Interlinking of Rivers in India & NRLP – UPSC

• The Indian Rivers Inter-link is a proposed large-scale civil engineering project to manage the country’s water by joining Indian rivers through a network of reservoirs and canals.
  • Its aims are more irrigation and ground water recharge, fewer persistent floods in some parts and less water shortage in others.
• India has 18% of the world’s population and about 4% of its water resources. Linking rivers and lakes is offered as one answer to that gap.
• The National River Linking Project (NRLP) rests on the National Perspective Plan (NPP) of 1980 and has 30 identified links. As of August 2026, the Ken–Betwa link is the only priority link in implementation.

The Idea and Its History

Why Rivers Are to Be Linked

• Rainfall is abundant but badly distributed. India receives about 4,000 billion cubic metres in a year, most of it in four months, June to September, and unevenly across the country.
  • Years of excess monsoon and flood alternate with late or weak monsoons and drought.
  • This variation in space and time, set against year-round demand for irrigation, drinking and industrial water, opens a gap between supply and demand.
• The core argument: many parts of the country face drought while others flood every year.
  • Indo-Gangetic rivers are perennial, fed by rain and by Himalayan glaciers.
  • Peninsular rivers are seasonal, because they depend mainly on the south-west monsoon rain.
  • The plains therefore suffer floods and the Peninsular States suffer droughts, though the pattern is not absolute: dry Rajasthan and Gujarat can flood and wet West Bengal can face drought.
  • If excess water could be diverted from the plains to the Peninsula, both problems could be eased to a large extent.
• The NRLP is claimed as the answer: conserve abundant monsoon water, store it in reservoirs, and deliver it through links to the places and seasons of scarcity.
  • Its promoters also point to gains in navigation and to wider rural incomes through fish farming.

Brief History

• Sir Arthur Cotton, a 19th-century Chief Engineer of the Madras Presidency, first floated the idea of joining rivers.
  • He pioneered water development in southern India from 1839, and his plan was for inland navigation. A small part was built, then abandoned in favour of railways.
  • The date 1919 is often attached to his proposal, but Cotton died in 1899.
• Kanuri Lakshmana Rao, Union irrigation minister, revived it in the 1970s with a National Water Grid and a Ganga–Cauvery link. Dates of 1960 and the 1950s also appear in accounts, but the National Water Development Agency places the proposal in the seventies.
• Captain Dastur’s Garland Canal followed in the 1970s. The Government did not pursue either proposal, finding them not techno-economically feasible.
• August 1980: the then Ministry of Irrigation framed the National Perspective Plan for Water Resources Development.
• 17 July 1982: the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) was set up, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, to study the links. Little further progress followed for many years.
  • It began with the Peninsular component and took up the Himalayan component in 1990–91.
• 2002: the idea got a major push when the government chose to study feasibility and set out a concrete layout.
  • The Supreme Court asked the Centre that year to finalise a plan by 2003 and carry it out by 2016.
  • A Task Force on Interlinking of Rivers, chaired by Suresh Prabhu, was constituted on 13 December 2002, working towards an end-2016 goal, and was wound up at the end of 2004.
  • After a change of government, the project was put on hold owing to inter-State disputes and opposition from farmers, tribal groups, civil society and environmentalists.
• 2005: Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and the Centre signed a memorandum on 25 August for a project report on the Ken–Betwa link.
• 27 February 2012: the Supreme Court, in In Re: Networking of Rivers, again asked the government to act and directed that an appropriate body be created.
  • The Ministry of Water Resources was told to form an experts’ committee to pursue the States. The pace of carrying out the project was left to the Centre, as a matter for the executive.
• 2014: the Union Cabinet approved a Special Committee on Interlinking of Rivers on 24 July, notified on 23 September. It was to take up the Ken–Betwa link first.
  • The Cabinet’s approval of the Ken–Betwa project itself came later, in December 2021.
• 2015: a further Task Force for Interlinking of Rivers was set up on 13 April to assist the committee.
  • In September, Andhra Pradesh formally joined the Godavari and the Krishna by lifting Godavari water at Pattiseema into the Polavaram Right Main Canal. Critics dispute how much of a true river link this was.
• 22 March 2021: Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh signed an agreement with the Centre to implement the long-stalled and controversial Ken–Betwa link.
• 25 December 2024: the foundation stone of the Ken–Betwa project was laid. On 5 December 2024, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and the Centre had signed an agreement on the Modified Parbati–Kalisindh–Chambal link.
• The government’s stated aim of completing the links across India in less than a decade has not been met. Only one priority link is under construction, with completion scheduled for 2030.

