Author: SANDRP

IWMI report on Glaciers and Snow cover in Himalayas in Changing Climate: Significant Impact on Seasonal flow of the Rivers in India
brahmaputra · Climate Change · Indus

IWMI report on Glaciers and Snow cover in Himalayas in Changing Climate: Significant Impact on Seasonal flow of the Rivers in India

SANDRPLeave a comment

International Water Management Institute (IWMI) has recently published a study named  Glacier Systems and Seasonal Snow Cover in Six Major Asian River Basins: Hydrological Role under Changing Climate, authored by Oxana S. Savoskul and Vladimir Smakhtin which claims that the hydrological role of the melt-water resources in six major rivers e.g. Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Syr Darya, Amu Darya and Mekong of the Hindukush-Himalayan region (HKH) has been comprehensively assessed for the first time on a basin scale. Reviewing already published studies, this report draws some interesting conclusions regarding the role of glacier and snow meting for six river basins which includes three major rivers basins of India.

The map below shows area of the river basins included in this study. In this report, the term ‘melt-water resources’ has been used to cover glacier systems and seasonal snow cover. This report uses 1961-1990 status of melt-water resources as the baseline and compares with the 2001-2010 using the following characteristics: specific glacier runoff (average depth of annual discharge from glacier-covered area), basin total glacier runoff, shares of renewable and nonrenewable components in glacier runoff, total seasonal surface snowmelt from non-glaciated areas, portion of seasonal snowmelt lost for the recharge of groundwater aquifers, the contribution of glacier runoff and seasonal snowmelt to mean annual flow (MAF).

Map from the report showing the boundaries of the study basins (red line), state borders (light yellow line) and snow-covered high-altitude belts where glaciers are located (white spots
Map from the report showing the boundaries of the study basins (red line), state borders (light yellow line) and snow-covered high-altitude belts where glaciers are located (white spots)

The authors have used Glacier mass budget-based methods and hydrograph separation techniques which they stated as suitable for basin-scale assessments instead of the temperature-index methods. They say that application of these two methods in semi-distributed models can give the highest currently possible accuracy of +30%. The authors opine that many of the studies done previously had confused between the ‘snowmelt’ and ‘glacier-melt’ because these studies have not dealt with terminologies and methodologies in detail. The report states that there is a scarcity of glacier runoff estimates in peer-reviewed papers, “An analysis of publications on modeling runoff from large- and medium-scale glaciated catchments….. indicates that not many of these dealt with modeling glacier runoff per se. Even fewer report their evaluations of glacier runoff separately from snowmelt, if at all.”

For the three of the six river basins studies and which flow through India, i.e. Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra the total annual glacier runoff for the period of 1961-1990 was 41 km3,16 km3 and 17 km3 respectively. But in the recent periods of 2001-2010, total glacier runoff was reduced to 36 km3, 15 km3 and 16 km3 respectively for the three basins, see Table 1 for details.

It is clear from the table that while Indus and Brahmaputra basins have similar percentage of  area under glaciers and snowmelt, the reduction in the glacier and snow cover area are more pronounced in Indus basin. Besides, in all the three basins the reduction in glacier area is more pronounced that the snow cover area. However, the contribution of glacier melt and also snow melt to run-off is much higher in Indus basin compared to Brahmaputra basin, showing the greater role of precipitation in Brahmaputra basin. Within the Indus basin even though seasonal snow covers 28% of the total area, much than the 2.6% occupied by glaciers during 1961-90, the contribution of two sources to Mean Annual Flow is almost same. But a question arises, has the contribution of glacier melt to the runoff increased in any of the basins in the recent decade? The answer is surprisingly, no.

Table 1: Recent changes in the glaciers and seasonal snow and their contributions to MAF

Basin Part of basin area(%) covered by Contribution to MAF (%)
Glaciers Seasonal Snow Glacier runoff Seasonal Snowmelt

1961-1990

INDUS

2.6

 28 18

19
GANGES

1.2

 6 4

2

BRAHMAPUTRA

 2.7 27 2

2

2001 -2010

INDUS

 1.8 25 15 16
GANGES

0.9

 6 3

1

BRAHMAPUTRA

 2.2 26 2

2

For the Ganges basin, the report says that heavy summer precipitation almost solely determines MAF volume for the basin. Maximum seasonal snow area in the Ganges basin makes just 6% of the entire basin area. Similar situation were reported for the Brahmaputra basin, where the lower parts of the basin i.e.  Southeastern Tibet and Eastern Himalayas where nearly 75% of the basin’s glaciers are located, witness heavy summer monsoon rains. Regarding Indus basin the report says, “Precipitation in the IndusBasin is more evenly distributed between the seasons, but is highly variable spatially – similar to Brahmaputra and Amu Darya, where annual precipitation in some catchments is tenfold (3,000 mm) of that in the other glacier-covered parts of the basin (300 mm).”

Reviewing already published documents the report states “it appears that the research in High Asia is concerned much more with CC impacts than with objects of the impact. Yet, understanding of the expected basin-scale changes in glacier runoff in response to climate change remains largely unclear.”

The report does an analysis of assessments done on impact of climate change on water availability in Himalayas and concludes that many assessments rely on poorly verified sources. The report refers to the statement made by Cruz et al. (2007) “The current trends of glacier-melts suggest that the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra and other rivers that criss-cross the northern Indian plain could likely become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of climate change…,” This statement was admitted as a typing error after publication but even then this has been reiterated as an apocalyptic vision in NGO reports.

Using the Table 2 given below, the report states that glacier contribution is a minor item in the annual river water budgets in the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins. The report says “The impact of climate change was found to be more prominent on seasonal rather than annual water availability.” It is clear from the table that, in the recent decades non-renewable component in all three basins have gone up while renewable and total volume of water from glacier melt have come down. It is also noteworthy that, even though Brahmaputra basin has more area under glacier cover than the Ganges basin (see Table 1), the volume of water from non renewable glacier flow was more in both periods in the Ganges basin. Besides, the percentage of increase in nonrenewable glacier runoff components during 2001-10 is highest among all three basins, signifying that glaciers are melting fastest in Ganga basin.

Table 2: Contribution of renewable and non-renewable components to glacial runoff

Basin Glacier runoff components Total Glacier runoff (km3) Total Glacier runoff contribution to MAF (%)
Renewable (km3) Nonrenewable (km3)

1961-1990
INDUS

33.0

 8.14 41.2

18
GANGES

11.0

 4.74 15.7

4
BRAHMAPUTRA

12.7

 4.29 17.0

2

2001 -2010
INDUS

24.5

 11.62 36.1

15
GANGES

8.1

 6.95 15.0

3
BRAHMAPUTRA

10.6

 5.05 15.7

2

The reports also states, “Glaciers and seasonal snow in CC-impact assessments should be perceived as natural water reservoirs with gradually diminishing storage and flow regulation capacity, both on intra-annual and inter-annual scale. Potential changes of precipitation regime coupled with effects of temperature rise on evapo-transpiration will impact future hydrological regimes of the major rivers much more significantly, affecting both MAF and flow seasonality.”

The authors of this report clear some fog around climate change and Himalayan glacier system and snow-melt. One lacuna of the report is that even though the report discusses glacier run-off it makes no mentions of glacier lakes and glacier lakes induced floods. There are several incidents of glacier lake induced floods happening in the basins discussed. There is evidence to show that in the recent flood devastation in Uttarakhand in India glacial lakes played significant role.

Parag Jyoti Saikia

with inputs from Himanshu Thakkar

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (www.sandrp.in)

Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand Flood disaster: Supreme Court’s directions on Uttarakhand Hydropower Projects

SANDRP6 Comments

On August 13, 2013, while disposing off a bunch of petitions[i] regarding the controversial 330 MW Srinagar Hydropower Project on AlaknandaRiver in Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court bench of Justice K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra have given some welcome directions on the Uttarakhand hydropower projects.

Perusal of the full judgment[ii] shows that the decision is disappointing on the Srinagar project issue, since the court has directed that the project be completed and disposed off all objections to that, while asking for implementation of the Environment Managemnet Plan and conditions etc. However, there are several contradictions in this regard that seems to have escaped the attention of the court, and a review petition on that part could be field by the petitioners. Importantly, Prof Bharat Jhunjhunwala, who argued the case in person, should be thanked for the role he played in this case.

