low ratio of live to gross storage,
summaries of the proposed interbasin water making it a huge evaporation tank. The entire
transfers. They have similar structures and levels of complex of interbasin water transfers is driven by
detail, and represent, effectively, the only source of significant irrigation expansion which extends to
publicly available technical information on the 2050. At the same time, it is not entirely clear
proposed transfers. As such, they are very where this new land for irrigation expansion is
valuable. located because most of the proposed “new”
At the same time, they have similar irrigated land in the Krishna and Godavari basins
shortcomings. The information presented remains is likely to be irrigated already (H. Turral, IWMI,
limited and it is not possible to judge about the pers. comm.). The approach can benefit more
quality of the data used. Environmental aspects from a more integrated, basin-wide water
and impacts of the proposed projects are only resources planning. At present, water is planned
generally described and are primarily related to the to be transferred from the upper parts of the
submergence area associated with new reservoirs Krishna Basin, while at the same time other
and to resettlement of the population affected. It is links will deliver water into the Krishna
clear that no provision is made for in-stream downstream. The reported low Benefit-Cost (B/C)
ecological releases from either existing or planned ratio of some projects is also noteworthy. For
reservoirs. If a proposed link is to flood or example, Alamatti-Pennar and Polavaram-
otherwise affect existing wildlife sanctuaries, the Vijayawada links have a B/C ratio of around 1.2
latter are expected to be relocated/compensated, each, which makes the effectiveness of these
implying their relatively low importance. The general links questionable. Finally, the methods by which
comments on environmental impacts make no water availability for the transfers was calculated
reference to the link/site in question and cite no require some comment and are discussed in the
supporting studies. Technical aspects of some next section.

How Much Water Is Actually Available for Transfers?

A Summary of the “Official” Water identification of surplus and deficient river basins
Resources Planning Method have been made. This is a misconception because
the issue is not so much that it is unclear, but
The methodology that the NWDA is using in rather whether it is entirely appropriate given the
planning water transfers is essentially the same for scale of transfers. The overall planning approach
all links and is described in abbreviated form in includes
The catchment
several sequential
upstreamsteps.
of the diversion point
every individual feasibility report. It is important to (donor) or receiving point (receiver) is split into
attempt to spell it out here because the NRLP has several smaller subbasins to cater for spatial
been criticized for not describing the basis on variability of rainfall and runoff over large areas.
which the assessment of water availability and

8
The number of subbasins varies with links obviously that these flows do not provide a
depending on the size of the catchment area significant contribution to the overall annual
upstream of the link point. For smaller links, total flow volume.
like Bedti-Varada, such separation is not
The calculated annual flow time series for
required and one subbasin may be used.
individual subbasins upstream of the donor/
Observed annual flows at one hydrological
receiver site are then summed up to produce
measuring station or many (e.g., in every
the annual time series of naturalized flows at
subbasin) are calculated using original flow
the link point. This time series is then
records. Observed records for different links
presented in the form of a cumulative
vary in length. For example, a period of 100
distribution (a type of a flow duration curve
years (1901–2000) is used for the Alamatti link
analysis), which shows the probability of
whereas the corresponding period for the
exceedence of every annual flow in a record.
Srisailam link is 32 years.
This probability is termed “dependability” in
Since the observed flows are normally affected Indian practice (an alternative term “assurance”
by various water abstractions, all these is often used in other countries). This exercise
abstractions are calculated and “added back” allows flows occurring at the site to be
to the observed flows. It is not entirely clear visualized and interpreted all at once. The lower
from the feasibility reports how this is done the flow the greater its “dependability” because
since types of abstractions differ, they have other flows frequently exceed it. The higher the
increased over time, especially during the last flow the lesser the dependability: floods are
20 years, and there is no inventory of the difficult to capture because they occur less
various abstractions in India (the latter is frequently.
partially due to the competitive nature of
The cumulative distribution function of annual
interstate water management, where each
flows at the donor/receiver site is used to
state tends to leave its abstraction data
estimate flows (“gross yields” in Indian
undisclosed to its neighbors). Regardless of
terminology) with “dependabilities” of 50% and
the methods used, procedural attempts take
75%. The selection of these assurances of
place to “naturalize” observed river flows, as
supply is rather arbitrary but is not the most
these flows form the reference condition for
critical issue, since many different levels of
assessing water availability for the transfer.
assurance of water supply larger than 50% are
Annual time series of weighted areal rainfall for conventionally (and similarly arbitrarily) used in
each gauged basin is then calculated using water resources engineering practices
the data from available/selected rainfall worldwide (e.g., Smakhtin 2001)
stations. A regression relationship between
The annual flows at 50 and 75% assurance
annual naturalized flows and annual areal
(further denoted as Q50 and Q75) are the
rainfall is established.
major components of the water supply
This regression analysis is then carried out for estimates. Other components include
the entire subbasin (which is ungauged) using regeneration and known imports from other
monsoonal rainfall time series as input. This river basins. Regeneration (most likely an
allows monsoonal-period flows to be calculated equivalent of “return flows”), is estimated as
for each year. The non-monsoonal portions of 10% of the net utilization from all present and
flow are then added to the monsoonal portion future irrigation schemes and as 80% of the
for each year thus building the annual time domestic and industrial uses to be met from
series of naturalized flows. It is not clear from surface water sources. The total water supply
the feasibility reports how the non-monsoonal (WS) is calculated by summing up the
portions are calculated, but the perception is assured flows with regeneration and imports