Earlier Proposals

• Ganga–Cauvery Link Canal: Kanuri Lakshmana Rao’s scheme would have pumped Ganga flood water from a barrage near Patna into a 2,640 km canal.
  • It would draw 60,000 cusecs for about 150 days and lift much of the water by over 450 m into reservoirs on the Son–Narmada divide.
  • From the Bargi reservoir on the Narmada, an aqueduct would use the Wainganga and Pranhita, cross the Krishna and Pennar, and reach the Cauvery above the Grand Anicut.
  • About 10,000 cusecs (300 cumecs) would also go to Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh in the lean season.
  • It was dropped as impractical, for its huge cost and energy need and for environmental reasons. The idea returns to public debate whenever a shortage or a dispute such as the Cauvery becomes acute.
• Brahmaputra–Ganga Link Canal: the Brahmaputra carries 3,500–5,000 cumecs even in the lean season, while the lower Ganga basin runs short in summer.
  • A barrage at Dhubri and a 320 km feeder canal to Farakka would move about 1,150 cumecs, with lifts of 10–15 m.
  • Part of the canal would run through Bangladesh, so it needs a treaty. Bangladesh could share the water and navigation, but costs and relations raised grave doubts.
• Garland Canal: a scheme of two great canals, one for the Himalaya and one for the southern and Peninsular rivers. Experts rejected it as technically faulty.

National River Linking Project

Structure

• The Interlinking of Rivers (ILR) project has three parts: a northern Himalayan component, a southern Peninsular component and, added later, an intra-State component.
• The National Water Development Agency, under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, manages it.
  • NWDA has studied 14 links in the Himalayan component and 16 in the Peninsular component, and it takes up intra-State proposals from the States.
• The two components can be joined on the Mahanadi, and studies to integrate the Manas–Sankosh–Tista–Ganga link with the Mahanadi–Godavari link are under way.
• How NWDA works: it is a society under the Societies Registration Act of 1860, fully funded by the Government of India.
  • By about 2021 it had completed water balance studies of 137 basins and sub-basins and 71 diversion points, and toposheet studies of 74 reservoirs and 37 link alignments.
  • These fed 32 pre-feasibility reports and 24 feasibility reports, including those for the Indian portion of some Himalayan links.
  • Its mandate has widened in stages: detailed project reports from 2006, intra-State detailed reports from 2011, and from 2016 the power to carry out link and irrigation projects itself.
• Steps before a link can begin: agreement among the party States, a detailed project report, techno-economic appraisal, investment clearance, environmental and forest clearances, funding and an executing agency.
  • A group under the Chairman of the Central Water Commission was formed to speed consensus among States.
  • An environmental impact assessment now forms part of the feasibility and detailed reports for every link.
• NPP benefits in NWDA’s count: 25 million hectares of irrigation from surface water and 10 million hectares from more use of ground water, raising ultimate potential from 140 to 175 million hectares, and 34,000 MW of power.

Himalayan Rivers Development Component

• What it plans: dams on the main tributaries of the two great Himalayan systems, across India, Nepal and Bhutan, to hold monsoon flow for irrigation, hydropower and flood control.
  • Links carry surplus from the Kosi, Gandak and Ghaghra westward.
  • The Brahmaputra–Ganga link tops up the dry-weather flow of the Ganga.
  • Surplus made available by linking the Ganga and Yamuna would go to the drought-prone parts of Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
• Stated gains:
  • About 14 million hectare-metres of extra water, to irrigate an estimated 22 million hectares in the Ganga–Brahmaputra basin and in Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
  • About 1,120 cumecs at Farakka to flush Kolkata Port, navigation facilities across the country, and flood moderation in the Ganga–Brahmaputra system.
  • Benefits beyond India, to Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh.
• The fourteen links, as listed by 2015: Ghaghra–Yamuna and Sarda–Yamuna, whose feasibility studies were then complete, plus Yamuna–Rajasthan, Rajasthan–Sabarmati, Kosi–Ghaghra, Kosi–Mechi, Manas–Sankosh–Tista–Ganga, Jogighopa–Tista–Farakka, Ganga–Damodar–Subarnarekha, Subarnarekha–Mahanadi, Farakka–Sundarbans, Gandak–Ganga, Chunar–Sone Barrage, and Sone Dam–Southern Tributaries of Ganga. Status has since moved on:

