Modi's Development B Damned Opinion » Comment ...
https://plus.google.com/.../posts/HeYF4bHVZjy
16 hours ago - Modi's Development B Damned Opinion » Comment December 16, 2014 Updated: December 16, 2014 01:56 IST Damned by development Kavita Upadhyay in ...Opinion » Comment
December 16, 2014
Updated: December 16, 2014 01:56 IST
Damned by development
Reuters
“Residents blamed muck deposition from the Srinagar hydroelectric
project for raising the Alaknanda river bed, which flooded the
downstream areas of the town.” Picture shows soldiers repairing a
footbridge during the 2013 floods.
Though the Union Environment Ministry acknowledges its damage, Uttarakhand’s hydroelectric project-driven development agenda remains unchanged
Chaaen, a village atop a hill in the picturesque Alaknanda Valley, is
infamous for getting a hydroelectric project into trouble. I first
visited the village last year while covering the worst flood disaster Uttarakhand had witnessed.
On June 26, 2013, as I stood at Narendra Singh’s verandah in Chaaen, I
noticed how the walls had developed cracks and the verandah itself stood
at a minor angle.
“The reason,” Narendra explained, “is that the land beneath is sinking.
In 2007, the tunnel of the Vishnuprayag hydroelectric project (400 MW)
that passes under the hill, on which Chaaen stands, had started
leaking.”
Project authorities, however, denied any leakage.
The evidence of disaster was visible across the village — there were
dried springs, perished agriculture and sinking land. And this was not
the only village in the State where all this could be seen.
I learnt about the problems created by dams in Srinagar town, a part of
which got buried as the Alaknanda River gushed past the area. The
residents blamed muck deposition from the Srinagar hydroelectric project
(330 MW) for raising the river bed, which eventually flooded the
downstream areas of the town.
Local residents in every village I visited pointed an accusing finger at
the dams being constructed as responsible for the massive floods. At
Govindghat, residents complained about the damage to the Vishnuprayag
hydroelectric project’s barrage. Kushal Singh Rawat, who lived a
kilometre downstream of the barrage, recalled: “In Lambagar, the entire
market... around 40 stores, agricultural land, vehicles, houses, a
primary school, the Panchayat Bhawan... all got swept away.”
“The State seems keen on building large hydroelectric projects to fulfil its lopsided development agenda”
A year later, an ongoing case in the Supreme Court has brought back
attention to questions of the viability of hydroelectric projects in
Uttarakhand. In the most recent development, the Union Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) submitted an affidavit
in the Supreme Court on December 5 accepting that the hydroelectric
projects “aggravated the impact of floods.”
While the MoEFCC’s stance has been welcomed by environmentalists, it has
delivered a blow to the Uttarakhand government and the companies
building these projects as the State’s development agenda is linked to
its capacity to generate hydroelectric power.
In the backdrop of the 2013 Uttarakhand flood, the Supreme Court had directed the Union Environment Ministry to constitute an expert body
to assess whether hydroelectric projects, both those existing and those
under construction, have contributed to the environmental degradation
in the State and, if so, to what extent, and also whether it has
contributed to the disaster.
In the same order, the Supreme Court also ordered the Ministry to
examine whether the 24 projects mentioned by the Wildlife Institute of
India in its report are causing significant impact on the biodiversity
of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins.
The expert body submitted its report — the Chopra Committee Report
— to the MoEF in April this year. A member of the Central Electricity
Authority (CEA) and another of the Central Water Commission (CWC), who
disagreed with the expert body, submitted a separate report to the MoEF.
While the Chopra Committee report elucidated the catastrophic role
played by the hydroelectric projects during the deluge, the CEA-CWC
report mentioned there was “no link, direct or indirect, between the
developments of hydroelectric projects with the Uttarakhand tragedy.”
In the December 5 affidavit, the MoEFCC dismissed the CEA-CWC report.
The proceedings in the Supreme Court therefore are now based on the
findings, observations, and recommendations of the Chopra Committee
report.
What the report says
The Chopra Committee Report presents a strong case against projects between 2,200 and 2,500 metres above the sea level — paraglacial regions — which have loose glacial debris (moraines) which when carried downstream can be disastrous, as was witnessed in the Vishnuprayag project, during the 2013 deluge. Some of the projects among the 24 lie in the paraglacial regions.
The Chopra Committee Report presents a strong case against projects between 2,200 and 2,500 metres above the sea level — paraglacial regions — which have loose glacial debris (moraines) which when carried downstream can be disastrous, as was witnessed in the Vishnuprayag project, during the 2013 deluge. Some of the projects among the 24 lie in the paraglacial regions.