9
 and deducting exports if any: (e.g., to Alamatti, Inchampalli, etc.). These net
WSp% = Qp% + Imports + Regeneration – annual inflows are distributed into monthly
Exports (1) values using weights obtained from the actual
monthly flow data at one of the nearby flow
Where, p% denotes the assurance (50 or 75%). stations. The records used to calculate the
All calculations so far are performed at the
weights may be short (e.g., 10 years in the
annual time step. Most of the further decisions
case of the Srisailam). It appears from
are based on the estimates performed at 75% feasibility reports that average monthly weights
assurance.
are used for this, i.e., monthly flow distribution
Various demands are then estimated and is assumed to be the same in dry and wet
projected for either the year 2025 or the year years. Monthly irrigation requirements are then
2050, depending on the link. Agricultural water calculated based on crop needs. Initial storage
demands are estimated based on the state (initial condition for reservoir simulation) is often
plans for irrigation development. Industrial assumed to be the dead storage (this is
requirement (assumed to be met entirely from typical for India, where it seems to be a
surface water sources) is not known and is common practice to assume full drawdown of
taken to be equal to domestic needs, which is the stored water every year and no provision
based on population Figures. Hydropower for interannual storage). A reservoir simulation
requirement is taken to be equal to total is carried out to identify whether the proposed
evaporation from all hydropower projects. transfer can be managed with the proposed
Environmental water demands are not storage and, if yes, then with what level of
accounted for. When “downstream” reliability - how many successful years out of
requirements are mentioned, they normally all years simulated. A successful year is
imply the requirements of downstream normally defined as a year in which 95% of all
agriculture, industry or domestic needs, but not demands are met (which is quite a
of aquatic ecology or recreation. conservative [good] measure of success).

The difference between the total available

supply at 75% assurance (equation (1)) and the
The Issue of Data Resolution and Its
total projected demand at the same site (donor
Impact on Planning Estimates
or receiver) becomes the basis for declaring
the basin (or part thereof) as “surplus” or
It is clear from the above summary that flow data
“deficit.” If the above difference is positive the
with an annual time step resolution were used as
basin is “surplus,” and if negative it is “deficit.”
the basis to derive the estimates of dependable
As a rule, each link includes at least one (assured) flows at link points. This approach
reservoir – either at the donor or at the receiver requires comment. The existing literature on
point or at both. The last step in the water resources systems suggests that although
methodology is therefore a reservoir simulation annual time step data may be used for
modeling with current observed flows in place preliminary (crude) planning of water supply
and with all future demands included. This systems, the preferred data type for this is
step is performed with a monthly time step. monthly flow time series (e.g., McMahon and
Annual flow data for the available period are Adeloye 2005). The issue of data resolution is
used as the basis for calculations. All gross not a superfluous one: data resolution
annual current upstream water requirements significantly affects the information content of
are subtracted from the gross annual flow time hydrological time series. Figure 3 illustrates this
series. This gives time series of annual actual point with the three most widely used flow data
inflows to a reservoir whether existing or new types – daily, monthly and yearly. The differences

10
between daily and monthly flows in low-flow receiver). However, if more, monthly, information-
months are negligible due to minor variability of “rich” data are used instead, the flow available at
daily flows during low-flow months. However, the 75% dependability becomes an order of magnitude
differences between the mean flow for the “year” less than that determined using annual data
and mean monthly flows in different months are resolution.
pronounced: 8 months out of 12 have flows To obtain an FDC at Vijayawada, which is
significantly lower than the yearly mean. Annual representative of more natural and less regulated
data resolution therefore does not capture conditions, the curve at Vijayawada (station 1 in
“enough variability” in flows and can lead to Figure 2), established from the observed record of
overestimation of available water throughout the 1900–1965 (which retains more unregulated flows)
year. has been scaled up by the ratio of mean annual
Figure 4 further illustrates the impact of data flow for the above period to the “official” estimate of
resolution on the calculation of “highly dependable” the mean annual flow at the Krishna outlet of 78
flows. The Figure shows flow duration curves BCM (cited also in Smakhtin and Anputhas 2006).
(FDCs) constructed, using annual and monthly flow To obtain an FDC at Srisailam, the “naturalized”
time series for the same arbitrarily selected site on duration curve at Vijayawada (Station 1 in Figure 2)
the Krishna River, for which some observed flow has been multiplied by the factor of 0.84 – the ratio
2
data were available. The flow exceeded in 75% of of catchment area at Srisailam (221,657 km ) to the
2
all years (75% dependable flow - in Indian catchment area at Vijayawada (251,360 km ). The
terminology) is much higher than the flow data period used was 1900–1965 (despite the
exceeded in 75% of all months. NWDA feasibility availability of more recent observations) to avoid the
reports use annual flow values at 75% impacts of observed significant reduction of the
dependability as a measure of surface water Krishna flow in the last 50 years and ensure a
availability at the points of transfer (both donor and more or less “unregulated” record.

FIGURE 3. An illustration of different temporal data resolution: yearly, monthly and daily flows recorded in the Krishna River
at Agraharam town during March 1990–February 1991.

11
 FIGURE 4. Flow duration curves for the Krishna River at Agraharam town based on 15 years of monthly flow data and
constructed with annual and monthly aggregation levels.

