Inconsistency, or A Conspiracy? - The Ganga: Water Use in the Indian Subcontinent - page 109

Table 8.1 Comparison of projected discharge by different experts

Dr.K.L.
Rao 1962
(at
Feeder
canal)
(cusec)

Project report
1962 (at
Feeder
canal)
(cusec)

Dr. Hensen (Kalna)

Sl
No. Period

1968
(cusecs)

1971
(cusecs) 1957 (cusecs)

12 3 4 5 6 7

1) 1st January to

Mid-March

40,000 Minimum

40,000

Higher
than
40,000

40,000 40,000-

20,000

2) Mid-March to
Mid-May

40,000-20,000 -do- (46,000) 20,000 Up to

20,000

3) Mid-May to
Mid-June

Up to 40,000 -do- -do- 20,000 20,000-

40,000

4) Mid-June to
End of June

40,000-60,000 -do- -do- 20,000 40,000

5) July to

Mid-September

60,000-140,000
-80,000

-do- -do- 20,000 40,000

6) Mid-September to
End of December

80,000-40,000 -do- -do- 40,000 40,000

Other experts and specialized institutions had recommended minimum releases
through Farakka Barrage as under:
Table 7.1 shows that the figures in the project report and of Dr. Rao tally with
those in Dr. Hensen's proposal in 1957, though after a gap of 5 and 15 years,
respectively but in 1967, Dr. Hensen had changed his figures after studying the
new hydraulic and morphological data of the river and of the conditions prevail-
ing at Calcutta port. Work on the barrage started in 1963 and went on till 1975.
The discharge figures could be modified and Dr. Rao could have reviewed the fresh
figures, based on the observations of Dr. Hensen in 1967 and 1971. This was not
done. Moreover, the figures for the lean season were further reduced in the project
report and also by Dr. Rao, against Dr. Hensen's recommendations. This was unfor-
tunate, as the basic interests of Calcutta port were not safeguarded, while preparing
the project report. Therefore, the objections by the Government of West Bengal and
various individuals merit consideration.
Another point is to be noted with interest. Dr. Hensen's recommendations for
discharge were for the river at Kalna, about 40 km below Nabadweep where the
Bhagirathi is joined by the Jalangi, and about 310 km downstream of Farakka. It
was most unlikely, therefore, that the lean-season flow at Farakka, will not reach
Kalna after various losses and uses. Contributions from the tributaries within this
reach in lean season will be practically nil; on the contrary, there could be back-flow
to the tributaries. These were neither considered in the project report, nor by Dr. Rao
in his Parliamentary statements. Moreover, most experts veered to the requirement
of discharge, at least, or more than, 40,000 cusecs but the Head Regulator and the