The report states that intensive debris was brought to the hydropower
projects along with the river water due to flash floods. The report
quotes data from a geochemical analysis which shows significant presence
of muck from the Srinagar project. According to the analysis, the muck
from the dam site was present in a quantity that varied between 47 per
cent near the dam site to 23 per cent in the downstream areas.
Though the CWC, the State, and the THDC (Tehri Hydro Development
Corporation) officials claimed that the Tehri dam saved places such as
Rishikesh and Hardwar from getting flooded during the deluge, the expert
body states in its report that the Tehri dam has not been designed for
the purpose of flood control and can retain water only up to their Full
Reservoir Level (FRL). The report states that during the pre-monsoon
time the reservoir has the capacity to retain the waters and save the
downstream areas from getting flooded, but in the year 2010, the water
levels had risen beyond the permitted FRL and the upstream areas like
Chinyalisaur were inundated.
Skewed development agenda
Though the Union Environment Ministry acknowledges the damage caused by hydroelectric projects in its submission to the Supreme Court, the State’s hydroelectric project-driven development agenda has remained unchanged. “The State has planned an ambitious programme to develop 450 hydropower projects to harness its potential of 27,039 MW,” the Chopra Committee report states. So, the State seems keen on building large hydroelectric projects to fulfil its lopsided development agenda.
Though the Union Environment Ministry acknowledges the damage caused by hydroelectric projects in its submission to the Supreme Court, the State’s hydroelectric project-driven development agenda has remained unchanged. “The State has planned an ambitious programme to develop 450 hydropower projects to harness its potential of 27,039 MW,” the Chopra Committee report states. So, the State seems keen on building large hydroelectric projects to fulfil its lopsided development agenda.
From the list of 24 projects, the discussion in the Supreme Court has
now come down to six projects: Lata Tapovan (171 MW), Alaknanda
Badrinath (300 MW), Kotlibhel 1A (195 MW), Jhelum Tamak (128 MW),
Bhyundar Ganga (24.8 MW), and Khirao Ganga (4.5 MW) — and amidst all the
development plans the issue of disaster mitigation has taken a back
seat.
The hazards of the current project of dam building in Uttarakhand have
already been laid out in several reports. It is unfortunate that the
risks are known, but ignored by governments and companies building dams.
It is hoped that the court will deliver justice now.
kavita.upadhyay@thehindu.co.in
Today's Paper
» NATIONAL
» NEW DELHI
New Delhi,
August 16, 2013
SC tells Centre, Uttarakhand not to grant clearance for hydroelectric power projects
Ministry of Environment and Forests directed to constitute an expert body to make detailed study
The Supreme Court has directed the Ministry of
Environment and Forests as well as the State of Uttarakhand not to grant
any further environmental clearance or forest clearance for any
hydroelectric power projects in Uttarakhand until further orders.
A
Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra gave this
direction while expressing serious concern over the mushrooming of large
number of hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand and its impact on
Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins.
Writing the
judgment Mr. Justice Radhakrishnan said “We are also deeply concerned
with the recent tragedy, which has affected the Char Dham area of
Uttarakhand. Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WIG) recorded 350 mm
of rain on June 15-16, 2013. Snowfall ahead of the cloudburst also has
contributed to the floods resulting in the burst on the banks of
Chorabari Lake near Kedarnath, leading to large scale calamity leading
to loss of human lives and property. The adverse effect of the existing
projects, projects under construction and proposed, on the environment
and ecology calls for a detailed scientific study. Proper Disaster
Management Plan, it is seen, is also not in place, resulting in loss of
lives and property.”
The Bench quoting a study said
“69 hydropower projects with a capacity of 9,020.30 MW are proposed in
Bhagirathi and Alaknanda basins. This includes 17 projects which are
operational with a capacity of 2,295.2 MW. In addition, 26 projects with
a capacity of 3,261.3 MW (including 600 MW Lohari Nagpala hydropower
project, work on which has been suspended by the Government decision)
which were under construction, 11 projects with a capacity of 2,350 MW
CEA/TEC clearances and 16 projects with a capacity of 1,673.8 MW under
development. The implementation of the above 69 hydropower projects has
extensive implications for other needs of this society and the river
itself. It is noticed that the implementation of all the above projects
will lead to 81 per cent of Bhagirathi and 65 per cent of Alaknanda
getting affected.”