• Limits on what is known: because of the dispute with Bangladesh over sharing the Ganga, few details of this component have been available.
  • Its storages and links are of mammoth size, and size and terrain could bring enormous construction and environmental problems.
• Planning anomalies:
  • With no added storage on the Ganga and Yamuna themselves, their monsoon flows still run to the Bay of Bengal, while large sums go to moving Kosi, Ghaghra, Gandak and Sarda water westward.
  • The Satluj–Yamuna Link, not operational because of an inter-State dispute, would carry water eastward, while the Sarda–Yamuna link would carry it westward over the same belt.
  • The Narmada canal carries water north-west across the Sabarmati, while the Rajasthan–Sabarmati link would carry it south-east.

• On this map, the stars mark feasibility reports completed by an earlier date. The status table gives the current position: for example, the Sarda–Yamuna report has reached the detailed stage, and links 12 and 14 are dropped. Link 16 is the one also listed as Inchampalli Low Dam to the Nagarjunasagar Tail Pond.

Peninsular Rivers Development Component

• The core is the Southern Water Grid, to link the Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, Pennar and Cauvery.
  • Surplus from the Mahanadi and Godavari would pass to the Krishna, Cauvery, Pennar and Vaigai.
  • The plan was to add over 13 million hectares of irrigation.
• Four parts:
  • Diversion of surplus Mahanadi and Godavari flows to the Krishna, Pennar, Cauvery and Vaigai.
  • Diversion of west-flowing rivers of Keralam (Kerala) and Karnataka to the east.
  • Interlinking small west coast rivers north of Mumbai and south of the Tapi.
  • Interlinking the southern tributaries of the Yamuna.
• Thirteen major storage or diversion structures stand in four basins:

• Engineering detail: the Mahanadi link needs a dam at Manibhadra and would cut across east-flowing drainage without any lift.
  • The Godavari gains from the Indravati and Penganga below Shri Ramsagar, leaving a surplus to store at Inchampalli.
  • After watering about 11.5 lakh hectares between the Godavari and Krishna, some 3 cubic km would remain for the Cauvery basin, which could ease the Tamil Nadu–Karnataka dispute.
• A caution from the plan itself: the Mahanadi–Godavari–Krishna–Cauvery chain needs many large dams and big canals, huge outlays, and will shape the region’s economy, society and environment.
  • It is among the largest and most ambitious water transfers conceived, so each component deserves close examination.
  • Availability alone does not justify a transfer. The recipient basin should first put all its own resources to optimum use.
• Sixteen links, with their current status:

• Godavari–Cauvery link: because consensus is pending on the Manibhadra and Inchampalli dams, a first phase combines three of these links to divert unused Godavari water to the Cauvery. Its updated report ends the canal at the Manimukhta, a tributary of the Vellar.
• Polavaram: this national project includes the Godavari–Krishna link, moving 80 TMC of Godavari water to the Krishna. It has 960 MW of planned hydropower and has received central assistance of ₹20,658 crore.
• Modified Parbati–Kalisindh–Chambal: it combines the link with Rajasthan’s Eastern Rajasthan Canal Project. Rajasthan is to use 3,309.83 million cubic metres, of which 1,744.16 is for drinking.