The implications for the assessment of water at both ends of the record, particularly after 1960
available for transfer at link points are clearly very and to ensure that less-impacted, more natural flow
significant, if such assessment is made by simply time series was used. This record gives a long-
reading off the 50 and/or 75% assured flows from term mean annual flow estimate at Polavaram of
“annual” or “monthly” FDCs. The very limited data approximately 105 billion cubic meters (BCM),
available for this study did not allow reliable which value is close to the “official natural” flow
calculations to be carried out for all link points. estimate of 110 BCM (cited also in Smakhtin and
Only a very few data sets, primarily from the Anputhas 2006).
Internet, were available. It is not possible to To obtain an FDC at Alamatti, the duration
ascertain the accuracy of these data, but it is still curve at Agraharam (station 3 in Figure 2 – the
possible to illustrate the abovementioned nearest to Alamatti with usable data) has been
differences for some links. The link points for which multiplied by a factor of 0.25 – the ratio of
2
dependable flows have been calculated are listed in catchment area at Alamatti (33,375 km ) to the
2
Table 1. They are the only ones which can be catchment area at Agraharam (132,920 km ). The
effectively simulated with the limited data available. data period used was 1983–2000 – the only
To construct an FDC at Inchampalli, the period for which data at Agraharam were available.
duration curve at Polavaram (both in the Godavari Since neither systematic data on water
Basin) has been multiplied by the factor of 0.874 abstractions upstream of Agraharam nor “natural”
– the ratio of the catchment area at Inchampalli flow estimates at Agraharam from alternative
2
(269,000 km ) to the catchment area at Polavaram sources were available no corrections to the
2
(307,880 km ). Despite the availability of more original flow data at Agraharam were possible. This
recent observations the data period used was may lead to underestimation of means and
1910–1960. This was to avoid many missing data dependable flows. Observed data at Agraharam

12
TABLE 1. Estimates of surface water availability (MCM) at 50% and 75% dependability from annual (NWDA) and monthly
(IWMI) data resolution for selected link points in and out of Krishna.
Donor/Receiver point Dependability 50% Dependability 75%

Annual data Monthly Annual data Monthly

annualized annualized

Krishna - Alamatti 24,041 958 21,405 326

Krishna - Srisailam 66,428 8,626 57,398 1,684
Godavari - Inchampalli 76,185 10,546 66,193 4,497
Godavari - Polavaram 96,549 12,155 80,170 5,132
Krishna - Vijayawada Not available 11,808 Not available 1,964

are historical data and are affected by upstream The Use of Spell Analysis for the
developments. The mean flow volume calculated Reassessment of Surface Water
at Agraharam from these data is 19,270 MCM Availability
which is very small compared to the 50% or 75%
flows in Table 1 taken from NWDA. It is clear that The two different data resolutions (annual and
such mean flow is not accurate and the error is monthly) used to assess water availability
transferred to the estimates of dependable flows effectively represent two different ways of thinking
at Alamatti. about the level of possible flow regulation. Annual
Also, flows do not always have a linear flow data ignore within-year flow variability and,
relationship with the basin area. However, the above therefore, indirectly suggest that the river may be
simplifications are unlikely to lead to major almost completely regulated for water supply. The
inaccuracies compared to the differences in estimates use of monthly data (to assess water availability)
from annual and monthly time step data, for example. implies that almost no future increase in
It has to be noted that should more reliable data be abstraction is possible. Both approaches represent
available the estimates in this study can be revised extreme cases. The “annual” one unjustifiably
to ensure better compatibility with the data used in pushes up water availability estimates while the
the feasibility reports. “monthly” one significantly reduces them. These
Table 1 is presented for illustrative purposes – approaches and their results are entirely
to show the remarkable differences between the acceptable. They may rather be thought of as
two estimates in every case. It is noteworthy that, representing the top and the bottom limits of
for example, the official estimate of the “natural” flow assured water availability at a site.
at the outlet (Polavaram) is around 110 BCM (a It is perhaps more appropriate to use some
corresponding estimate obtained from the data as form of water resources storage-yield analysis to
described above is 105 BCM, which is rather close). establish maximum possible draft (reservoir yield) at
However, the 75% dependable flow at Polavaram is the donor point of each transfer. This analysis is
estimated to be 80.17 BCM (80,170 MCM in Table used to establish either what reservoir yield is
1), which value is around 73% of the total long-term possible, if a given/planned storage is constructed,
mean flow. While this estimate makes sense in the or what reservoir storage is necessary with the
context of the annual time step used, it is virtually required yield. In the context of estimating water
impossible to assume that such an enormous availability (including water availability for transfers),
amount of water may be a reasonable estimate of a reservoir (or a system of reservoirs) could be
water available 75% of the time, given the high some feasible maximum storage which will be used
variability of flow within a year in the Godavari, with to make the water actually “available.” Assessment
a large number of low-flow months (the case similar of surface water availability then becomes equivalent
to that shown in Figure 3). to the assessment of the yield (draft) of the reservoir

