The core dispute over the Ken-Betwa project isn't merely about "how much water is there," but rather "in which year, at what location, and based on what dependable flow is the water classified as surplus?" To understand the objections raised by the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in the context of the river's hydrology is to raise serious questions about the project's foundational premise.
The government's hydrological basis for the project is that at the Daudhan dam site, the 75% dependable flow of the Ken River—roughly estimated between 6,188 and 6,590 Million Cubic Metres (MCM)—is consistently available. After deducting various upstream and ecological requirements, the government considers about 1,074 MCM as surplus, which it plans to divert to the Betwa basin. However, this does not mean the Ken will have this much water every year. It broadly implies that, based on historical flow series, there is a certain statistical probability of this volume being available. But a river's actual flow fluctuates wildly from year to year and season to season. This is precisely where the CEC has raised its concerns.
Both the Ken and the Betwa rely on virtually the same monsoon system. The catchments of both rivers depend predominantly on monsoon rainfall. The CEC noted that the average rainfall in both river valleys is around 90 cm, and in dry years, actual availability could fall drastically short of the project's hydrological estimates. In hydrological terms, this means that when the Betwa needs water the most, the Ken is likely to be running short as well. The issue, therefore, is not just about the residual annual water volume, but about the temporal availability of water. If the Ken receives abundant water in a year with a normal monsoon, a surplus will appear. But if the following year brings a weak monsoon and the Ken's flow drops sharply, that same surplus water will vanish. Thus, declaring a river "surplus" solely on the basis of its annual total is hydrologically incomplete.
The most crucial question is: Who does the water of the Upper Ken belong to first? This is the most significant part of the CEC's objection. Irrigation development in the upper catchment of the Ken is still limited. The CEC has pointed out that if the Ken's available water is already committed to the Lower Ken and Upper Betwa, the scope for developing small-scale irrigation projects for the farmers of the Upper Ken basin in the future will be severely constrained. The question, then, is not whether there is surplus water in the Ken today, but how much water actually remains after meeting the current and future local water needs of the entire Ken catchment? According to the CEC, it is premature to label the Ken as a "donor" basin without adequately answering this question.
In hydrology, calculating for dry years is far more critical than relying on average years. In water resource projects, a water balance based on normal years is insufficient. Especially in drought-prone regions like Bundelkhand, low-flow years and consecutive drought years are what truly matter. The CEC warned that in both catchments, which receive an average rainfall of about 90 cm, river flows during drought years could be significantly lower than projected. This hydrological risk is the central issue in the Ken-Betwa project.
The government argues that the National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, has studied the project's hydrology and the Central Water Commission has reviewed it. According to the government, at 75% dependability, the water volume in the Ken is sufficient, and even after accounting for upstream and ecological needs, water is available for the project. But "surplus" is not a permanent state. This issue has become even more critical today because climate change is increasing the spatial and temporal uncertainty of the monsoon. An excessive flood flow in a river during a specific period does not prove that the river is surplus throughout the year or every year. In hydrology, this is known as flow variability. A river can experience massive flooding for a few weeks and then run almost dry for several months—both phenomena can occur in the same river. Therefore, the logic that "if there is a flood, the water is surplus, and if another area is in drought, just transfer the water," is an extreme oversimplification of river systems.
Furthermore, water scarcity is not merely a problem of volume. A large part of Bundelkhand's problem is tied to the rainfall-runoff relationship—the excess rainwater that fails to percolate into the ground—and local water harvesting. In Bundelkhand, a large portion of the rainfall occurs in just a few monsoon events. If this rainwater is arrested locally through ponds, farm ponds, check dams, recharge structures, and watershed treatment, that same rainwater can translate into groundwater recharge and local irrigation. The CEC also questioned whether adequate studies were conducted on options to make existing water resources and projects more efficient before opting for a massive inter-basin transfer. Yet, why is the project moving forward?
The World Meteorological Organization’s report, *State of Global Water Resources 2025*, indicates that the Earth's natural water "savings account" is depleting rapidly, and the water cycle has become highly unstable. The year 2025 was among the driest in the last 35 years; nearly 36% of river basins recorded below-normal flows, and for the seventh consecutive year, basins with normal flows were in the minority.
This is where the issue transcends hydrology and enters the realm of policy and political economy. Ken-Betwa is no longer just an irrigation project; it is the first priority link of the National Perspective Plan for interlinking rivers in India, which has now reached the implementation stage. According to the government, its estimated cost is now around ₹44,605 crore, with central assistance of ₹39,317 crore. Thus, there are multiple layers behind the project, including presenting a political solution to water scarcity in Bundelkhand, which is a major component of the river-linking programme. Consequently, despite the CEC's hydrological objections, halting the project by merely asking "Is there water in the Ken?" has not been politically or institutionally easy.
The right scientific question should be: After meeting the current and future ecological, domestic, agricultural, and downstream needs of the Ken basin, and factoring in drought and climate variability, what volume of water will be reliably available as transferable surplus, and for how many years? The second question is: Could the same water be made available to more people at a lower cost and with less environmental damage through local water harvesting and developing irrigation in the Upper Ken? If curbing a river's own catchment's future irrigation potential is the prerequisite to proving it is "surplus," is it truly a surplus river, or are we simply declaring it surplus to suit our planning needs?
Today, as the project moves towards construction, the answer to this question must come from an independent, public, and re-verified hydrological assessment—one that specifically incorporates the changing monsoon patterns and the escalating risks of drought.
---
*With Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Association
Comments