Courts’s concerns on Uttarakhand Hydro Projects However, the most pertinent and interesting part of the order starts at the bottom on p 62 with the title “Court’s concerns” and goes on till the end of the order on p 72.

In these pages, the order notes that AHEC (Alernate Hydro Energy Centre at IIT Rurkee) has not done the cumulative impact assessment it was asked to do. This is very important to note. The order says, (para 46), “We have gone through the Reports and, prima facie, we are of the view that the AHEC Report has not made any in-depth study on the cumulative impact of all project components like construction of dam, tunnels, blasting, power-house, Muck disposal, mining, deforestation etc. by the various projects in question and its consequences on Alaknanda as well as Bhagirathi river basins so also on Ganga which is a pristine river.” After this clear statement from the Highest Court, no one should rely on this report now on.

We are glad that this statement of Supreme Court supports what SANDRP has been saying for years[iii].

This part the order also refers to the BK Chaturvedi Committee (appointed by the National Ganga River Basin Authority in June 2012) report submitted in April 2013 to emphasise that, “The River Ganga has over a period of years suffered environmental degradation due to various factors.” The court should have directed that the MoEF should make the report of the BK Chaturvedi committee report public since the MoEF has not yet done that. The committee itself stands discredited[iv] since none of the independent members of the committee accepted the report.

The operative part of the order says:

“(1) We direct the MoEF as well as State of Uttarakhand not to grant any further environmental clearance or forest clearance for any hydroelectric power project in the State of Uttarakhand, until further orders.”

This means that environment or forest clearance to any hydropower projects of any size in Uttarakhand cannot be given either by MoEF or by the Government of Uttarakhand till further orders.

“(2) 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 the month of June 2013.”

This direction has two parts: A. assessment of cumulative impacts of existing and under construction hydropower projects[v] to the environment degradation in Uttarakhand and B. Whether the projects have contributed to the Uttarakhand flood disaster, if so to what extent.

Only a credible independent panel with sufficient number of independent members can provide a credible report in this regard, the committee should be chaired by a non government person of the stature of Prof Madhav Gadgil. We hope the MoEF will soon constitute such an expert body and also ask the expert body to hold public hearings at various relevant places and seek wider public consultation. The mandate of the committee should be for the entire Uttarakhand and not just Bhagirathi and Alaknanda sub basins. The committee should have credible and independent geologist, sociologist, environmentalist, river expert and disaster management expert.

“(3) MoEF is directed to examine, as noticed by WII in its report, as to whether the proposed 24 projects are causing significant impact on the biodiversity of Alaknanda and BhagirathRiver basins.”

Here it may be remembered that it was MoEF that had asked Wildlife Institute of India to submit a report on the cumulative impact of the hydropower projects in Uttarakhand on aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. It should also be remembered that WII is one of the credible institutes and is also a centre of excellence of the MoEF. There is no reason for MoEF to reject the clear recommendation of the WII report that the 24 projects listed by it should be dropped. The clearances given to the projects like the 300 MW Alaknanda Badrinath HEP of GMR should be suspended immediately keeping this direction in mind.

“(4) The Disaster Management Authority, Uttarakhand would submit a Report to this Court as to whether they had any Disaster Management Plan is in place in the State of Uttarakhand and how effective that plan was for combating the present unprecedented tragedy at Uttarakhand.”

This direction should have also been for the National Disaster Management Authority since preparation of proper State Disaster Management Plan and ensuring setting up of required machinery for its implementation is also a mandate of the NDMA. This is particularly important in view of the failure also of NDMA as reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India report of March 2013. Since the court has asked in para 52 that, “Reports would be submitted within a period of three months. Communicate the order to the Central and State Disaster Management Authority, Uttarakhand.”, it is implied that NDMA is also to submit a report.

Since the original petitions and applications are disposed off, it is not clear if the original petition survives or a new case will be registered. It is also not clear if the original petitioners survive. In such cases it is the normal practice of the court to appoint and Amicus Curie and it would be interesting to see whom the court appoints for such a purpose.

These orders are indeed welcome in view of the fact that hydropower projects in Uttarakhand have certainly played big role in increasing the disaster potential and disaster proportions in Uttarakhand floods in June 2013. More than twenty groups and individuals of Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and other states have already written to the MoEF in July 2013[vi], asking for suspension of such hydropower projects that have prime facie played such a role and set up an independent enquiry. The MoEF has not yet responded to this letter. We are glad now SC has asked for such an inquiry.

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (https://sandrp.in/)

August 14, 2013

[i] These includes Civil Appeal No 6736 of 2013, Special Leave Petition no 362 of 2012, Civil Appeal nos 6746-47 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) nos 5849-50 of 2012 and Transfer cases (C) (National Green Tribunal) numbers 55 to 57 of 2013.

[v] For basin wise and size wise details of existing, under construction and planned Hydropower projects in Uttarakhand see: https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/uttarakhand-existing-under-construction-and-proposed-hydropower-projects-how-do-they-add-to-the-disaster-potential-in-uttarakhand/

Is THDC preparing to repeat the disaster Tehri created in Sept 2010?
Dam Induced Flood Disaster

Is THDC preparing to repeat the disaster Tehri created in Sept 2010?

SANDRP1 Comment

Why is Tehri filled up with half the monsoon still to come?

The Tehri dam reservoir on Bhagirathi river in Uttarkashi district in Uttarakhand is filled upto 818.4 m as on August 5, 2013, as per the latest available information on Northern Region Load dispatch Centre (http://nrldc.org/). With permitted full reservoir level of 820 m[1], the FRL is just 1.6 m above current level. At current rate, the water level in the Tehri dam may reach FRL in less than a week. The question is why is Tehri dam being filled up when almost half the monsoon is still to come? And when going by the trend so far, the monsoon is likely to continue to bring surplus rains? Now the Tehri dam is posing a huge, grave and real risk for the downstream areas in Uttarakhand and UP as the monsoon rains continue in all its fury.

In last 35 days since July 1 (level 780.05 m), the water level in the dam has gone up by 38.35 m. In last four days since Aug 1, the level has gone up by 7.85 m. On every single day since July 1, Tehri has been releasing less water than it has been receiving, which means the dam is hoarding water (a detailed list of reservoir level, inflow and usage at Tehri dam from July 1 to August 6 is given in the annexure below). On at least 22 days since July 1, the dam has used less than the optimum quantity of water it can use, that is 572 cubic meters/ sec. The Tehri dam generated 657.65 million units of power during July 2013, which is below the optimum it can generate (744 MU) and also less than what it generated for example in Aug 2011 and Sept 2010. As a direct consequence, while less power was generated, more water was accumulated behind the dam and now the dam is posing a risk to the downstream areas.

Safety issues at Koteshwar Dam: Vigilance enquiry on It may be recalled that in September 2010 similar mismanagement at the Tehri dam led to huge and avoidable floods (for details see page 20 of Aug Sept 2010 issue of Dams, Rivers & People: https://sandrp.in/drp/DRP_Aug_Sept_2010.pdf) in the downstream Uttarakhand and UP. Thus the highest ever flood level of 296.3 m at Haridwar was reached on Sept 19, 2010 (see http://www.india-water.com/ffs/static_info.asp?Id=24). In fact in Sept 2010, the downstream Koteshwar dam of THDC also suffered severe damages due to this mismanagement and now it is unable to take larger flows from upstream Tehri dam. The weak civil works of Koteshwar dam is also now facing vigilance enquiry as per the Aug 4, 2013 report from http://www.energylineindia.com/. The report said, “Vigilance department had expressed its concerns regarding the civil works and works relating to diversion plug, which are extremely susceptible to rains and are vulnerable to lead to major impact on the dam safety… The stalemate at THDC’s 400 MW Koteshwar Dam and Power House (KDPH) has seen work come to a halt in the event of non completion of emergency works for the project.”

97.5 m high Koteshwar Dam 20 km downstream of Tehri dam (photo: hydroworld.com)
97.5 m high Koteshwar Dam is located 20 km downstream of Tehri dam
(photo: hydroworld.com)

 

AIPEF misleading Power Ministry? It is reported[2] that All India Power Engineers Federation has written to the Union Power Ministry, expressing concern that spillage from Tehri dam will pose risk of flooding of the downstream Koteshwar project. This concern also seems to suggest that Koteshwar dam is not strong enough to take the higher water releases from Tehri that may be required. The Matu Jansangthan[3] has also raised concern about safety of the Koteshwar dam and its impacts. The request in the letter that THDC be allowed to increase the water storage to 830 m is anyway misleading since it is not in the hands of Power Ministry.