13
with the above maximum feasible storage. The
approach still needs to be based on monthly data
explained earlier) suggests that every year, there
to capture the seasonal flow variability.
is a significant continuous flow deficit below this
Storage-yield analysis is a discipline of civil
engineering and its description is beyond the scope threshold (Figure 5). The deficits range from the
minimum of 27,500 to the maximum of 40,100
of this study but it can be found in text books (e.g.,
MCM. The latter, maximum deficit may serve as
McMahon and Adeloye 2005). In this study, we use
the approach of spells (runs), which may be seen a crude indication of the storage required to
maintain the NWDA estimate of the water yield at
as a component of storage-yield analysis. A spell
the Srisailam site.
(run) is a hydrological event when river flow
continuously stays below (above) a certain threshold Even given that the above estimate is rather
crude, it is unlikely that without significant storage
flow. Each spell is characterized by the duration and
increase, water at the above high threshold can be
excess or deficit flow volume. Deficit flow volume is
a characteristic of a low-flow spell. Depending on a made available. Also, while this storage is not
impossible to construct in principle as it is only
type of flow regime and a threshold there may be
approximately 60% of the long-term mean annual
one low-flow spell or several in one year. Two
examples of transfer sites from Table 1 are used flow at the site, and dams with larger percentages
of that
Thearecumulative
known, it isdam
hardly
storage
practical
upstream
because:of
below to illustrate the alternative assessment of
Srisailam at present is already 17.1 BCM.
water availability: Krishna (Srisailam) and Godavari-
Polavaram. Other points were not, or could not be, More storage will not only be detrimental to
the upstream basin but also inefficient in an
considered due to lack of some data, unreliable
already heavily regulated system.
data or closeness to other points.
In the case of the Srisailam site, the NWDA The dead storage of such a dam (or a
estimate of the annual yield which will be combination of dams) in a flat basin like the
available for the transfer is 57,398 MCM or a Krishna is likely to be a large proportion of the
constant flow volume of 4,783 MCM per month total storage.
throughout the year. Placed in the context of the
No major additional storage construction is
spell analysis, it becomes the flow threshold,
actually planned.
which needs to be satisfied. Analysis of the
monthly flow data at Srisailam (generated as A cumulative storage of 20 BCM (which is

30,000
Flow Threshold

25,000
Monthly flow volume (MCM)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300

Months since July 1901

FIGURE 5. An extract from the monthly flow time series at the Srisailam site on the Krishna.

14
slightly higher than the already existing storage by the NWDA in order to determine the impacts of
upstream of Srisailam) has been used here as an reduced surface water availability on the overall
arbitrary but feasible value in order to estimate how basin water balance. The various demands have
much water can be realistically made available. To not been revised and are taken in all cases as is
achieve this, several runs with different flow from the relevant NWDA reports. The environmental
thresholds have been carried out until the flow requirements have however been estimated
maximum deficit in the Srisailam time series has and added to the Tables (these estimates have
dropped to 20 BCM. The corresponding threshold been made using the method developed by
flow is 2,700 MCM per month or 32,400 MCM on Smakhtin and Anputhas [2006] for the least
the annual scale. acceptable environmental management class D
A similar exercise has been carried out using with minimum possible environmental water
the monthly flow time series at Polavaram. The demand). It has to be noted that this management
total cumulative storage in the entire Godavari class is, effectively, the “last resort,” the one in
Basin (existing and planned as part of the NRLP) which there is a large loss of natural habitat, biota
of 18.8 BCM has been increased to 20 BCM to and basic ecosystem functioning. This is a
allow for some limited additional, but feasible, situation that responsible governments would be
storage growth in the future. The corresponding expected to avoid.
threshold flow in the Godavari at Polavaram has As the above Tables illustrate, aft e r
been estimated as 3,000 MCM per month or significant reductions in surface water availability,
36,000 MCM on the annual scale. which is the starting point in planning for
Tables 2 and 3 include the above two interbasin water transfers, the overall water
alternative estimates of surface water availability, balance of each basin has changed dramatically
which are still significantly lower than the from being essentially “water surplus” to being
corresponding NWDA estimates (obtained using seriously “water deficit.” It is important to note
annual time step data). These estimates have been that this change would occur regardless of
used with the data on various demands presented whether environmental flow requirements are

TABLE 2. Surface water balance (MCM) at the Srisailam Dam site, the Krishna (211,657 km 2).
NWDA IWMI

Surface water availability 57,398 32,400

Surface water import (+) -
Surface water export (-) 7,848 7,848
Regeneration (+)
Domestic use 2,624
Industrial use 3,748
Irrigation use 2,773
Subtotal 9,145 9,145 9,145
Overall availability 58,695 33,697
Surface water requirement for (-)
Irrigation use 43,559 43,559
Domestic use 3,278 3,278
Industrial use 4,687 4,687
Hydropower 1,154 1,154

Environmental use n/a 5,300

Subtotal 52,678 (-) 52,678 (-) 57,978

Surface water balance (+) 6,017 (-) 24,281

15
TABLE 3. Surface water balance (MCM) at the Polavaram Dam site, the Godavari (307,880 km2).
NWDA IWMI

Surface water availability 80,170 36,000

Surface water import (+) 3,888 3,888
Surface water export (-) 13,318 13,318
Regeneration (+)
Domestic use 1,512
Industrial use 2,402
Irrigation use 3,138
Subtotal 7,052 7,052 7,052
Overall availability 77,792 33,622
Surface water requirement for (-)
Irrigation use 47,541 47,541
Domestic use 1,890 1,890
Industrial use 3,002 3,002
Hydropower (evaporation losses) 6,380 6,380
Consumptive use from Polavaram 3,808 3,808

