Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

India Is Building a Mega-River (hakaimagazine.com) 75

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
India is set to embark on an ambitious $168 billion project to link its major rivers, aiming to address water scarcity and boost agriculture in the world's most populous nation. The National River Linking Project, conceived over a century ago, plans to construct 30 canals to transfer an estimated 7 trillion cubic feet of water annually across the country. While government officials tout the project's potential to irrigate farmland and generate hydroelectric power, scientists and environmental experts have raised concerns about its ecological impact. Recent research suggests the project could disrupt monsoon patterns, potentially exacerbating water stress in some regions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India Is Building a Mega-River More

India Is Building a Mega-River

Comments Filter:
  • It is all gone, everywhere in the country. Sounds about as good an idea as a one world economy or a one world society.

    • Re:So when the water is gone. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Seven Spirals ( 4924941 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @01:09PM (#64577209)
      Not only that, but they are mostly fed by Himalayan glaciers which are looking to play out eventually. That's not climate doom, that's simply measuring their retreat year over year (easily observable facts). The Gangotri Glacier is receding by about 15 meters per year, while other glaciers like Dokriani are retreating at 15-20 meters per year. This means that most (especially in the East) will be more than 60% depleted by 2100 at the current rate of melt. So, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
      • Sounds like the Modi Craps have learned nothing from what the USA learned with Florida and Louisiana's destruction, especially what happened to the Kissimmee... [weatherandradar.co.uk]
      • Is that also the area currently occupied by China? Which has it's own priorities for where that water should go?
        • China has extensive hydropower projects in Tibet, including the construction of dams on the Mekong River. The Yarlung Tsangpo River originates in Tibet and flows into India as the Brahmaputra River. China has considered building large-scale water diversion projects, including dams and tunnels, to redirect water from this river for its own use. These could significantly reduce the flow of water downstream, screwing water availability in northeastern India and Bangladesh.
          • thanks for sharing. Yep, the kindly and peace-loving Chinese will surely share equally with their brethren and sistren all over the area. I am sure if it.
            • for the sarcasm-impaired, that above was 100% sarcasm
            • It's complicated, but China seems to have no problem at all throwing it's weight around so far. I expect things will get worse, but probably not until there is a crisis in Indian farmland or Chinese soldiers misbehave at the border again.
              • Yep. I mean, apparently the world was owned by China some few millenia ago, according to Chinese historical documents, written in Comic Sans, and so China is "well within it's rights" to demand all those countries come back into the fold... You know, like Vietnam was supposed to?

                • Re: (Score:3)

                  by hey! ( 33014 )

                  The true basis of China's ability to claim anything is its overwhelming economic might, which in turn is based on its enormous and relatively well-educated work force. China's growth over the past thirty years wasn't some kind of miracle; it was harnessing a vast and largely untapped reservoir of productivity.

                  That's about to change, very soon. The size of the working age population is declining rapidly. What's more that working population is showing structural inefficiencies, with unemployment high and e

                  • thank you for the enlightenment. Over the past 60 or so years, it seems China has been doing a lot of long term planning, which, to be honest, did not always work out the way they wanted it to... Take the one child policy, which has led to not only a shortage of women but also a desire amongst many available Chinese women that they would prefer a western man.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Ed_1024 ( 744566 )

        I can assure you having been in Kolkata and Dhaka during the monsoon, glaciers are are minor part of the equation. In Meghalaya State they measure the annual rainfall in metres, not cm.

        Like food, there is enough water for everyone if it is distributed fairly and used economically.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rei ( 128717 )

      The scale of the project is crazy [b-cdn.net].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      This is likely just another important asshole wanting a monument for himself.

  • What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @12:48PM (#64577135)

    Huge water projects all over the world have had such a stellar record with respect to unintended consequences.

    • Not saying you're wrong, but how about a few examples?

        • New Orleans?

          Counter example: Amsterdam.

          • Fair. Different nation, different outcome.

            • OK..
              Same nation as New Orleans... California Aqueduct and Los Angeles. Large Water project with pretty spectacular results.

              • Yes, spectacular failure to refill aquifers causing sinkholes and subsidence.

                • So then...
                  When nature changes and we end up with sinkholes and empty aquifers it's okay, but when humans do it, it's wrong?

                  • So then... When nature changes and we end up with sinkholes and empty aquifers it's okay, but when humans do it, it's wrong?

