Some of the so-called larger issues being raised are tiresome repetitions. The argument of a small dam is based on the entire river being diverted into the Narmada main canal, sending more water into Saurashtra. This was earlier pooh-poohed but is at least now being accepted as a great engineering feat. That Saurashtra needs a larger inflow of water is beyond doubt, although some environmentalists contested this earlier. A well-known study by the present writer with Vora and Parikh has provided rigorous hydrological proof that the Saurashtra reservoirs (small dams?) do not help much. When it rains the farmer does not need water, and when it does not there is no water in the dams, since the catchment and command have the same rainfall regime. Hence the SSP water was doubly blessed.

The Narmada planners had wanted to take more water into Saurashtra by a higher lift and a garden canal in the plateaux, and proposed this in the published plan in a chapter called ‘Planning for Augmented Options’. But they knew that when Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra use up their share there would not be enough assured water. The proponents of the small dam proudly give Gujarat more water with a small dam, but don’t say that they are taking it away from the other states or other regions in Gujarat. The further arguments that the deficits would be met by integrating canals with village ponds and groundwater is ridiculous, since this integration was there in the SSP plan from the word go. In fact the famous Sherdi branch experiment in the Mahi canals was done on the SSP model to show that this was physically feasible. It does not take any reviews to show that there are no free lunches.

... contd.