Uttarakhand waiting for new disaster? It seems from this situation that unless urgent steps are taken, Uttarakhand may be in for a new disaster pretty soon. It is strange that while this situation was developing over the last month a number of agencies that should have taken advance notice and action have been sitting quietly.

Þ    Central Water CommissionIndia’s highest technical body on water resources is supposed to provide rule curve for safe operation of all dams. It seems CWC has not issued any such safe rule curve for Tehri or the rule curve issued by it is unsafe like it is in many other dams.

Þ    Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh government In case of the flood disaster that will happen in the downstream area because of the wrong operation of the Tehri dam, it is the people, lands, property and environment of the Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh governments that will be affected. But Uttarakhand or the Uttar Pradesh seems to have taken no action. Uttar Pradesh government is also partner with THDC in the project.

Þ    National Disaster Management Authority NDMA should be concerned about this impending manmade disaster and should have taken action, but seems to have done nothing.

Þ    Union Ministry of Water Resources The Ministry is supposed to be concerned about the safety of all dams in India, but has clearly failed to do anything about Tehri or Koteshwar.

THDC, Uttarakhand Chief Minister, Central Water Commission among others have been making a lot of false claims about Tehri dam having saved Uttarakhand during the Uttarakhand flood disaster during June 15-17, 2013. Our analysis[4] showed that this is clearly false claim and also warned that Tehri could turn out to be a source of disaster in the remaining part of current monsoon. That situation now has clearly developed and requires urgent intervention. We hope all concerned authorities will urgently intervene and ensure that no such disaster happens.

Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (https://sandrp.in/)

[1] In ongoing Supreme Court case, THDC does not have permission to take water level behind the dam above 820 m due to lack of progress in rehabilitation. On Aug 27, 2010, THDC was given a one time temporary permission to take water level to 830 m only as an “emergency measure”. Now THDC is seeking SC permission to take the water level to 835 m from the current permissible 820 m, but that is unlikely to be agreed by the Uttarakhand government considering the state of rehabilitation. The case is likely to come up before the Supreme Court in Sept 2013, as per Matu Jansangthan, which is fighting the case.

[4] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/uttarakhand-floods-truth-about-thdc-and-central-water-commissions-claims-about-tehri/

 

Reservoir level, inflow and usage (outflow) at Tehri dam during July 1, 2013 to Aug 6, 2013 

Date Reservoir Level (meter) Inflow (cumecs) Usage (cumecs)
01-07-2013 780.05 603.78 462
02-07-2013 780.05 603.78 462
03-07-2013 781.1 554.73 540
04-07-2013 781.1 599.4 538
05-07-2013 781.6 545.81 536
06-07-2013 781.9 680.47 537
07-07-2013 781.9 680.47 537
08-07-2013 781.9 680.47 537
09-07-2013 781.9 680.47 537
10-07-2013 786.6 760.77 540
11-07-2013 787.1 785.2 645
12-07-2013 787.45 633.13 546
13-07-2013 788.45 804.66 546
14-07-2013 NA 749 549
15-07-2013 790.1 798.15 551
16-07-2013 790.1 798.15 551
17-07-2013 790.1 798.15 551
18-07-2013 793.8 910.51 546
19-07-2013 793.8 910.51 546
20-07-2013 796.35 855 475
21-07-2013 799.3 855 236
22-07-2013 800 810.53 459
23-07-2013 802.3 917 541
24-07-2013 802.3 917 541
25-07-2013 804.15 946.5 574
26-07-2013 808.5 1471.92 572
27-07-2013 809.7 972.44 564
28-07-2013 810.50 792.25 569
29-07-2013 810.50 792.25 569
30-07-2013 810.50 792.25 569
31-07-2013 810.50 792.25 569
01-08-2013 810.50 792.25 569
02-08-2013 810.55 730.41 572
03-08-2013 814.70 629.43 573
04-08-2013 816.15 617.8 572
05-08-2013 817.15 NA NA
06-08-2013 818.4 NA 566

Effective Full Reservoir Level of THDC – 820 meter, NA – Not Available. The dates mentioned here are reporting dates, the levels and flow figures are for the previous day.  Source: http://nrldc.org/

Ministry of Water Resources

MoWR’s Draft National Policy Guidelines for Water Sharing – Agenda to push Big projects and Inter Linking of Rivers?

SANDRPLeave a comment

Draft National Policy Guidelines for Water Sharing[1]: Comments[2]

 Copied below are the Comments sent by SANDRP to the Union Ministry of Water Resources in response to MWR’s invitation to send comments by July 31, 2013.

1. What is the value added by these Draft National Policy Guidelines on Water Sharing? What is the immediate reason for bring out these guidelines? The guidelines do not make this clear. This becomes particularly important as under constitution, water is a state subject and among states there is increasing suspicion that centre is trying to take over the rights of deciding about the water resources. If that is the case, as it seems (see comments below), than the guidelines also seem to violate the constitutional provisions.

2. The guidelines use the word “National Interest” at least four times, without explaining who will decide this and how. This is likely to raise suspicions among the states. This is particularly true with provisions like that in section 4.6 (c) saying, “The quantum of water exported from the surplus basin in overall national interest will not be counted as water available for sharing in that basin.” This seems to give unfettered rights to the centre to decide about inter basin transfer of water citing “national interest”.

3. If the Union Ministry of water resources is going to decide what is in National Interest than it is likely to invite risk of ridiculous and risky propositions. For example, the ministry some years ago came out with a scheme of National Projects, but most of the projects under this scheme did not have statutory clearances, or were unviable or were controversial and involved unresolved interstate issues. Thus use of such terms without clear definition and clear checks and balances is not likely to be acceptable.

4. It is pertinent to note that conflicts over river waters, whether inter-country or intra-country, invariably seem to arise only in the context of large projects. So long as the river is flowing freely without any such big projects, there is no cause for any conflict between the upper and lower riparians. As soon as any riparian State plans an intervention (dam or barrage or other diversion structure), anxiety in other riparians is triggered, and a potential for conflict arises. It would appear that large projects tend to become the foci of conflicts. This is essentially because (a) they tend to drastically alter geography and hydrological regimes, and (b) they involve issues of control, power and political relations, social justice and equity. The best course to avoid conflicts is to refrain from such interventions as far as possible, keep them minimal, give advance notice of an intended intervention to all the other riparians, provide full information, take the concerns and consent of the lower riparian into account, and refrain from causing ‘substantial harm’ or ‘significant injury’ to the lower riparian. This point has not been covered in the guidelines.

5. On similar lines, the guidelines basically take a macro view and do not seem to have a place for micro, local, bottom up process or democratic perspective.

6. The sharing should be only of what is available for sharing after the ecological functions of the river (in all its manifestation and catchments) are ensured. These would include the sustaining of wildlife, aquatic life and vegetation; the maintenance of the river regime and the capacity of the river to cope with pollution and regenerate itself; the maintenance of the micro climate; the support of the lives and livelihoods of people dependent on the river on both sides of the political or administrative border; the recharging of aquifers; the preservation of wetlands; the protection of the health of the estuary; and so on. This does not find mention in the guidelines.

7. Its very important to note here that groundwater is increasingly the main source of water for all sources and more and more areas. This is likely to remain the situation whether we like it or not. Under the circumstances, sustenance of rivers flowing all round the year with freshwater as one of the most important groundwater recharge mechanism is also important, both at intrastate as well as interstate level. This aspect should have found a key place in these guidelines.

8. An inter-State river is not a sequence of Statewise segments, it is one continuous flow, one integral whole as a hydrological/ecological system. Allocating so much of its waters to State A, so much to State B, etc, involves a segmentation – a chopping up – of the river. The ideal course would be a joint, agreed, integrated, holistic, harmonious use of its waters by all the basin States coming together. Any statement of sharing principles should begin with this recognition.

9. If a sharing becomes necessary, equitable sharing for beneficial uses must of course be the governing principle, and the Ministry’s draft says this in section 4.3.

The word ‘apportionment’ is best avoided because it suggests an imposition by a judicial or other agency. As mutual agreement is also possible, the word ‘sharing’ seems better. As contending States often argue on the basis of other principles such as ‘territorial sovereignty’ (the Harmon doctrine) or ‘prior use’ or ‘prescriptive rights’, the National Statement of Principles should not merely lay down the principle of equitable sharing but specifically rule out other principles such as those referred to above. Three, it is not enough to say ‘equitable sharing’; the words ‘for beneficial and justifiable uses’ must be added, because the sharing is not for non-use or waste.