Priority Links

• Why priority links exist: since the whole plan could not move at once, effort went to links where geography and cost looked workable and States might agree.
• Ken–Betwa: the Phase I detailed report was finished in April 2010 and Phase II in January 2014, with techno-economic clearance of Phase I in July 2016.
• Damanganga–Pinjal and Par–Tapi–Narmada: Gujarat, Maharashtra and the Union signed a memorandum on 3 May 2010 for their reports.
  • The Damanganga–Pinjal report came in March 2014. The Par–Tapi–Narmada report came in August 2015 and was modified in April 2017 to bring more tribal areas into its command.
  • In August 2026 the Government listed both as dropped from priority status, so a finished report does not ensure construction.
• Mahanadi–Godavari: described as the mother link of a nine-link chain through the Krishna, Pennar, Palar, Cauvery, Vaigai and Gundar. Consensus with Odisha has been the obstacle, which is why the Godavari–Cauvery alternative took its place.
• Parbati–Kalisindh–Chambal: Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan long differed over its hydrology, until the modified version brought the two States to an agreement.
• Godavari (Polavaram)–Krishna (Vijayawada): Andhra Pradesh took this up as its own project after investment clearance from the Planning Commission.

Intra-State Interlinking

• NWDA was asked to study links within States in the mid-2000s. Its functions were formally extended to intra-State proposals on 28 June 2006, and older accounts give June 2005 for the start of the work.
• No proposals came from Nagaland, Meghalaya, Keralam, Punjab, Delhi, Sikkim and Haryana, or from the Union Territories of Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Daman and Diu, and Lakshadweep.
  • Puducherry later proposed a Pennaiyar–Sankarabarani link, though this is not strictly an intra-State project.
• Early proposals: Maharashtra 20, Bihar 6, Odisha 3, Jharkhand 3, Rajasthan 2, Gujarat 1 and Tamil Nadu 1. These add up to 36 from seven States, and NWDA’s early count stood at 37 intra-State projects.
• Early results: 1 project found infeasible, 20 feasible, 1 withdrawn by Maharashtra, and the others still under study.
• NWDA’s later count: 48 proposals from nine States, adding Karnataka and Chhattisgarh.
  • Pre-feasibility reports exist for 37, and 19 were found not feasible or not accepted. Three were withdrawn.
  • Detailed reports exist for four: Burhi Gandak–Noon–Baya–Ganga and Kosi–Mechi (Bihar), Ponnaiyar–Palar (Tamil Nadu) and Wainganga–Nalganga (Maharashtra).
  • Reports on two Maharashtra links, Damanganga–Godavari and Damanganga–Vaitarna–Godavari, are in progress.

• This map carries the same numbering as the first. Links 12 and 14 here are now dropped.

Benefits, Challenges and the Way Forward

Benefits of River Interlinking

• Floods and droughts: excess water from high-rainfall regions moves to drought-prone ones, so both can be better controlled, and the water crisis eases in many parts.
  • Floods in Bihar and Assam are expected to be reduced.
• Hydropower: the many dams and reservoirs could generate about 34,000 MW if the whole project is built.
• Dry-weather flow: stored surplus can be released in the dry season, keeping a minimum flow in rivers. That helps pollution control, navigation, forests, fisheries and wildlife protection.
• Irrigation: Indian farming depends largely on the monsoon, and output suffers when it misbehaves. Irrigation in water-short places would ease this.
  • The NPP adds 35 million hectares of irrigation benefit.
• Commerce and rural income: better inland waterways cut pressure on road and rail, and fish farming gives villages a further income.
• Defence and security: the links would add a waterline defence.
• Disputes: promoters argue that transfers would help ease inter-State water disputes.