Environmental use n/a 8,200

Subtotal 62,621 (-) 62,621 (-) 70,821

Surface water balance (+) 15,171 (-) 37,199

included as the component of the demand or not. change. The points made here attempt to attract
It is acknowledged that the estimates suggested attention to the need for increased accuracy in
here may not be very accurate due to severe data the overall planning process and to the need to
limitations in the first place. However, the change revise the estimates of water availability and
cannot be attributed to data inaccuracies or water balance using more advanced planning
limitations but, clearly, to the approach used for tools, more transparent processes as well as
assessment of surface water availability. It is accepting environmental water requirements as a
envisaged that if the original data used by NWDA legitimate demand.
were available, it would result in a similar

Environmental impacts of Reservoir Construction on the Godavari

and Krishna Deltas

Interbasin water transfers are associated with the constructed in both basins (the Krishna and
construction of new storage reservoirs. A lot has Godavari) as well as the planned massive storage
been said and written about submergence and construction associated with NRLP, it is only
resettlement (upstream) and impacts of changing natural to highlight the issues of upstream
flow pattern on fish (downstream) – all associated development impacts on deltas and estuaries.
with reservoirs. At the same time, all in-stream These issues have not been considered in the
storages anywhere in the basin have impacts on NWDA reports. They also have a general tendency
river outlets. Given the number of reservoirs already to be ignored in water resources planning

16
worldwide. At the same time, depending on the load has decreased from 100 million tons in 1978
river and the magnitude of upstream construction (effectively an ending point in noticeable reservoir
such impacts may be significant. growth in the basin, Figure 6) to 46 million tons
by the end of the 1990s. The current cumulative
reservoir storage in the Godavari Basin remains
Coastal Erosion: The Godavari Delta relatively low (6.3 BCM, i.e., approximately 6%
of the mean annual flow at the outlet). The
Malini and Rao (2004) examined the recent storage growth is not the only one of
changes in the Godavari River Delta, called the significance as much water is also diverted from
“rice bowl of Andhra Pradesh,” using remote barrages, i.e., structures without any storage. A
sensing images. They discovered that the delta relatively small storage in the basin and a still
has regressed landward with a total net land loss noticeable decreasing trend in sediment load
of 1,836 hectares over the period of 1976–2000 (at imply that the basin sediment regime is very
a rate of 73.4 ha/year). It was suggested that sensitive to reservoir growth, if the latter remains
reduced inflow of sediments, associated with to be seen as the main source of the problem.
upstream reservoir construction, is the main cause More sediment inflow reduction may therefore be
of reduced vertical accretion at the delta. At the expected after the construction of the Polavaram
same time, coastal subsidence, probably promoted and Inchampalli storages, which will increase the
by neo-tectonic activity and consequent relative ratio of storage to 19% of the natural flow in the
sea-level rise has continued leading to shoreline basin.
retreat. Figure 6 illustrates the dynamics of flow
and sediment load at the outlet of the Godavari (at
Polavaram) and reservoir storage growth in the Coastal Erosion: The Krishna Delta
entire Godavari Basin since the beginning of the
1970s. The flow time series has been taken from In this study, an attempt has been made to
Internet sources, the sediment load data have been examine whether similar trends exist in the
read off similar graphs published by Malini and Rao Krishna Basin, concerning the proportion of
(2004) and the storage data are from the ICOLD storage: annual flow is much larger than in the
dam register. The flow time series has missing Godavari. The observations on sediment loads at
data during 1980–1990 and neither flow nor the outlet of the Krishna at Vijayawada over the
sediment data have been available after 1998. last 30–40 years have however not been provided
Cumulative dam storage (including large and by the Central Water Commission (CWC) during
medium dams) increased significantly in the early the course of the study. The only available data
1970s and has remained relatively constant for the were for the period 1991–2000 (CWC 2006),
last 30 years. However, it will increase abruptly which is rather short for any meaningful
again after the construction of the Polavaram conclusions on trends. The comparison of the
Barrage and the major Inchampalli Dam (the two short time series of sediment loads, at
growth of the total storage in the basin after the Agraharam (upstream of major reservoirs, Figure
dam construction is shown in Figure 6 for an 2) and at Vijayawada (downstream of all major
arbitrarily assumed Inchampalli Dam completion dams), has revealed a significant decrease in
date of 2010). sediments downstream of the reservoir system
While trends in the Godavari River flow (Figure 8). The differences are particularly
cannot be ascertained from the available noticeable in high-flow years (1994, 1999), when
disrupted flow time series, the decreasing trend more sediment has reached Agraharam from the
in annual sediment loads is clear from the relatively unregulated upstream basin but all
sediment data (Figure 7, also shown by Malini sediments were likely being trapped by the
and Rao [2004]). The mean annual sediment existing reservoir system (Srisailam, Nagarjuna

17
 Sediment load (mill tons) and flow (BCM) 250 20

200 16

Cumulative dam storage (BCM)

150 12

100 8

50 4

0 0
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Sediment load Flow volume Cumulative dam storage

FIGURE 6. Time series of annual flows, sediment loads and cumulative storage in the Godavari Basin outlet at Polavaram.

250

200
Sediment load (million tons)

150

100

50

0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

FIGURE 7. Time series of sediment load at Polavaram with a decreasing trend line.