The term ‘equitable sharing’ immediately leads to the question of what constitutes ‘equity’, and the draft has something to say about this. The Helsinki Rules enumerate a large number of criteria and leave the actual applicable criteria and the relative weights to be attached to each criterion to be determined in accordance with the circumstances of each case. These are missing here.

Thus, it is not clear how this equitable sharing will be applied and how it will get change with other principles like prior use, high economic value use, etc come in the picture. This principle has always been there, and in spite of such principles, in Maharashtra, a state with largest number of big dams, 70% of irrigation water gets used up by 2% land under sugarcane. Similarly while parts of Krishna basin is highly drought prone, over 3 billion cubic meters of water get transferred from that basin to the high rainfall area of Konkan while the downstream areas in the Krishna basin is severely drought prone. This is also applicable at interstate level as is clear from the reservoir filling methods applicable in all basins, where the upstream dams will release water only when they are full and till than downstream areas wont get any water, irrespective of if  the downstream areas are in the same state or another one. So in absence of clearly defined publicly accountable mechanism to implement this principle, it is of little value.

10. Incidentally, one of the criteria, namely the ‘contribution’ of each BasinState, is a bit dicey. Can that fact give unfettered rights over that water to that state?  If not what will limit those rights? This is because, the State that receives the precipitation also needs downstream state to provide drainage; it follows that by virtue of providing that crucial drainage the lower State also acquires a certain right over those waters. This factor is not mentioned here.

11. The upper riparian tends to assume a primacy of rights, and in any case has control over the waters, putting the lower riparian at a disadvantage. The upper riparian often talks in terms of ‘giving’ water to the lower riparian or ‘sparing’ water for the lower riparian. It is necessary for the Statement of Principles to make it clear that there is no hierarchy of rights; that all co-riparians have equal use-rights over the waters of the inter-State river; that the lower riparian has a right to the waters. If there is a hierarchy, than the hierarchy should be made clear and also how that hierarchy is going to be ensured in real situation.

12. One of the key issues that a statement of principles must deal with is the problem of sharing in a low-flow year. This is clearly recognised in the India-Bangladesh Ganges Water-Sharing Treaty 1996. However, the draft guidelines do not make this clear.

13. The upper riparian, in using the waters, must not cause ‘substantial harm’ (Helsinki language) or ‘significant injury’ (UN convention language) to the lower riparian. (The India-Bangladesh Ganges Treaty contains a ‘no harm to either party’ clause.) The draft guidelines must include this.

14. Under the law as it stands at present, the parties to an adjudication under the ISWD Act are the State Governments. A more inclusive approach seems desirable so as to allow water-users (agriculture, industry, citizens, etc), as well as those likely to be affected by the projects in dispute, to be heard in the adjudication process.

15. Data of all kinds needed for the purposes these guidelines (e.g. section 6.1.1) shall be freely shared by the States concerned and put in the public domain for the information of all without any restrictions on the grounds of confidentiality or secrecy.

16. Section 4.3 mentions that storage of rainwater shall not qualify as direct use of rainwater. However, there are many techniques that require local storage of rainwater and such local storage should not disqualify from being considered as direct user of rainwater. This may be modified to say that storage of water beyond a certain quantity at one place (say 1 million cubic meter) may not qualify as direct use of rainwater.

17. The guidelines are only pertaining to interstate water sharing. However, any such (non binding) guidelines should also include provisions for intra-state, inter-sectoral water sharing.

18.  Section 4.8 is problematic as it does not define what “existing use” is. Is the use of water by fish, plants and nature “existing use”?  Does it count? It seems the existing use is entirely anthropocentric, but in case of an ecologically embedded entity like water this may be seriously problematic. Secondly, it seems to recognise use only when done through projects approved through due process. But there is a lot of informal use of water (e.g. by tribals) that is beyond the project-generated use. Does it count? Thirdly it makes a strange distinction of preplanned use. Do we have well documented and well recognised pre plan uses of water? Fourthly, the use of phrase “Every effort shall be made to protect the existing utilization” creates serious doubts as it gives an escape route that nothing is sacrosanct.

19. Section 4.9.1 also raises serious suspicions since it says even where an existing interstate agreement has approval of all the basin states, it may still not be good enough before “national interests”. This is bound to raise suspicion of all the states.

20. Section 4.10.2 is also likely to raise suspicions as it reads: “In the process of water sharing/distribution, in consultation with the co-basin States, the Centre would take care of the water sharing/distributions required in the national interest… Any State affected adversely due to such sharing/distribution would be adequately compensated by alternative means.” This seems to give rights to centre that so far belongs to the state. As far as the interests of the ecology and environmental flows are concerned, centre has the powers under Environment Protection Act, 1986 and do not have to resort to such seemingly extra constitutional guidelines.

21. The presence of section 4.12 on interlinking further raises the suspicion that this whole effort is geared towards pushing such projects. This should have had no place in these guidelines.

22. In section 5.1b there should have been explicit mention of groundwater use and climate change implications on water use and availability.

23. In section 5.4b(i) it is not clear what is the basis for review after 40 years.

24. The whole guidelines have no place for people, and also has no value for transparency, accountability or participatory processes.

25. Conclusion This exercise may be redone with more open ended terms of reference and holistic way of considering water in nature and with greater faith in the people and democratic processes.

The Ministry should not rush through this. It should give more time for feedback, take up extensive consultation and make the draft available in regional languages.

Himanshu Thakkar[3] (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)

[2] I have used some of the comments on this document by Shri Ramaswamy Iyer.

[3] South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, https://sandrp.in/

People’s Advocacy for Protecting Ponds and Lakes in Bihar
Bihar

People’s Advocacy for Protecting Ponds and Lakes in Bihar

SANDRPLeave a comment

 MITHILA (North Bihar) can be called a land of ponds. There are 9115 ponds in 1269 villages of Darbhanga district. Area of pond varies from about 1 acre (0.3 hectare) to 150 acres (60 hectares). Some of them are 500 to 1000 years old. The excavation of a pond was considered as a very pious act. After excavation of a pond, it is dedicated (UTSARGA) by its excavator to all living beings (human, cattle, bird, insect and species which survive in water) for their survival and need of water.

14. pond bund as a shelter for wild animals

This way, community has an age old tradition of customary rights over a pond for irrigating agricultural land; to use water for bathing, washing and cooking purpose; and water for bathing & drinking their cattle. Besides, these ponds help in recharging ground water; about 70 to 80 varieties of birds survive on small fishes and insects provided by these.

15. Pond bund for shelter for bird and wild animals

Moreover, the ponds in Mithila provide nutritional food in the forms of fish, snail, crabs to people and livelihood to weaker section/fish farmers; pond bund covered with trees, grasses and bush/shrub/herbs become a natural shelter/forest-belt for wild animals in rural areas. In fact, many ponds are a centre of religious and cultural festivals of all castes and sects.

10. Popular Religious Festival called Chhatha Pooja at Harahi Pond (1)

They also play a vital role in mitigation of flood and drought, and in harvesting of rain and river water.

13. Pond Bund & Bird shelter

In spite of several laws and judicial orders for protection of ponds, their very existence is in danger. Hundreds of ponds have been leveled to the ground and illegally sold by land mafia.  Pond bund, slope of pond bund to water bed, and inlet & outlet of pond have been illegally sold/occupied or encroached for construction of houses, shops, schools, hospitals and commercial complex by greedy, criminals and influential persons. People’s right to the ponds is denied and prevented by land/pond mafia. Sewage, garbage and medical garbage are routed to ponds, which is polluting its water to dangerous level.

12. Pond Bund as a Forest Belt

 With this background, Mithila Gram Vikas Parishad (MGVP) has started an initiative for protecting Mithila’s and Bihar’s Ponds through Advocacy and an extensive awareness-raising campaign:

— to protect community’s traditional right to the ponds and safe water.

— to protect livelihood, pond’s diversity and ecosystem including water security .

— to influence policy makers & planners to set up a ‘Bihar Pond Development Authority’ with clear

     defined responsibility to protect & conserve the ponds with local participation

—to prevent encroachment and illegal building construction over pond’s area, and health

    hazards due to dangerous pollution of pond water.