Challenges in River Interlinking

• Feasibility and cost: the project was estimated at about ₹5.6 lakh crore at base-year 2000 prices, or some $120 billion, about a quarter of GDP at the time in critics’ reckoning.
  • The Ken–Betwa link alone now costs ₹44,605 crore.
  • Huge structures require high engineering capacity and manpower.
• Doubtful surplus: climate change could melt about one-third of the Hindu Kush region’s glaciers by 2100, and a 2023 regional assessment put the loss at 30–50% at 1.5–2°C of warming.
  • Himalayan rivers might then lack surplus water for long, so the benefit of massive investment could be short-lived.
  • Many hydrologists doubt that surplus basins exist in any lasting sense.
• Environment: whole ecosystems would change, with harm to the wildlife, flora and fauna of river systems.
  • Many national parks and sanctuaries lie within these systems. At Ken–Betwa, 5,578.92 hectares of Panna Tiger Reserve fall within the forest land required.
  • Less fresh water reaching the sea would affect marine life. Jayanta Bandyopadhyay of IIM Kolkata warned that the mangroves and fisheries of the Bengal delta and Bangladesh could suffer, with salinity spreading into farmland. Large dams bring wider effects as well.
• Society: dams and reservoirs displace people, who must be properly rehabilitated and compensated.
  • Development projects have displaced an estimated 30 million people since Independence, and resettlement has often been weak.
  • In the first link, 22 villages in Panna and Chhatarpur districts are affected, and families protested over surveys and compensation in 2026.
  • Some of the most deprived groups, including tribal and highland people, would get little of the water.
• Flood control is uncertain: some doubt the project’s capacity to control floods. It may work in theory, but big dams like Hirakud and those of the Damodar valley have themselves brought flooding to Odisha and West Bengal.
• Politics and federalism: water is a State subject, so everything turns on inter-State cooperation.
  • Keralam, Andhra Pradesh, Assam and Sikkim have opposed the NRLP.
• International disputes: dams and links in the Himalayan component will affect neighbours, and Bangladesh has objected to moving Brahmaputra water to the Ganga. Neighbouring countries were not consulted on the plan in its early stages.
• Scale and capability of the plan:
  • If a deficit basin like the Sabarmati has only 300 cubic metres a head, it is hard to see how a further 1,400 could be delivered from far away.
  • Critics compare 37 BCM of ground water recharge for ₹24,500 crore with the plan’s 175 BCM for ₹5.6 lakh crore.
  • Bharat Singh, professor emeritus at IIT Roorkee, saw no convincing case for taking up the whole project.
• Canals: transfer by canal requires constant maintenance against sedimentation, waterlogging and seepage.

Major Inter-State River Disputes

• The States that would have to agree on transfers are already in dispute over many of the same rivers:

• On this map, “Madel” is the Madei (Mahadayi), and “Vamasadhara” is the Vamsadhara. The Krishna box should add Telangana, the Godavari box should add Chhattisgarh, and the Mahanadi dispute between Chhattisgarh and Odisha is not marked.

Way Forward

• Integrated water resource management comes first: save every drop, reduce wastage, share resources fairly and raise ground water.
  • Small and simple measures should be tried before very large ones.
• Local solutions, such as better irrigation practice and watershed management, deserve the main focus.
• National Waterways Project (NWP): an alternative to consider, since it claims to eliminate friction between States by using only excess flood water that reaches the sea unused. The existing national waterways are a separate programme.
• Virtual water: rather than moving water, a country can import water-intensive goods. Importing one tonne of wheat saves about 1,300 cubic metres of local water for other uses.
• Case-by-case decisions: each link should be judged on its own need and feasibility, with attention to federal issues.
  • Effort has gone first to links where terrain and cost make a case, the priority links above.
• Small steps: big visions are realised through small steps, so full hydrological, geological, meteorological and environmental analysis, including of alternatives, must precede any big scheme.

The Individual Links

Himalayan Links

Manas–Sankosh–Tista–Ganga (MSTG) Link

• Interlinking the Brahmaputra with the Ganga, the Subarnarekha and the Mahanadi would move Brahmaputra water to benefit parts of Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha.
• The MSTG link is key to this component. It diverts surplus from the Manas and Sankosh in the Brahmaputra basin to raise flows of the Ganga above Farakka.
• Through the Subarnarekha and Mahanadi, it could also connect to the Peninsular component.
• High dams on the Manas and Sankosh would store 8.75 BCM and 4.93 BCM, in a 2002 estimate.
  • Hydropower would carry a substantial part of the dams’ cost.
• The canal:
  • Manas to Sankosh: 114 km long, with a discharge capacity of 3,725 cubic metres a second.
  • Sankosh to the Teesta barrage: 137 km long, with a capacity of 1,092 cubic metres a second.
  • This huge canal would cross major drainage lines and dense forest and populated land.
  • It also runs through the narrow “chicken neck” of West Bengal, north of Bangladesh, which raises security questions.