                    Yes, because "nature" isn't a sentient force doing things for its own benefit. "Nature" is simply animals acting on instinct, combined with the physics and chemistry of the environment. Now quit asking the same obnoxious question over and over again.

                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                    • "Nature" is simply animals acting on instinct, combined with the physics and chemistry of the environment.

                      oh you mean like when human scientists produce potassium benzoate in a lab? why exactly is that seperate from nature? global warming is by definition a natural process. humans arent supernatural or apart from nature

                      Humans have sentience. We exist beyond our instincts. We have very much been apart from nature for centuries.

                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • Some CA cities have begun recycling gray water. It's a crappy situation.

          • There were no ecological effects to the Netherlands reclaiming land? No creatures were displaced? Pretty sure the existing ecology was entirely upended from being an ocean to being land.

            Status Quo today doesn't mean it wasn't ecologically devastating to what *was* there.

            • There were no ecological effects to the Netherlands reclaiming land? No creatures were displaced? Pretty sure the existing ecology was entirely upended from being an ocean to being land.

              Status Quo today doesn't mean it wasn't ecologically devastating to what *was* there.

              Not claiming that. The OP was "unintended consequences" and the example given was New Orleans which is perpetually ready to sink to be overwhelmed by a storm.

              Besides, Mother Nature provides ecological impacts as well... but for some reason people think it's okay when that happens. /shrug/

              • Yes you are claiming there weren't unintended consequences to Netherlands reclaiming land.

                "Counter Example"

                • Please stop moving the goal posts. You're making the conversation annoying.

                • Upending the existing ecology is only an unintended consequence if it was unintentional. Upending an existing ecology to create an ecology more favorable for human habitation wasn't an unintended consequence, it's more like that was the plan.
              • yep, and another example of when people think things having horrendous consequences is fine, unless they are done by (insert other group here)... the Hopi Native Americans pretty much destroyed the ecology in/around Arizona, creating much of the desert there now, but that was thousands of years ago, so it is okay, or the misconception that many idiots have that Native Americans lived an idyllic life with no wars and completely cared for the land... BS, Native Americans had plenty of wars way before white pe
            • it wasn't ocean, it was swamp. sure, I bet lots of critters that lived in the swamp were either destroyed or had to relocate on their own. But it wasn't ocean to begin with.

      • Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Informative)

        by higuita ( 129722 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @01:04PM (#64577191) Homepage

        well, the biggest one is this one:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        diverting water to other places may trigger unexpected consequences... and after the channels and water transfers have started, not even a dying inner sea was enough to stop doing that, as soo many other things are now dependent of those transfers

        • Wow. I learned about the Aral Sea back in the 70s. I have not really paid much attention to it since then. Fuck. An entire inland sea just gone. It may make a return though, but large bodies of water like that are not supposed to disappear within a single lifetime. It was one of the largest fresh water bodies on this planet. It was notable enough for me to learn about it in Geography... and it is gone. Wow.

          And I thought the Salton Sea was bad... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by higuita ( 129722 )

            all studies show that the aral sea will not return, the north and west parts could be saved (more water available in the north, deeper in the west) , but the central/south is almost impossible. Even closing/destroying all the channels, irritations and dams, would take centuries to be able to start filling that area, as the lack of water makes temperatures higher and any arriving water easier to evaporate and so keeping the cycle. It doesn't rain/snow enough amount that could saved it after the levels reach

      • The Aral Sea, the Three Gorges Dam, and the Nile River Basin project in Ethiopia.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          On the flip side there are man-made-lakes, reservoirs, and locks all across the USA that, are enjoyed by millions for recreation, serve their communities as water supplies and enable commerce and transportation of goods.

          These projects larger worked out just about exactly as near to what was expected as anything involving implements as gross as a bulldozer and dynamite sticks every could be expected to do. While they no doubt destroyed a lot of habitat they also created new habitat and natural spaces.

          Its lik

    • Fair point, and I'm not judging yet whether India's project is a good one. However, if we accept that much of what we deal with on Earth is fairly "random", what is the harm in derandomizing?

      • Invasive species are reducing randomization.

        Asian Carp in the Mississippi. Zebra muscles in the Great Lakes. Lion fish in the Caribbean.

        Nature's success is variation. Uniformity a weakness as any vulnerability is now for everything.