—to prepare Technical Guidelines, based on community practices and traditional wisdom of pond conservation, for protection, reclamation and conservation of ponds in Bihar, in consultation with environmentalist  & experts.

6. Ganga Sagar Scene of Encroachment

Contact Details of MGVP:

 MITHILA GRAM VIKAS PARISHAD, Professor Colony, West of Dighi Pond, Darbhanga,  Bihar, India, PIN: 846004,        

Contact Person: Narayan Jee, Email: mgvp4water@gmail.com,  Phone:06272-254085, Mob: 9955344811

Also see Dr. Sudhirendar Sharma’s article on this: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/ponds-in-distress/article4960246.ece

Gangani Hydroproject on Yamuna in Uttarakhand: Small Project, Huge Flood Damages
Floods · Hydropower · Uttarakhand

Gangani Hydroproject on Yamuna in Uttarakhand: Small Project, Huge Flood Damages

SANDRP1 Comment

IMPACT OF UTTARKHAND FLASH FLOODS IN MID JUNE 2013 ON LOCAL PEOPLE AT KHARADI VILLAGE (BARKOT BLOCK) IN UTTARKASHI DISTRICT RESULTING FROM A DIVERSION/ REDIRECTION OF THE YAMUNA RIVER TOWARDS POPULATED BANK OF THE RIVER DUE TO THE 8 MW GANGANI HEP. IMPACT IS ALSO THERE ON THE HEP INFRASTRUCTURE ITSELF PUTTING A QUESTION MARK ON ITS QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION AS ON ITS SUSTAINABILITY.

YAMUNA JIYE ABHIYAAN, JULY 2013
Text by Manoj Mishra

Kharadi is a small road side market place on river Yamuna, some 40 km short of the holy shrine of Yamunotri. It is also a popular night halt site on the Char Dham Yatra route. Resultantly over the period of time a number of hotels and residential properties have come up along the road and the river side.

Gangani1
Redirection of the river to the left due to the project head. All Photos taken on 20 July 2013, by Bhim Rawat, Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan

Some time in 2008-09 works, started by a pvt firm called Regency Gangani Energy Private Limited, immediately upstream of the Kharadi village for the construction of a 8 MW run of the river HEP. The works involved a diversion head, laying of pipes to convey the diverted river water and a power house around 5 km down stream of Kharadi at a place called Gangani. It is notable that the planned HEP is on the proper river Yamuna

By the year 2012, construction works had progressed to a considerable extent, when on the night of 3 August 2012 a cloud burst at Hanuman Chatti area resulted in a flash flood in the river Yamuna. Flow of Yamuna was obstructed by the diversion head of the HEP and was diverted towards its more populated left bank. This diversion swept away of around 9 hotels and residential properties of the local people at Kharadi. It also resulted in damages to the pipes laid in and near the river bed by the HEP.

If the above was not enough then on 17 June 2013, another cloud burst and heavy rains over most of higher reaches of Uttarakhand led to yet another diversion of the river and sweeping away of around 28 properties (see list at the end of this report) in the market village of Kharadi.

Washing away of structures in Kharadi some 500 m downstream from the river diversion head of the Gangani HEP by the flash flood in the river Yamuna on 17 June 2013
Washing away of structures in Kharadi some 500 m downstream from the river diversion head of the Gangani HEP by the flash flood in the river Yamuna on 17 June 2013

The Project also applied for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) status under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to get Carbon Emission Reduction Credits. Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan and others have objected to this application at the Validation stage earlier and at registration stage now in August 2013 as the project is not only unsustainable, but its application was full of contradictions and misleading claims. The project is in any case not a sustainable Development Project, is business as usual project and hence non additional as per UNFCCC criteria. The project is also not sustainable development project, but India’s National CDM Authority, namely the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, has never done credible assessment of this, and never rejected any application of CDM hydro projects!

Road and structures washed away by the flash flood in the Yamuna river downstream from diversion head of the Gangani HEP.
Road and structures washed away by the flash flood in the Yamuna river downstream from diversion head of the Gangani HEP.
Damaged pipes (meant to carry the river water to the Gangani HEP power plant some 3 km d/s from the diversion head) and the damaged approach bridge on the river
Damaged pipes (meant to carry the river water to the Gangani HEP power plant some 3 km d/s from the diversion head) and the damaged approach bridge on the river

List of Hotels and residential properties destroyed in Kharadi village by the flash floods in river Yamuna made worse due to the diversion head of the HEP upstream of the Kharadi village on the night of 16 and morning of 17 June 2013 and on the night of 3 August 2012 around 11 PM made worse (as per local people) due to the Gangnani HEP structure (head) in the river upstream of the village

Property/Hotel Owner Name Father’s Name Village Name No. of Rooms
1 Neel Kanth Hukum Singh Rawat, Sri Lal Singh Khanera Three Storey, 20 rooms
2 Unnamed Jagdish, Chandar Mohan, Ajay Sri Attar Singh Khanera 2 rooms + Provision Shop
3 Yamuna Darshan Jaidev Singh Rana Sri Jandar Singh Khanera 25 rooms
4 Bhupendar Place Rajendar Singh Chouhan, Sri Narendar Singh Syalna 12 Rooms
5 Bhupendar Palace (Joint) Gajendar Singh , Sri Narendar Singh Syalna 04 Rooms
6 Bhupendar Palace (Joint) Arjun Singh, Kesar Singh Syalna 04 Rooms
7 Amit Restaurant Jogindar singh, Sri Chandan Singh Bhansadi 05 Rooms
8 Govind Palace Janak Singh Sri Ranjor Singh Khanera 12 rooms
9 Him Darshan (August 12) Atol Singh, Sri Jai Singh Chouhan Nagon Gaon 22 Rooms
10 Naveen Palace Jag Mohan Chouhan, Sri Jhoon Singh Khanera 06 Rooms
11 Naveen Palace Man Mohan Singh, Sri Jhoon Singh Khanera 04
12 Naveen Palace Dharmendar , Sri Jhoon Singh Khanera 04
13 Vijay Restaurant Vijay Chouhan, Sri Jhoon Singh Khanera 1 Hall, 1 Cottage
14 Naveen Palace Darmyan Singh, Sri Kamal Singh Syalna 07
15 Provision Singh Jagveer Singh chouhan Sri Surveer Chouhan Khanera Provision Shop
16 Ravindar Palace Ravindar Singh Sri Budhi Singh Khanera 04 Rooms
17 Kahniya Palace Shailendar Singh Sri Shiv Singh Khanera 04 Rooms + Restaurant
18 Rana Place Kitab Singh Rana Sri Surb Singh Rana Khanera 04 Rooms
19 Residence Gabar Singh Sri Sultan Singh Khanera 04 Rooms
20 Residence Bijendar Singh Sri Sabal Singh Khanera 07 Rooms
21 Residence Brij Mohan Sri Jogolia Khanera 06 Cottages
23 Residence Chojen Lal Sri Kuta Singh Syalna 04 Rooms
24 Residence Basant Lal Sri Khelan Singh Khanera 03 Rooms
25 Residence Trepan Lal Sri Sadhu Lal Syalna 02 Rooms
26 Residence Jogi Lal Sri Jhapuliyan Khanera 02 Rooms
27 Aneesh Place Aneesh Sri Janbeer Khanera 06 Rooms
28 Residence Jendar Singh Sri Keval Singh Khanera 02 Rooms
29 Residence Praveen Singh Sri Jandar Singh Khanera 02 Rooms
30 Residence Jagendar Singh Sri Keval Singh Khanera 02 Rooms
31 Narayan Place Kendar Singh Payal Sri Ram Singh Syalna 05 Rooms
32 Residence Chain Singh Sri Rompal Singh Syalna 04 Rooms
33 Residence Ispal Singh Sri Khajan Singh Syalna 04 Rooms
34 Narayan Palace (Joint) Ranbeer Singh Sri Ghayan Chand Syalna 04 Cottage
35 Narayan Palace (Joint) Chain Singh Sri Daya Ram Singh Khanera 02 Rooms + Canteen= 02 cottage (About to fall)
36 Giri Ashram Saint Giri Kharadi
37 Trishul Hotel Kandra Singh Payal Sri Ram Singh Syalna Verandah Damaged
Bold entry relates to properties washed away in Aug 2012.