Ghaghra–Yamuna Link

• An inter-dependent link of the Himalayan component of the NPP. Studies show a surplus in the Ghaghra (Karnali in Nepal) at the proposed Chisapani dam site.
• How it would work: existing needs of the Sarda Sahayak Pariyojna, Saryu Nahar Pariyojna and various pump canals would be met from the proposed Gandak–Ganga link. The water so saved goes from the Chisapani reservoir into the Ghaghra–Yamuna canal.
• Dams: the proposed dam is 175 m high, with a regulating dam downstream at a full reservoir level of 200 m and a minimum drawdown level of 193 m.
• Canal: about 417 km, joining the Yamuna in Etawah district, Uttar Pradesh.
  • Depth falls from 8 m at the head to 5 m at the tail, and width from 85.5 m to 18 m.

Sarda–Yamuna–Rajasthan–Sabarmati Link Canal

• One continuous canal made of three links: Sarda–Yamuna, Yamuna–Rajasthan and Rajasthan–Sabarmati.
• It would divert 17,906 million cubic metres (14.52 MAF) of Himalayan water over 1,835 km, of which 75 km is in Gujarat.
• Four States benefit: Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
• North Gujarat would get about 1,627 million cubic metres (1.32 MAF), only 9% of the divertible water at the head.
• The Rajasthan–Sabarmati section would irrigate 7.38 lakh hectares: 5.35 lakh in Rajasthan and 2.03 lakh in Gujarat.

Yamuna–Rajasthan Link Canal Project

• It extends the proposed Sarda–Yamuna link beyond the Yamuna to irrigate drought-prone parts of Haryana and Rajasthan.
• It would divert 8,657 million cubic metres from the Sarda basin at Purnagiri.
• Route: from the right bank of a proposed Yamuna barrage, through Karnal, Sonipat, Jind, Hisar and Bhiwani in Haryana and Churu, Hanumangarh, Ganganagar, Bikaner, Jodhpur and Jaisalmer in Rajasthan.
  • It ends on the Jaisalmer–Hamira–Shri Mohangarh road, 4.5 km from village Kanod towards Jaisalmer.
• Length: 786 km, with 196 km in Haryana and 590 km in Rajasthan.

Rajasthan–Sabarmati Link Project

• It extends the Yamuna–Rajasthan link, carrying 5,924 million cubic metres from that link’s tail to the drought-prone parts of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
• Length: about 725 km, with 650 km in Rajasthan and 75 km in Gujarat. It would cross the Luni and its tributaries and the Banas.
• Irrigation: 535,000 hectares a year in Jaisalmer, Barmer and Jalore. The two links together would give Rajasthan 779,200 hectares a year.
• The wider western chain: linking the Gandak, Ghaghra, Sarda and Yamuna, all Ganga tributaries, onward to Rajasthan and the Sabarmati would carry Gandak and Ghaghra water to parts of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Bihar and Jharkhand.
• The Kosi–Ghaghra, Gandak–Ganga, Ghaghra–Yamuna and Sarda–Yamuna links would top up the Ganga and Yamuna and send water further west.
• A large canal parallel to and east of the existing Rajasthan canal would run past that canal’s tail and on to the Sabarmati.

Peninsular Links

Mahanadi (Manibhadra)–Godavari (Dowlaiswaram) Link

• This link would run from the Manibhadra reservoir on the Mahanadi to the Dowlaiswaram barrage on the Godavari.

Godavari (Inchampalli)–Krishna (Nagarjunasagar) Link

• It would divert 16,426 million cubic metres from the Inchampalli dam, of which 14,200 goes to the Nagarjunasagar reservoir.
• Length: about 298.7 km, including a 9 km tunnel.

Inchampalli–Pulichintala Link

• It would divert 3,901 million cubic metres of Godavari surplus and 470 for the Inchampalli Right Bank Canal.
• Yearly supply:
  • 1,382 to the existing Nagarjunasagar Left Bank Canal command.
  • 746 to new area, by extending that command.
  • 1,623 to the existing Nagarjunasagar Right Bank Canal command, through the proposed Pulichintala Right Bank Canal.
  • 470 to the Inchampalli Right Bank Canal command.
• Works: besides Inchampalli, a dam at Pulichintala on the Krishna. The lift channel is 270 km, including a 25.5 km tunnel.
• Operation: only 240 days a year, with a head discharge of 263 cubic metres a second.