18
 Three basic layers were used to detect
Sagar) upstream of Vijayawada. The absence of morphological changes in the delta: band 4 (near
sediment data prior to 1991 does not allow for infrared [NIR]), band 2 (red) and band 1 (blue).
further conclusions about sediment regime These layers have characteristics that are suitable
changes to be made. However, these changes for coastal mapping, differentiation of vegetation
are most likely very significant due to the marked from soil, reflectivity of vegetation vigor and
reduction of river flow at the Krishna outlet delineation of water bodies. The first, “oldest” image
(Figure 9) over the last 70 years. This reduction was assumed to be the reference condition against
is due to various water diversions, groundwater which changes in the other two images were
development and increased cumulative reservoir detected. The entire delta shoreline was examined
storage in the basin, which has grown from to demarcate the zones of erosion and deposition
almost zero in 1960 to 28.5 BCM at present. using ERDAS 9.0 software. The areas of deposition
This present cumulative storage represents 36% and erosion between two consecutive dates (i.e., in
and 132% of the natural and present-day Krishna 1990 and 2000) were identified and calculated
mean annual flow, respectively. using ArcGIS software. The areas around selected
To examine the potential impacts of reduced points (primarily the mouths of the main
sediment inflow on the Krishna Delta, several distributaries), where significant changes were
remote sensing images of the area were analyzed. expected to occur were closely examined,
The images were obtained from Earth Science Data highlighting the zones of erosion and deposition at
Interface (ESDI) at the Global Land Cover Facility each. The image of the Krishna Delta showing
(GLFC) on http://glcfapp.umiacs.umd.edu: selected areas where detailed assessment of
8080/esdi/index.jsp and were selected from the erosion and deposition has been made is
period of 1977 to 2000 to form a “time series.” The presented in Figure 10. Figures 11 and 12 display
images
Landsat
included:
2 Multispectral Scanner (MSS) image the sequence of images for years 1977, 1990 and
dated 1 June 1977 with a spatial resolution of 2000 for some of the selected areas circled in
57 meters (m). Figure 10. The black lines in each image represent
the reference position of the land mass at the start
Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM) image dated
of the period, in 1977. Figure 13 shows areas of
10 November 1990 with a spatial resolution of
predominant erosion and deposition during the
28.5 m.
period between 1977 and 2000 for the entire delta
Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus shoreline, while table 4 summarizes the calculated
(ETM+) image dated 28 October 2000 with a characteristics of these processes for the entire
spatial resolution of 28.5 m. delta over the same period.

TABLE 4. Areal extent of erosion and deposition in the Krishna Delta over 23 years (1977–2000).

Point no. Erosion Deposition Net loss Rate of loss/

(ha) (ha) (ha) gain (ha/yr)

1 598 483 115 5.0

2 478 178 300 13.0
3 275 31 244 10.6
4 326 74 252 11.0
5 79 98 -19 -0.8
6 894 3 891 38.7
Total (23 years) 2,650 867 1,783 77.5

19
 180

160

140
Sediment load (million tons)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Sediment load at Agraharam Sediment load at Vijayawada

FIGURE 8. The time series of sediment loads in the Krishna at Agraharam and Vijayawada.

100 32

90
28
Sediment load (million tons) and flow (BCM)

80
24
70 Cumulative dam storage (BCM)
20
60

50 16

40
12
30
8
20
4
10

0 0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Sediment load Flow volume Cumulative dam storage

FIGURE 9. Time series of annual flows, sediment loads and cumulative storage in the Krishna Basin outlet at Vijayawada.

20
 6

1 5

2 3

FIGURE 10. The image of the Krishna River Delta indicating the areas where a closer inspection of erosion and
deposition was made.

FIGURE 11. The changing morphology of the selected area 2 in 1977, 1990 and 2000. The top and bottom rows of images
show the dynamics of the right and left banks of the distributary, respectively.

21
 FIGURE 12. The changing morphology of the selected area 4 in 1977, 1990 and 2000. The top and bottom rows of images
show the dynamics of the southern and northern parts of the area, respectively.

FIGURE 13. A contour of the Krishna Delta showing areas of erosion and deposition during the period between
1977 and 2000.