NOTE:
About 25 additional Households have now (after June 2013 floods) come with in the slip zone, which can now slip or get washed away any time in the event of high rainfall or another flood.
Entire Kharadi village has now been declared as disaster affected by the District Administration.

YAMUNA JIYE ABHIYAAN, JULY 2013
(Text by Manoj Mishra)

Forest Advisory Committee does not clear a dam project in Western Ghats of Nashik affecting nearly 1000 hectares of land, in the absence of relevant studies, information and compliance
Forest Advisory Committee

Forest Advisory Committee does not clear a dam project in Western Ghats of Nashik affecting nearly 1000 hectares of land, in the absence of relevant studies, information and compliance

SANDRP1 Comment

The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the MoEF in its meeting on the 11th and 12th of July did not recommend Forest Clearance to Kikvi Drinking water project coming up in Nashik. The proposal entailed diverting 172 hectares of forest land and a massive 761.52 hectares of agricultural land, totalling 933.98 hectares, without even a rehabilitation or resettlement plan. The project proponents pushed the project claiming that Gangapur dam is being silted up, but shockingly, did not present any alternative of desilting Gangapur Dam or even mentioning that Nashik already has three more drinking water supply sources in the upstream and downstream of Gangapur Dam.

In its decision, the FAC noted that

·         “The project proponent has not given due diligence in assessing water requirement of the area and available resources already in existence to meet this requirement.

·         No evidence is made available to prove that an authenticated study has been conducted to assess water requirement

·         There are three more drinking water/irrigation projects in Nashik but user agency could not establish any link between capacity of these and future water requirement.

·         Possibility of enhancing storage capacity of Gangapur dam to its installed capacity of 7.2 TMC by way of desiltation has not been explored.

·         It is also not understood how rehabilitation plan is not required if submergence of agricultural and is involved.”

FAC has asked for further clarification and reports before the project can be considered again. This includes a detailed study to assess present and future requirement of water for drinking irrigation and vis a vis available sources, an integrated plan which may include desilting study for Gangapur dam as well as a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan for the population whose agricultural land will be submerged. It has also asked for compliance of Forest Rights Act.

This is indeed a welcome decision by the FAC.  The proposal highlighted callous and casual approach of the Nashik Municipal Corporation while diverting an entire river and affecting agricultural lands in over 10 villages in Nashik, without even mentioning agricultural submergence clearly in its application.

SANDRP, along with local groups from Nashik had sent a submission to the FAC highlighting these pertinent points. It can be viewed at:https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/can-a-dam-submerging-1000-ha-be-encouraged-only-because-its-drinking-water-project/

Climate Change in Western Ghats: 4X4 Report and Beyond
Climate Change · Western Ghats

Climate Change in Western Ghats: 4X4 Report and Beyond

SANDRP2 Comments

Background

“No country in the world is as vulnerable, on so many dimensions to climate change as India. We need to build our own independent and credible research capacity on these issues.”

-Jairam Ramesh, erstwhile Union Environment Minister in Preface to CLIMATE CHANGE AND INDIA: A 4X4 ASSESSMENT: A SECTORAL AND REGIONAL ANALYSIS FOR 2030s

As India is struggling to cope with the extent and scope of the Uttarakhand Disaster[1], it is high time that we take the very real and urgent challenges of Climate Change seriously. India has several regions and communities significantly vulnerable to climate change. Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than global averages, precipitation across India is becoming more intense and unpredictable, biodiversity is under stress, sea levels are rising affecting thousands of coastal communities. And despite all this, destructive development in fragile regions is happening with utter disregard to this reality.

Maximum impacts of climate change are being faced by local poor communities and ecosystems.

With this in mind, we take a look at 4X4 Climate Assessment report (4X4 Report for short), brought out in 2010 by Ministry of Environment and forests (MoEF) which assessed Climate Change impacts by 2030 on four ecologically sensitive sectors: the Himalayan region, Western Ghats (WG), Coastal areas and North-east regions of the country and four issues: Agriculture, Forests, Human health and Water together. We also look at other reports on climate change in Western Ghats and compare these with actual challenges faced by WG. Till date this report remains the only official and definitive report about assessment of impact of climate change in India, to the best of our information (Readers, please let us know if there are other relevant reports in this regard).

The report is prepared by Indian network on Climate Change Assessment (INCCA)[2], which consists of 120 Indian Institutes and research laboratories, geared towards data analysis and impact predictions of the climate change scenarios. The network was launched by MoEF on 14th October 2009. 4X4 Report was published in November 2010 when Mr. Jairam Ramesh was the Union Minister for Environment and Forests.

Athirappilly Falls 1

A1 B Scenario Predictions

The climate change impact predictions need the to assume of socio-economic context for which predictions are made. IPCC has classified socio-economic scenarios under A & B categories with further sub-divisions under each of them. 4X4 Report uses the A1B prediction scenario for India. This scenario assumes significant innovations in energy technologies, which improve energy efficiency and reducethe cost of energy supply with a balance across all sources. A1B assumes drastic reductions in power generation costs through the use of solar, wind, and other modern renewable energies and end use products.[3],[4].

Ironically, this assumption of A1B scenario for 2030 seems baseless when we look at the current dependence on non-sustainable energy sources like coal based thermal and large hydro.

PRECIS (Providing Regional Climates for Impact Studies)[5] tool used in this report considers data from large time scale of 5-7 decades in order to predict impact for coming 3-4 decades.

We look at Water in Western Ghats and what the Report predicts for this most populated biodiversity hotspot in the World.

1.       Western Ghats: The Water Tower of Peninsular India

Western Ghats (WG) are one of the oldest mountain ranges– older than the Himalayas- occupying around 6 % of Indian landmass. According to High Level Working Group Report on Western Ghats (HLWG/Kasturirangan Committee Report), geographical area of WG is over 1,64,280 sq. km. WG harbor high degree of endemism with more than 78% of amphibian and about 41% fish species[6] and similar high RET (Rare, endemic and Threatened) floral and faunal groups. They also support numerous tribal and forest dwelling communities. In 2012 UNESCO has declared 38 sites from Western Ghats as World-heritage sites. Most of the Peninsular east flowing or west flowing rivers originate from Western Ghats making it the water tower of peninsular India. Millions depend on these rivers like Krishna, Godavari, Cauvery, Malaprabha, Ghataprabha, Bhima, Tungabhadra for water and ecosystem goods and services. West flowing rivers are shorter and swifter. Examples include Vaitarna, Ulhas, Kali, Sharavati, Chalakudy, Pamba, Bharatpuzha, Nethravathy, Hemavathy, Bhawani etc. There are many complex community- water relationships which could be found in the region.

Rivers from Western Ghats drain almost 40% of Indian drainage. Therefore, it is essential to understand the impacts of the climate change on water resources in Western Ghats.

Pristine Forests set for submergence under the 24 MW Kukke Mini hydel Plant in Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka. Photo: SANDRP
Pristine Forests set for submergence under the 24 MW Kukke Mini hydel Plant in Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka. Photo: SANDRP
  1. 2.       Predictions from 4X4 Report for Water and Western Ghats for 2030s

2.1   Precipitation and temperature:

In the Western Ghats, annual temperatures are likely to increase to 26.8 °C–27.5 °C in the 2030s. The rise in temperature with respect to the 1970s will be between 1.7° C and 1.8° C. The mean annual rainfall is likely to vary from 935± 185.33mm to 1794±247mm, which is an increase of 6%–8% with respect to the 1970s. The minimum temperatures may rise by 2.0 °C to 4.5° C, with minimum increase in those parts of Karnataka that lie in the Western Ghats. Within the region bordering the state of Kerala, the maximum temperature is likely to rise by 1° C–3° C.

The number of rainy days are likely decrease along the entire Western coast, including in the Western Ghats.

The intensity of rainfall is likely to increase by 1-2 mm/day.

2.2   Water yield, sedimentation the predictions for Western Coastal region, including the Western Ghats:

The west coast region exhibits a wide variability in the change in precipitation under the 2030s scenario. The northern portion of the west coast, consisting of areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra, shows an increase in precipitation for the 2030s scenario, and the increase varies from 4% to over 25%. However, areas of Karnataka and Kerala show a marginal decrease upto 4%.

The west coast region shows a general reduction in Evapotranspiration (ET), which varies from a very nominal value to about 5% for the 2030s scenario. Areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra, which had shown an increase in precipitation, still show a reduction in ET perhaps because of high intensity of the rainfall.  