The Bench said “The cumulative
impact of those project components like dams, tunnels, blasting,
powerhouse, muck disposal, mining, deforestation etc. on eco-system, is
yet to be scientifically examined.” Hence the Court issued a series of
directions, viz. direction to the MoEF and to the State of Uttarakhand
not to grant any further environmental clearance or forest clearance for
any hydroelectric power project in the State until further orders;
“MoEF is directed to constitute an expert body consisting of
representatives of the State Government, WII, Central Electricity
Authority, Central Water Commission and other expert bodies to make a
detailed study as to whether Hydroelectric Power Projects existing and
under construction have contributed to the environmental degradation, if
so, to what extent and also whether it has contributed to the present
tragedy occurred at Uttarakhand in June 2013; MoEF is directed to
examine as to whether the proposed 24 projects are causing significant
impact on the biodiversity of Alaknanda and Bhagirath river basins.
The
Bench asked the Disaster Management Authority, Uttarakhand to submit a
report to this Court as to whether they had any Disaster Management Plan
in place and how effective that plan was for combating the present
unprecedented tragedy in Uttarakhand.
Updated: July 16, 2014 13:14 IST
Dams without responsibility
Comment
(19)
Uttarakhand has to ensure that the quest for hydropower cannot come without a responsibility to preserve a region that is limping back to life.
The devastation in Uttarakhand had already happened much before the
cataclysmic events of June 2013. The unprecedented rainfall and floods
and loss of life drew attention to the alarming situation in a State
known for its pristine forests and rivers. It also drew attention
belatedly to the “bumper to bumper” dams in the mountains.
Construction on all dams in Uttarakhand
was halted by the Supreme Court in August 2013 and on its instructions,
the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) appointed an expert body
which said that 23 hydropower projects out of the 24 it was asked to
examine would have an irreversible impact on the biodiversity of the
Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins and should not be constructed.
In May, the Supreme Court reiterated its orders stopping work on the 24
hydropower projects examined by the body. While all this amounts to
shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, it is a measure of
recognition of the man-made destruction wrought by unplanned hydel power
projects in a sensitive and fragile ecosystem.
Endangering the Ganga
The body’s report said, “The problem with the dams is their location in a high or very high biodiversity value area, some of them at elevations above 2,200-2,500 metres. These altitudes come in the paraglacial and glacial zones and in these zones, the rivers are capable of mobilizing tremendous amounts of sediments, under intense rainfall conditions, from the moraine left behind in the past by receding glaciers. In such situations, they cause havoc in the vicinity of dams as witnessed at the Vishnuprayag barrage site and below during the June 2013 disaster.”
The body’s report said, “The problem with the dams is their location in a high or very high biodiversity value area, some of them at elevations above 2,200-2,500 metres. These altitudes come in the paraglacial and glacial zones and in these zones, the rivers are capable of mobilizing tremendous amounts of sediments, under intense rainfall conditions, from the moraine left behind in the past by receding glaciers. In such situations, they cause havoc in the vicinity of dams as witnessed at the Vishnuprayag barrage site and below during the June 2013 disaster.”
The State of Uttarakhand is a part of the Ganga basin and rivers suffer from several depradations apart from dams in high places,
including extensive pollution from untreated sewage. Despite huge
amounts of money being spent, plans to clean up the river have failed
miserably. An IIT-led consortium has been set up to prepare a master
plan for the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA), to restore
its “wholesomeness,” as the extended summary of a draft Ganga River
Basin Management plan says. Citing anthropogenic activities, it says
dams and barrages have snapped her “longitudinal connectivity.”
While the recent Ganga Manthan event in Delhi attracted more than its
fair share of sadhus, there were a few who spoke against dams and said
that they were a threat to the river’s existence. But the focus was on
keeping the river Ganga “aviral and nirmal” (continuous
and unpolluted flow). Activists said only cleaning up the river will not
restore it. Some pointed to the lack of studies of the entire river
system and hydrological data which was a secret. Since the Ganga is
glacier fed, the climate change impact in the Himalayan ecosystem and on
the receding Gangotri and other glaciers are also of paramount
importance.
In its report of March 2013, the Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG) on Issues
Relating to River Ganga says that the development of new hydro power
projects has an impact on the environment, the ecology, the
biodiversity, both terrestrial and aquatic, and economic and social
life. Crucially, it says that in the upper reaches of the river — where
the oxygenating abilities of the river are the highest — there are
growing signs of contamination. This suggests that even here, water
withdrawal for hydroelectricity is endangering the health of the Ganga.
Implementation of the 69 hydro power projects will lead to 81 per cent
of the Bhagirathi and 65 per cent of the Alaknanda getting affected. The
IMG had considered the need to have portions of the river free of hydro
projects and recommended that six rivers should be kept in pristine
form.
