Amidst water disputes, river ecology Is the forgotten stakeholder

By Bharat Dogra 

There are several international and regional disputes over the sharing of river waters, and these are likely to worsen in times of increasing water scarcity. Which country or region should get a larger share of water? Which province should get more? These are questions that often stir strong emotions on all sides. Politicians frequently inflame these passions further. A common statement made by many of them is: "I will not give even a drop of extra water to the other side."

Those asked to mediate and find workable solutions to such disputes are often influenced by this rhetoric. Their focus tends to be on reaching a compromise that satisfies all parties or at least creates a common ground—even if this comes at the cost of sacrificing critical aspects of river ecology.

Politicians and pressure groups have loud voices, but rivers and fish cannot speak in ways that are heard by decision-makers. As a result, the protection of river ecology and aquatic life often goes unrepresented in water-sharing negotiations. In the United States and some other countries, indigenous communities have occasionally stepped forward to advocate for the protection of rivers and riverine life, including endangered species.

Technocrats, who often play key roles in river-related decisions, frequently lack a deep understanding of river ecology. They tend to favor excessive exploitation of river water, including large-scale diversions and long-distance transfers, regardless of the ecological consequences. These actions are typically supported by powerful business interests.

In the current decision-making climate, two important aspects are often overlooked. First, a river’s natural and uninterrupted flow serves vital ecological functions. Second, while transferring water over long distances is often justified as a solution to regional water scarcity, it is frequently forgotten that more sustainable, eco-friendly, and less costly local solutions are generally available.

Rather than building massive projects that impede a river’s natural flow and cause numerous social and ecological harms, a better approach is to promote smaller structures, bunds, and afforestation projects aimed at capturing and conserving rainwater locally. Such initiatives enhance water security in villages, help maintain year-round water balance, and reduce the risks of both floods and droughts. Traditional water harvesting and conservation methods—adapted to regional conditions—have shown great promise and delivered significant results at low cost in many places.

Technocrats, supported by large construction companies, often push back against the scientifically proven and commonly understood reality that free-flowing rivers offer numerous benefits. They support fish populations and aquatic life, foster biodiversity along riverbanks, and provide irrigation and water for other essential uses. These rivers help maintain groundwater levels across vast areas, deposit fertile silt for productive farming, and support livelihoods related to agriculture, boats, and fisheries. In their lower reaches near the sea, rivers play a crucial role in sustaining the ecology of coastal areas, including mangroves and deltas.

Once this is better understood, it becomes clear that river engineering projects—such as dams, barrages, and embankments—can disrupt these benefits and introduce new ecological risks.

While these concerns have always been important, they have become even more critical in the context of climate change, which brings added uncertainties and threats.

Therefore, long-overdue changes in how we understand rivers and river projects are urgently needed. We must plan more wisely to protect rivers and utilize their water in ways that serve human needs while minimizing ecological harm.

---

The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Man over Machine, and A Day in 2071