Godavari (Polavaram)–Krishna (Vijayawada) Link

• It would divert 4,903 million cubic metres:
  • 1,448 for the Polavaram Right Bank Canal (RBC) command.
  • 2,265 for the Krishna delta, as committed under the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal award.
  • 1,190 for the existing ayacut (command area) in the Krishna delta.
• The Polavaram Barrage would send Godavari water to the existing Prakasam Barrage at Vijayawada.
• Canal: 174 km, with a head discharge of 361 cumecs, running all year.

Krishna (Srisailam)–Pennar Link

• It would divert 2,310 million cubic metres from the Srisailam reservoir to the Adinimmayapalli Anicut.
  • The water would mostly flow through natural rivers, with about 2,095 expected to reach Somasila.
  • This is in exchange for Mahanadi surplus transferred through the Godavari to Nagarjunasagar.
• Channel: 171.30 km, with a design discharge of 186 cumecs, running 180 days a year.

Krishna (Nagarjunasagar)–Pennar (Somasila) Link

• It would divert 12,146 million cubic metres from Nagarjunasagar to the Pennar at Somasila.
  • 2,356 would irrigate part of the Nagarjunasagar Right Bank Canal command.
  • About 810 would go to en-route irrigation.
  • 8,648 would reach the Somasila reservoir.
• En-route irrigation is built into most link canals, since farmers along the route would otherwise be likely to oppose the transfer.
• Canal: 394 km, with a design discharge of 555 cumecs, running 240 days a year.

Pennar (Somasila)–Cauvery (Grand Anicut) Link

• It would move 8,565 million cubic metres from the Pennar to the Cauvery:
  • 3,170 for en-route irrigation.
  • 279 for en-route domestic and industrial use.
  • 876 for Chennai’s water supply.
  • 3,855 to the Cauvery at the Grand Anicut.
  • About 385 lost in transit.
• Canal: 538 km, with a design discharge of 616.38 cumecs, running all 365 days.

Cauvery (Kattalai Regulator)–Vaigai–Gundar Link

• It would move 2,252 million cubic metres from the Cauvery to the Vaigai, irrigating 353,337 hectares a year.
• Canal: 250 km and lined, with full supply levels of 100.75 m at the head and 78.865 m at the tail, running all year.

Krishna (Almatti)–Pennar Link

• Canal: 587 km, from the right bank of the Almatti dam in Karnataka, at a full supply level (FSL) of 510.00 m.
• Route: through Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to join the Maddileru, a Pennar tributary, near Malakavemula village.
  • A balancing reservoir is proposed at Kalavapalli in Anantapur district, and the canal would also feed the Bukkapatnam tank across the Chitravathi.
• Use: about 1,980 million cubic metres in the Kharif season, irrigating about 70,000 hectares in Karnataka and 190,000 hectares in Anantapur. A further 56 is for domestic and industrial use.
  • Ground water recharge could rise around the Kalavapalli reservoir and the Bukkapatnam tank.