22
 The results suggest that while areas of to suggest that upstream basin storage
predominant erosion and deposition interchange, development leads to the said retreat of deltas.
the overall tendency is towards the regression The Krishna River is already effectively a “closed
landward with losses of land to the sea, the basin” as only occasional high flows “spill” into
situation similar to that in the Godavari Delta. The the delta with almost zero sediment contribution
annual net loss rate of 77.4 hectares is almost to it (Figure 8). Therefore, the storage that is
the same as that in the Godavari Delta (73.4 already constructed in the Krishna will have a
ha/year; Malini and Rao 2004). One noticeable long-lasting detrimental effect on the delta and its
feature of the Krishna Delta is also its higher ratio agricultural productivity (the situation in the
of erosion to deposition (3.05 versus 1.6 in the Godavari Delta will also most likely deteriorate
Godavari) over the same period, which suggests after the construction of the additional storages
that coastal erosion is more “effective” in the planned as part of the NRLP).
Krishna Delta than in the Godavari, despite the Detailed sedimentation modeling studies would
2
slightly smaller area (4,700 km versus be useful in all major deltas of India in order to
2
5,100 km ) and shorter shoreline of the former develop a better understanding and quantification of
(134 km versus 160 km). Erosion is also a the links between upstream water and sediment
dominant process through most of the coastline, flow reduction, upstream storage growth and man-
while deposition is limited to certain sections only induced changes in deltas, on the one hand, with
(Figure 13). deltas’ erosion and retreat, on the other. Such
studies could allow the specification of necessary
environmental flow releases to be made for the
Possible Causes and Implications of maintenance of delta sediment regimes.
Coastal Erosion Coastal erosion may be seen as a slow
process. However, there are a few aspects which
The regression of both deltas cannot be explained promote negative environmental impacts associated
by the sea-level rise. Analysis of the available sea- with it. One is the saltwater intrusion. Bobba (2002)
level data in the region for the period 1970–1996 conducted a numerical modeling study of the
(measurements at Visakhapatnam and Chennai) Godavari Delta and showed that saline intrusion
and for the period 1990–2001 (calculations from may become a major factor of reduced agricultural
daily tide gauge data at the Kakinada to the north productivity in that delta due to increased
of the Godavari Delta) did not reveal any significant groundwater pumping and reduced freshwater inflow
rising or falling trends (Malini and Rao 2004). (the authors could not identify a similar published
Therefore, coastal erosion in the Krishna and study for the Krishna Delta). Coastal erosion,
Godavari deltas can only be explained by the caused by similar factors facilitates saltwater
above-illustrated reduced sediment supply that, in intrusion deeper in the delta adversely affecting the
turn, is due to upstream flow regulation. In addition, productivity of land. Additionally, although highly
human activities in delta regions (e.g., conversion uncertain in quantitative terms, there is the
of cropland and mangrove swamp areas into potential sea-level rise in the next 50 years due to
aquaculture ponds) may also be responsible for climate change, although the limited available
sea transgression leading to coastal erosion and observations have not detected it so far. This rise
shoreline retreat of the deltas (e.g., Sarma et al. can lead to even more coastal erosion and deeper
2001). saltwater penetration, accelerating delta
Analysis of the longer sediment load data degradation. This research was not the scope of
series for the downstream parts of the Krishna the current study and needs to be carried out as
and the use of more recent and more resolute a separate and detailed project. While quantification
remote sensing images would result in more of the above impacts will be developed, even
detailed quantification of delta erosion. However, limited environmental flow releases from existing
even with the existing limited data, it is possible reservoirs in the Krishna and Godavari will delay the

23
adverse environmental processes in both deltas. the most downstream reservoirs, particularly as
New storage reservoirs need to be planned so as large as Inchampalli, will definitely not serve this
to allow sediments to reach deltas. Construction of purpose.

Conclusions

All NRLP transfers are justified based on the need for more integrated water resources
premise that a “natural” annual flow volume planning whereby all future water transfers in
which has exceeded 75% of the time (e.g., 30 and out of the same basin are considered and
out of 40 years) is available for water utilization. simulated together.
This does not consider the variability within a
The demands which are currently considered
year, which is extremely high in monsoon-driven
in feasibility reports include irrigation,
Indian rivers. As a result, more water is
hydropower, industry and domestic use. It is
perceived to be originally available at a site of
suggested that at least an environmental
transfer. Alternative techniques, based on a low-
demand for environmental management class
flow spell analysis and, more importantly, a
D is also explicitly included at the planning
storage-yield analysis, may be used to
stage – even as a contingency item. This
reevaluate the surface water availability at
class is the least acceptable from an
proposed transfer sites.
ecological point of view and requires a very
All NRLP transfers are further justified based on limited environmental water allocation, in the
the maximum plans for irrigation (for 2025 or range of 10–15% of the long-term annual flow.
2050) adopted by each state within each river This would be a precautionary measure in the
basin. This boosts irrigation requirements and absence of other, more detailed, information
serves as the driver for future water resources at present. It is envisaged that even such a
development. Maximum irrigation development minimal allocation will make some transfer
is therefore effectively programmed into India’s plans less feasible, as was illustrated in this
Water Future for the next half a century report. The main point however is that
without alternatives or much discussion of its environmental water demand should be
technical and economic feasibility. explicitly considered in water resources
planning, similar to the demands of
A few points on the Krishna (e.g., Alamatti,
agriculture, industry, hydropower and
Srisailam) are classified as “surplus” and are to
domestic needs.
become “donors.” At the same time, some links
(e.g., Bedti-Varada) are expected to bring water In this report, for the donor and receiver points
into the Krishna, upstream of the “surplus on the Polavaram-Vijayawada link, the
points.” Some “deficit” points in the Lower environmental flow requirements have been
Krishna then rely on transfers from the calculated using the planning technique of
Mahanadi through the Godavari, rather than on Smakhtin and Anputhas (2006). These
more naturally available water from the Upper demands, as scenarios for two environmental
Krishna. It does not appear entirely logical to management classes, have been used in
isolate subbasins and describe them as detailed water resources modeling of this link.
“surplus,” since they contribute differentially to The results of this modeling are described in
downstream water availability. There may be a a companion report (Bharati et al. n.d.).

24
Locating reservoir sites (particularly as large as be made at present regarding the quantitative
the planned Inchampalli Dam) in the most side of planned water transfers. However, no
downstream, normally flat, areas of river basins relevant and detailed hydrological data have
is problematic from an engineering perspective. been made available to this project despite all
Such reservoirs have large surface water areas, continuous efforts to obtain them. This leads
which drastically increase evaporation and incur to two more points. First, if these data are
a large dead volume, which reduces the active available (the actual NWDA flow time series
storage and makes it inefficient. It also captures for each donor/receiver point considered), it is
most of the sediment supply to downstream possible to revise the estimates presented in
deltas, which are the “rice bowls” of India, due this report. Second, the continued policy of
to the high land productivity. It has been hydrological “data secrecy” is not conducive
demonstrated that the Godavari and Krishna to good water resources planning and
deltas have been in retreat over the last 25 development in India and will not lead to
years, which is related, most likely, to reduced socially and environmentally acceptable water
flow and sediment flow to deltas. Environmental projects. In fact, it is one of the major
flows need to be provided to at least partially stumbling blocks on the way to scientific and
arrest/delay this “shrinking of deltas” which engineering progress in water science in the
threatens agricultural production and mangrove country. India needs a centralized data
ecosystems, despite the fact that this shrinking storage and dissemination system. Such a
is slow. system could be developed within a time
frame of 2–3 years. However, policies of free
It is not possible to properly reevaluate any data access could and should be reinforced
plans without having the same starting before that. Without such reinforcement
conditions, i.e., the same hydrological data. difficulties in resolving water controversies in
Consequently, only cautious statements can India will remain.