Cumulative impact
In the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, the report said that 17 dams have been commissioned with a total installed capacity of 1,851 MW. Fourteen projects of 2,538 MW capacity are in different stages of construction and 39 projects with an installed capacity of 4,644 MW are in different stages of planning. The expert body report said that if all the 450 dams in the State are completed, about 252 projects will each have an installed capacity of 5MW or more. The vast majority of them will divert rivers through tunnels to power houses downstream. Their combined impact will affect the landscape of Uttarakhand. The environment management plans of individual projects do not address the cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a river valley.
In the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, the report said that 17 dams have been commissioned with a total installed capacity of 1,851 MW. Fourteen projects of 2,538 MW capacity are in different stages of construction and 39 projects with an installed capacity of 4,644 MW are in different stages of planning. The expert body report said that if all the 450 dams in the State are completed, about 252 projects will each have an installed capacity of 5MW or more. The vast majority of them will divert rivers through tunnels to power houses downstream. Their combined impact will affect the landscape of Uttarakhand. The environment management plans of individual projects do not address the cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a river valley.
With dams proposed on major rivers for every 20 to 25 kilometre stretch,
large fragments of these rivers could be left with minimal flow as
almost all the river water is extracted for producing hydroelectricity,
the body’s report has said. Prof. Ravi Chopra, chairperson of the body
said that tunnelling is also controversial and leads to damage with
natural springs being diverted and homes developing cracks. The
government has only looked at the need to generate power and not the
impact on the environment. On field visits, the body noticed scarred
landscapes, dry river beds and a complete disappearance of riverine
ecosystems due to submergence at existing and under construction large
hydropower projects such as Tehri Stage I and Koteshwar on the
Bhagirathi basin and the Srinagar dam in the Alaknanda basin.
Deforestation
If all the dams are built, studies indicate a loss of biodiversity. A National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) report, quoted by the body, has highlighted the effect of the Tehri dam on the unique self-purifying ability of Gangajal. It attributed this property to river sediments; data indicated that the blocking of sediments behind the Tehri dam diminished this property.
If all the dams are built, studies indicate a loss of biodiversity. A National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) report, quoted by the body, has highlighted the effect of the Tehri dam on the unique self-purifying ability of Gangajal. It attributed this property to river sediments; data indicated that the blocking of sediments behind the Tehri dam diminished this property.
Extensive deforestation and diversion of forest land too has posed
problems. The body found that 80,826.91 hectares of forests have been
diverted for non-forest use in Uttarakhand since 1980. The diversion for
hydropower production is 5,312.11 ha. Most of the diversion for roads
and hydropower has been in Uttarkashi, Rudraprayag, Chamoli and
Pithoragarh districts, the areas most affected in the June 2013
disaster.
Hearings
People have been agitating against dams for years in the region, notably Tehri. In 2010-11, and for the first time for any project, there were three public hearings on the Devsari hydel project on the Pinder. After two hearings, the third one was accepted by the government, according to Vimalbhai of the Matu Jansangthan which led protests along with the Bhu-Swami Sangharsh Samiti. He says this was the first major protest after the ones against Tehri. A public hearing was also organised where many voiced their opposition to the dams and on the need to keep the undammed tributary of the Ganga that way. He referred to the pathetic status of the catchment area, and the lack of studies on water flows and climate change impacts. The people displaced by the Tehri dam are still to get land rights or basic amenities in their relocated homes, he added.
People have been agitating against dams for years in the region, notably Tehri. In 2010-11, and for the first time for any project, there were three public hearings on the Devsari hydel project on the Pinder. After two hearings, the third one was accepted by the government, according to Vimalbhai of the Matu Jansangthan which led protests along with the Bhu-Swami Sangharsh Samiti. He says this was the first major protest after the ones against Tehri. A public hearing was also organised where many voiced their opposition to the dams and on the need to keep the undammed tributary of the Ganga that way. He referred to the pathetic status of the catchment area, and the lack of studies on water flows and climate change impacts. The people displaced by the Tehri dam are still to get land rights or basic amenities in their relocated homes, he added.
Local people who have borne the brunt of the devastation
due to dams and floods and environmental groups have questioned the
feasibility of dams. By all accounts there is cause for concern as
reflected in many reports. Even as the Uttarakhand government proposes
to approach the Supreme Court in a bid to get a green signal for dam
construction, it must remember this. It has to ensure that the quest for
hydropower cannot come without a responsibility to preserve a region
that is limping back to life after a calamity aggravated by unplanned
human interventions neither scientifically assessed nor endorsed by the
people of the region.
meena.menon@thehindu.co.in
RELATED NEWS
No comments:
Post a Comment