Ken–Betwa Link

• With the Parbati–Kalisindh–Chambal link, this has received the Government’s most urgent attention. It moves surplus from the Ken basin to the water-short Betwa basin, and it is the first to enter implementation.
• Current scheme (August 2026):
  • The 96.7 m Daudhan Dam on the Ken in Panna and Chhatarpur districts, about 40 km from Khajuraho, with a 216.465 km canal to Barua Sagar near Jhansi.
  • Associated works are the Lower Orr Project, Kotha Barrage and Bina Complex Multipurpose Project.
  • Benefits: irrigation of 10.62 lakh hectares, drinking water for about 62 lakh people, 103 MW of hydropower and 27 MW of solar power.
  • Cost: ₹44,605 crore, of which ₹12,381.94 crore had been spent by June 2026.
  • Status: the foundation stone was laid on 25 December 2024. The dam is under construction and canal work is yet to begin, with completion scheduled for 2030.
• Design figures in the earlier project report:
  • Water balance at Daudhan: the 75% dependable yield is 6,188 million cubic metres, with 3,291 net after upstream needs.
  • Downstream commitments: 2,225, being 1,375 for Madhya Pradesh and 850 for Uttar Pradesh, under the 1981 inter-State agreement on the Ken.
  • Surplus for diversion: 1,020, of which 659 goes to the Betwa above Parichha weir and 312 to the en-route command.
  • Dam: earthen, 2.5 km upstream of the existing Gangau weir, with two power houses (3 x 20 MW and 2 x 6 MW), one of them a pumped storage scheme.
  • Canal: about 230 km, with a head discharge of 72 cumecs, ending in the existing Barua Sagar reservoir and joining the Betwa through a natural stream above Parichha weir.
  • Irrigation: about 1.27 lakh hectares in Raisen and Vidisha, and 47,000 hectares en route in Chhatarpur, Tikamgarh, Hamirpur and Jhansi.
  • Drinking water: 11.75 million cubic metres for en-route villages in the same four districts.
• Official position on its limits (August 2026):
  • It will strengthen drought resilience in its command, but the Ministry does not claim it will eliminate drought from Bundelkhand.
  • Any rise in ground water will depend on local hydrogeology and on how the water is used.
  • A continuous environmental flow is to be released below the dam.
• Resettlement: Madhya Pradesh approved a Special Package in September 2023.
  • Land is paid for at the legal rate or ₹12.50 lakh per hectare, whichever is higher, with a plot grant of ₹7 lakh in rural areas or a lump sum of ₹12.50 lakh in its place.
  • Across the project, awards of about ₹629.87 crore had been passed for 5,039 families, and about 96% had been paid, by August 2026.
  • The Ministry rejected allegations of inadequate compensation in the same month.
• The main concerns are the forest land in Panna Tiger Reserve and the resettlement of these 22 villages.

Par–Tapi–Narmada Link Canal

• It would divert surplus from the Par, Auranga, Ambica, Purna and Tapi to the Vadodara branch of the Narmada command.
• Volumes: about 1,350 million cubic metres through the Par–Tapi canal up to Ukai Dam, and 2,904 through the Tapi–Narmada canal, including 1,554 of Tapi surplus at Ukai.
• Length: 402 km, being 177 km for Par–Tapi and 225 km for Tapi–Narmada.
• Reservoirs: seven in an upstream catchment of 2,573 sq km. The canal passes through dense forest and hills.

Damanganga–Pinjal Link Canal

• It has reservoirs at Bhugad and Khargihill:

• Tunnels: a 16.85 km pressure tunnel of 5.00 m diameter joins the two, and a 25.70 km tunnel of 5.25 m joins Khargihill to the Pinjal reservoir.
• Purpose: surplus goes on to Greater Mumbai, with about 909 million cubic metres a year for a city whose domestic and industrial supply is inadequate.
• Location: partly in Valsad (Gujarat), partly in Nashik and Thane (Maharashtra).
  • The Bhugad dam on the Damanganga intercepts 141 sq km of catchment in Gujarat, near Bhugad village in Nashik and Modushi village in Valsad.
  • The Khargihill dam would stand on the Vagh near Behapada village in Thane.
  • Both tunnels lie entirely in Maharashtra.

Pamba–Achankovil–Vaippar Link Project

• It has three storage reservoirs, two tunnels, a canal system and some power units.
• Reservoir 2, Punnamedu, on the Pamba Kal Ar in Keralam, meets some or all of its downstream needs and sends surplus to reservoir 1 through tunnel 2.
• Reservoir 1, Achankovil Kal Ar, on the Achankovil Kal Ar in Keralam, supplies irrigation water to Tamil Nadu through tunnel 1 to the main canal, which serves the Vaippar basin command.
  • It also releases 10 million cubic metres daily over six peak-load hours to generate power.
• Reservoir 3, Achankovil, on the Achankovil in Keralam, acts as a pumped storage pool for that water and meets downstream needs.
  • The 10 million cubic metres are pumped back to reservoir 1 over 16 hours, and surplus in reservoir 3 can also go up to reservoir 1 when that runs short.