The reduction in water yield for Karnataka and Kerala is up to about 10%. Gujarat and Maharashtra areas see an increase in water yield[7], and the magnitude is up to about 50%.

The west coast region also shows a considerable increase in the sediment yield for majority of the areas. Even those areas that are expected to receive less precipitation show an increase in sediment yield of up to 25%. The increase in sediment yield in these areas can possibly be explained due to an increase in the intensity of precipitation. This will have major impacts on water resource projects.

It is also seen that there is an increase in the moderate drought development for Krishna, Pennar, and Cauvery basins, which have either predicted decrease in precipitation or have enhanced level of evapo-transpiration. The maximum water withdrawal takes place from Godavari and Krishna river basins in Western Ghats in all the years[8]

2.3   Flood Analysis According to 4×4 Report, all the regions show an increase in the flooding varying between 10 to over 30% of the existing magnitudes. This has a very severe implication for the existing infrastructure such as dams for the areas and shall require appropriate adaptation and dam safety and operation measures to be taken up.

2.4   Impacts on crops:

a.       Coconut: Coconut yields are projected to increase by up to 30% in majority of the region. Increase in coconut yield may be mainly attributed to projected increase in rainfall (~10%) and relatively less increase in temperatures. However, some areas like south-west Karnataka, parts of Tamil Nadu and parts of Maharashtra, may lose yield up to 24%.

b.      Rice: Productivity of irrigated rice in Western Ghats region is likely to change +5 to –11% depending upon the location. Majority of the region is projected to lose the yield by about 4%. However, irrigated rice in parts of southern Karnataka and northern-most districts of Kerala is likely to gain. In the case of rain-fed rice, the projected change in yield is in the range of –35 to +35% with a large portion of the region likely to lose rice yields up to 10%.

c. Maize and sorghum: Climate change is likely to reduce yields of maize and sorghum by up to a whopping 50% depending upon the region.

Surprisingly, the report has no insights to offer to spice, coffee and tea plantation across Western Ghats. ( For impact of Climate Change on spices and plantations in Western Ghats: Dr. Latha Anantha and Unnikrishnan: https://sandrp.in/wtrsect/Water_Sector_Options_India_in_Changing_Climate_0312.pdf)

Plantations in Western Ghats Credit: Thinkstock
Plantations in Western Ghats Credit: Thinkstock

 

2.5   Impacts on forests:

The entire Western Ghats region is covered by 54 grids, out of which 10 (18%) are projected to undergo change. 18% forested grids in the region are projected to be vulnerable to climate change. The projection of the NPP (Net Primary Productivity) for the Western Ghats region is projected to have approximately 20% increase in NPP on an average.

2.6   Temperature Humidity Index (THI) and its possible impact on biodiversity:  While the report uses this index for studying analyzing impacts on livestock, its conclusions can also be used for biodiversity and fisheries. The report predicts “A severe thermal discomfort and stress is expected in most parts of Western Ghats and the Coastal region in the month of May.” This will not only affect the biodiversity, but also fisheries. However, the report makes no such correlation.

Seetha Nadi, free flowing river in Karnataka Western Ghats. Photo: SANDRP
Seetha Nadi, free flowing river in Karnataka Western Ghats. Photo: SANDRP

3.       Limitations and Way Forward:

The report accepts its limitation in terms of data sources, details which have been gathered, lack of integration of existing data, etc. The authors seem aware that the report in this form is of little use to policy makers or communities.

4.       Conclusions:

While the report has its severe gray areas, and there are variations within Western Ghats, it is clear that for Western Ghats:

  • Precipitation will be more intense with less rainy days
  • Temperatures will see a gradual increase
  • Crops will be affected
  • Forests (and dependent biodiversity) will be made more vulnerable
  • Sedimentation will increase sharply
  • Incidence of floods and droughts will rise sharply

 5.       Problems with 4 X 4 Assessment:

Apart from the limitations admitted by INCAA, the report suffers several other limitations.

  • It does not offer any recommendations for policy makers.
  • Neither does it hold any recommendations for communities. In fact in its way forward, when it mentions that cooperation has to be sought from several departments and organizations, it does not even mention local communities who will face major impacts!
  • No mention of adaptation and mitigation measures that communities can adapt, except some very limited mentions. This is a huge gap. (More on Water Sector Options for India including a paper on plantations in Western Ghats can be found here:https://sandrp.in/wtrsect/Ex_Summary_WATER_SECTOR_OPTIONS_FOR_INDIA_IN_CHANGING_CLIMATE_MARCH_2012.pdf)
  • In the task of assessing impacts and devising solutions to mitigate and adapt to impacts of climate change, local communities have proved to be extremely adept. At the same time, the impacts of climate change affect these communities the most and hence they have to be made a part of ongoing research. 4 X 4 Report does not even attempt this.
  • Some big questions:

The report says that “The northern portion of the west coast, consisting of areas of Gujarat and Maharashtra, shows an increase in precipitation for the 2030s scenario, and the increase varies from 4% to over 25%. Gujarat and Maharashtra areas see an increase in water yield, and the magnitude is up to about 50%. As per the maps, this region also includes the Western Ghats.

Now Northern Western Ghats is exactly the same region where Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM, also a part of INCA) has said that there have been drastic, ongoing reductions in rainfall!

In fact, Centre for Climate change, IITM has said that in the last 110 years (1901-2011) rainfall in Mahabaleshwar, origin of five rivers in northern Western Ghats has decreased by 800 mm! In northern Westenr Ghats of Maharashtra, rainfall has decreased at the rate of 2% per decade while the rate of decrease is lower in Southen Western Ghats for Kerala at 1%.[9]

This aspects needs some more clarity.

  • No reference to the ongoing destructive development in Western Ghats: Western Ghats are facing severe threat from Mining, Hydropower projects, Irrigation Projects, mini hydel projects, which affect water cycle, sedimentation, forests and biodiversity of the region and displacement and impoverishment of very large number of people. However, the report does not dwell on any of these practical problems and their impact in compounding climate change challenges.

    Mining in Goa Photo: Damodar Pujari
    Mining in Goa Photo: Damodar Pujari

 

  • No reference to biodiversity, freshwater fisheries: The report has no predictions or recommendations to offer for biodiversity in Western Ghats. While there is a section on coastal fisheries, there is no mention of rich freshwater fisheries in Western Ghats!

 

  • A1B Scenario: There is no evidence that India is adopting the A1B scenario which considers growth through a mix of energy sources like solar and wind, etc. We still depend heavily on non-sustainable energy sources like Thermal and large hydro. Hence, this assumption itself is flawed and predictions based on this assumption cannot be considered seriously. In fact, the actual predictions, looking at India’s and Western Ghat’s track record, (with over 10 coal based thermal power plants, several other nuclear power projects, ports and large dams coming up in Maharashtra, concentrated and non-sustainable mines in Goa) could be much more severe.

 6.       Impacts of climate Change on Western Ghats from Western Ghats Expert Ecology Panel report and High Level Working Group on Western Ghats Report:

  • Western Ghat Expert Ecology Panel Report: WGEEP does not refer to 4 X 4 Report. It considers A2 and B2 scenarios, and concludes that northern region of Ghats is more sensitive to climate change than southern region. Though the report does not deal with climate change in detail, the recommendations of WGEEP are extremely climate friendly.
  • High Level Working Group Report:  HLWG report has considered 4×4 Report in its analysis and includes a Chapter on Climate Change. This chapter is more effective in dealing with ground challenges than the 4×4 report. However there are some major problems in this.

The HLWG Report states:

a.       “Biodiversity: In the Western Ghats, climate change is expected to increase species losses.  Changes in phenology are expected to occur for many species. Ecosystems dominated by long-lived species (like forests in WG) will be slow to show evidence of change and slow to recover from the climate related stress

b.      Water, Irrigation and Hydro Power: Impacts of climate change and climate variability on the water resources are likely to affect irrigated agriculture, installed power capacity, environmental flows in the dry season, and higher flows during the wet season, thereby causing severe droughts and flood problems. “It is seen that there is an increase in the moderate drought development   for Krishna, Pennar, and Cauvery  basins, which have either predicted decrease in precipitation or have enhanced level of evapo-transpiration. The maximum water withdrawal takes place from  Godavari and Krishna river basins in Western Ghats in all the years.”

c.       Hydro capacity “is expected to increase, but its share decreases from the total installed capacity by 2100. The slow growth in capacity is due to barriers of high investment requirements and long gestation periods. A number of socio-environmental issues are related to dam construction, flooding of areas, damages to the ecology, and resettlement and rehabilitation of the population.”