        • Fair, but to suggest that any species was never invasive in its own right is silly.

          • You posited reducing randomization wasn't a problem.

            It is. When nature reduces it's randomization it usually results in mass die offs - lemmings, locusts for example.

            • You posited reducing randomization wasn't a problem.

              It is.

              I did no such thing, unless asking the question is "positing" these days?

              When nature reduces it's randomization it usually results in mass die offs - lemmings, locusts for example.

              It sounds like nature is no worse or better than man, in that regard. No? (Again, not positing... asking a question...)

              • Literally each time I provide you with an answer to your 'question' you downplay it as "well nature does it too"

                Yes you are clearly saying you don't think it's not bad.

                I'm done here.

                • The key phrase was "just asking questions", which is the go-to for attempting to stop accusations of arguing in bad faith.

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • We need a new river. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @12:53PM (#64577155)

    India going to build a new river because they ran out of rivers to put their garbage in.

    I would love to say that "I kid, I kid" but no, the major reason India has such an issue with their water supply is because they keep fucking putting trash by the metric ton into their rivers and hoping that, IDK maybe Shiva will come down and make it disappear.

    scientists and environmental experts have raised concerns about its ecological impact

    Everything in India is an ecological train wreck. There's literally nothing that goes on in the country that doesn't impact the environment in about the same way a M198 howitzer impacts an Iraqi encampment. Truth be told that's a bit hyperbole. The country is doing green projects but goddamn if India doesn't on the daily offset any goodwill towards the planet with monumental levels of pollution and destruction, by at least three orders of magnitude on "good days".

    So they want to call it a river. I think the more apt name is trash distribution system. They'd like to add a new route.

    • scientists and environmental experts have raised concerns about its ecological impact

      Every. Single. Project. ...has an ecological impact.

      Mother Nature has an ecological impact too.

      • Yes. Do you mean to imply that any given impact is equivalent to another for some reason?

        • Yes. Do you mean to imply that any given impact is equivalent to another for some reason?

          I'm implying that too often experts have concerns that are no more insightful than those who are not experts to the point of rhetoric. "Dog poops on grass"... the experts tell me that'll impact the lawn.

          • But we are talking about redirecting a river, not spraying the dandelions in the lawn and the impact on bumblebees. It's just kinda pointless anti-intellectualism.
          • "Dog poops on grass"... the experts tell me that'll impact the lawn.

            If you've ever owned a dog, you'll know this to be true. Dog poop will kill your grass. No expert needed.

            The difference between nature doing something and man doing something is scale. When a river floods its banks sure, houses will be destroyed, crops ruined, etc., but that's only within a very short distance from the river. Generally, by the next year, crops can once again be grown and houses are being rebuilt.

            When man

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        Well, sure. Every civil engineering project is something that would concern an enviornmental scientist, but an individual bridge or a highway, while potentially harmful, isn't going to be a national catastrophe.

        This, on the other hand, is a megaproject that aims to completely re-engineer the water sources for 1.4 billion people and fundamentally alter the hydrology of 3.3 million square kilometers of land.

        A firecracker and a stick of dynamite are both pyrotechnic devices that have the capacity to cause har

    • not just trash, untreated sewage. SOOOOO much untreated sewage.
    • No, they need this [linkedin.com] to solve their problems with water.
    • Their biggest ecological disaster is their ridiculously massive population. I know individually everyone deserves a right at life and shot. But they act like passing up China in population is a good thing. It would only be a good things if the existing population were not destroying the ecology of their country in an ever accelerating rate. As it in on the scale of a nation verse and individual or even a town, they barreling headlong off a cliff. They are going to need more than an umbrella to stop the fall

  • "Let us deplete this over-used critical resource even faster"

    This will end poorly.

    • They have a 1.4 billion people and nukes. When they run out of water, you better believe it will end poorly.

      • I'm sure they can work something out with China's nuclear-backed 1.4 billions. What could possibly go wrong?

  • This does not bode well:

    Thakkar was part of a Supreme Court–appointed committee on river linking but says he was not allowed to review the hydrological data behind the plan’s logic of defining certain watersheds as surplus basins and others as sites with water deficits.

    Sounds like fundamentally this is at least as much a mega-corruption project as it is a mega-engineering project.

  • The haven't considered all the downstream effects.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close