25
References
Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd. 2005. Indirasagar (Polavaram): A multipurpose major irrigation project.
Vol. 1: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Hyderabad,
India, 417 pp.

Bharati, L.; Anand, B. K.; Smakhtin, V. n.d. Analysis of the interbasin water transfer scheme in India: A case study
of the Godavari-Krishna link. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage (Under review).

Bobba, A. G. 2002. Numerical modeling of salt-water intrusion due to human activities and sea-level change
in Godavari Delta, India. Hydrological Science Journal 47(S): S67-S80.

CWC (Central Water Commission). 2006. Integrated hydrological data book (non-classified river basins). New
Delhi, India, 383 pp.

Dams, Rivers and People. 2004. Vol. 1-2. South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP).
http://www.narmada.org/sandrp

Interbasin Water Transfer. 1999. Proceedings of the international workshop. UNESCO, Paris, 25-27 April 1999.
IHP-V Technical Documents in Hydrology. Document No. 28. Paris: UNESCO, 229 pp.

Malini, B. H.; Rao, K. N. 2004. Coastal erosion and habitat loss along the Godavari delta front – a fallout of
dam construction(?). Current Science 87(9): 1232-1236.

McMahon, T. A.; Adeloye, A. J. 2005. Water resources yield. Colorado, USA: Water Resources Publications, LLC,
220 pp.

Sarma, V. V. L. N.; Murali Krishna, G.; Hema Malini, B.; Nageswara Rao, K. 2001. Landuse/land cover change
detection through remote sensing and its climatic implications in the Godavari delta region. Journal of Indian
Society of Remote Sensing 29: 85-91.

Smakhtin, V. U. 2001. Low-flow hydrology: A review. Journal of Hydrology 240(3/4): 147-186.

Smakhtin, V. U.; Anputhas, M. 2006. An assessment of environmental flow requirements of Indian river basins.
IWMI Research Report 107. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute, 36 pp.

26
Research Reports

109. Costs and Performance of Irrigation Projects: A Comparison of Sub-Saharan Africa

and Other Developing Regions. Arlene Inocencio, Masao Kikuchi, Manabu Tonosaki,
Atsushi Maruyama, Douglas Merrey, Hilmy Sally and Ijsbrand de Jong. 2007.

110. From Integrated to Expedient: An Adaptive Framework for River Basin

Management in Developing Countries. Bruce A. Lankford, Douglas J. Merrey,
Julien Cour and Nick Hepworth. 2007.

111. Closing of the Krishna Basin: Irrigation, Streamflow Depletion and Macroscale
Hydrology. Trent W. Biggs, Anju Gaur, Christopher A. Scott, Prasad Thenkabail,
Parthasaradhi Gangadhara Rao, Murali Krishna Gumma, Sreedhar Acharya and
Hugh Turral. 2007.

112. The Impact of Government Policies on Land Use in Northern Vietnam: An Institutional
Approach for Understanding Farmer Decisions. Floriane Clément, Jaime M.
Amezaga, Didier Orange and Tran Duc Toan. 2007.

113. Applying the Gini Coefficient to Measure Inequality of Water Use in the Olifants
River Water Management Area, South Africa. James Cullis and Barbara van
Koppen. 2007.

114. Developing Procedures for Assessment of Ecological Status of Indian River

Basins in the Context of Environmental Water Requirements. Vladimir Smakhtin,
Muthukumarasamy Arunachalam, Sandeep Behera, Archana Chatterjee, Srabani
Das, Parikshit Gautam, Gaurav D. Joshi, Kumbakonam G. Sivaramakrishnan
and K. Sankaran Unni. 2007.

115. Rural-Urban Food, Nutrient and Virtual Water Flows in Selected West African
Cities. Pay Drechsel, Sophie Graefe and Michael Fink. 2007.

116. Agricultural Water Management in a Water Stressed Catchment: Lessons from

the RIPARWIN Project. Matthew P. McCartney, Bruce A. Lankford and Henry
Mahoo. 2007.

117. Treadle Pump Irrigation and Poverty in Ghana. Adetola Adeoti, Boubacar Barry,
Regassa Namara, Abdul Kamara and Atsu Titiati. 2007.

118. Evaluation of Historic, Current and Future Water Demand in the Olifants River
Catchment, South Africa. Matthew McCartney and Roberto Arranz. 2007.

119. Changing Consumption Patterns: Implications on Food and Water Demand in

India. Upali A. Amarasinghe, Tushaar Shah and Om Prakash Singh. 2007.

120. Hydrological and Environmental Issues of Interbasin Water Transfers in India:

A Case of the Krishna River Basin. Vladimir Smakhtin, Nilantha Gamage and
Luna Bharati. 2007.