Though HLWG dedicates an entire chapter to Climate Change Impacts on Western Ghats, it still does not comment on destructive hydropower projects and such other plans which decrease resilience and adaptation capacities of ecosystems and communities and in fact contributes to climate change by deforestation and methane emissions! In fact, by not opposing projects like 163 MW Athirappilly and 200 MW Gundia, the HLWG report supports projects which have huge potential on increasing climate change impacts[10],[11],[12]

Shockingly, the HLWG report certifies all hydro as green and renewable source of energy, something that even developed countries or UNFCCC does not do.

According to the Second National Communication on Climate Change (NATCOM, 2012), the Western Ghats is expected to experience increase in temperature regimes, rainfall and extreme events due to climate change. There is also a high probability of significant decrease in the duration of the precipitation (NATCOM, 2012). The projected changes in the precipitation may induce changes in the hydrological regimes especially increase in evapo-transpiration and increased runoff .

7.       Way Forward of Water, communities and ecosystems in Western Ghats

India has been witnessing several climate related disasters in the recent years. Instead of going into a ‘climate change or no climate change’ debate, it is time to adopt no-regrets strategies and build climate resilience of communities and ecosystems. Unfortunately, we do not see evidence of decreasing emissions or adopting climate friendly strategies from India, or even other developed countries which support and fun destructive projects in India.  The Clean Development Mechanism introduced by UNFCCC has in fact been supporting and pushing destructive projects in developing countries, while legitimizing pollution in developed countries.

 Some possible measures:

  • Natural ecosystems are resilient in coping with climate change challenges: natural ecosystems like rivers, streams, forests need to be protected for their resilience to climate change impact as well as the goods and services they provide to local communities, who are most vulnerable and least able to cope with the climate change implications.
  • Free flowing rivers are more resilient than their dammed counterparts: Free flowing rivers in western Ghats need to be protected on priority
  • Fragmented Forests are more vulnerable to climate change impacts: Deforestation and fragmentation of forests in Western Ghats should be avoided at all costs. Large Hydro power, irrigation projects, mini hydel, mines, hills station projects affecting forests should be dropped urgently. Local projects should be considered only with free, prior and informed consent of the communities. All projects related t the mega Inter Linking of Rivers in the western Ghats should be dropped, including Par Tapi Narmada, Damanganga Pinjal, Nethrawati, Hemawati, Pamba, Achankovil, among others.
  • Old and unsafe large dam projects like the Mullaperiyar and others should be considered for decommissioning as recommended by WGEEP.
  • The diversion of east flowing rivers to the west in Maharashtra should be reversed in a time bound manner and no more such projects should be considered.
  • All projects in Western Ghats: large or small should be brought under the ambit of environmental clearance which should look specifically at climate change impacts on these projects and should also require FPIC.
  • Community water harvesting systems, traditional water harvesting systems, watershed measures need to be encouraged. Western Ghats is rich in these examples
  • Efficient and water saving measures like System of Rice Intensification should be adopted for the entire Ghat region.
  • Recommendations of WGEEP need to be implemented urgently
  • Most importantly, communities need to be made an integral part of decision making surrounding natural resources. Currently, mega projects like Athirappilly, Gundia, Talamba and Tillari dams in Maharashtra, drinking water dams near Mumbai, etc. completely neglect community concerns. Communities will not only face direct impacts of displacement and losing rights, the long term impacts on adaptation and mitigation capacities of communities will also be jeopardized due to destructive projects.

 

Damodar Pujari

with inputs from Parineeta Dandekar

South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2] INCAA- Indian Network for Climate Change Analysis.

[4] High Level Working Group Report, Part I, Page 20

[6] Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Group: WGEEP

[7] Water yield (water crop or runout). The runoff from the drainage basin, including ground-water outflow that appears in the stream plus ground-water outflow that bypasses the gaging station and leaves the basin underground. Water yield is the precipitation minus the evpotranspiration. (http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html)

[8] HLWG Report, Part 1, Page 24

Western Ghats

Prof. Madhav Gadgil says Empower the panchayats to protect environment

SANDRP2 Comments

“At the ground level people are really interested and they want to get involved and our report if nothing else, seem to have serve the purpose of triggering such kind of an interest” said Prof. Madhav Gadgil who delivered a lecture on “Democracy and ecology in contemporary India” at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML) on 17th July 2013. His lecture was part of the public lecture series on ‘Science Society and Nature’ and the event was attended by more than 400 people, the second highest audience NMML has witnessed for public lecture as Director Mahesh Rangarajan revealed at the end of the lecture. The lecture was chaired by Jairam Ramesh, the former Minister of Environment and Forests and currently the minister for Rural Development and also in charge of Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation.

Prof. Gadgil in his lecture presented several case studies through which he showed how in the name of ‘development’ only lip service has been paid to the environmental norms and all democratic processes have been sidelined. Dr. Gadgil also shared his experiences of working for the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (the report submitted by this panel can be accessed here – http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/wg-23052012.pdf) which was formed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to study the ecological and environmental concerns of the Western Ghats under his aegis.

Talking about iron mining in Goa, Prof Gadgil said the government of Goa even does not have any account of how much ore has been extracted by the mining contractors, leaving aside environmental concerns. Bringing the issue of unprecedented dam construction in Western Ghats, he gave the example of Athirappilly dam in ChalakudyRiver in Kerela which was the eight dam proposed in the river. There was a clear violation of Forest Rights Act, as construction of this dam would lead to displacement and subsequent extinction of the ‘primitive tribal’ community named Kadar. The government officials were claiming that if this dam was not constructed Kerela would starve for electricity. But a detailed presentation by RiverResearchCenter, Kerela covering technical, economic and social aspects of the proposed dam showed this dam was not viable as there would be not be sufficient water left in the river for this dam as the water would already be harnessed in the seven upstream dams. The government officials, who were claiming that Kerela would go power hungry, had no reply to this.

Presenting the case of Plachimada village in Perumatti Panchayat in Palakkad district of same state, he said that Coca Cola Company had not paid any compensation that it was supposed to pay to the farmers of Plachimada as ordered by the Supreme Court. Coca Cola was also supposed to pay a tax of Rs 60 cores to the government of Kerela but the government had surprisingly given tax exemption of Rs 6 crores to the company. In both these examples he showed how the acts of democratically elected government were actually against people and environment. But he hailed the Plachimada struggle against Coca Cola as a ray of hope since this was a struggle led by a Panchayat, a local level democratic institution which brought a multi-national company to its knees. He also pointed out how law and order mechanism of state had been used to suppress people’s protests against illegal pollution in Lotte, in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra.

Throughout his lecture Dr. Gadgil strongly argued for decentralization of power in order to protect ecology and environment. He mentioned about the powers given in the hands of the local bodies through the 73rd and 74th amendment of the constitution of India. He said that there are several laws and policies e.g. Bio-logical Diversity Act (2002), National Gene Funds which talked about participation of citizens in the decision making but this was never implemented on the ground. He said that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) documents and the whole environmental clearance process should be reconsidered and reviewed (a press release on the functioning of Expert Appraisal Committee which grants environment clearance termed the committee as Expert Approval Committee  – https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/analysis-of-moefs-eac-on-river-valley-projects-the-expert-approval-committee-has-zero-rejection-in-six-years/).

Taking the case of mining in Goa, he said that his team of the Ecology Expert Panel reviewed EIA documents of 75 mines and found that all the mines had made fraudulent statements about how the mines would impact the rivers and rivulets. There were EIA documents of these mines which even denied the existence of perennial streams in the hill plateau where these mines existed. In one case when he wrote to one of the mine managers about the existence of a famous stream near that mine, but the reply was that since there were no blue lines in the geological map of Goa, there are no streams.

He stressed on the need to engage local people in the decision making process and increase dissemination of information. He took the example of ‘Australian River Watch’ programme where the citizens are trained to monitor the health of a river just by looking at the bio-logical indicators. He opined that India should take lessons from this and should initiate such programmes. He said that in our democracy we have many possibilities of engaging in decision making. He ended his speech by saying that for India to progress, India should take bottom up approach and strengthen its democracy, rule of law, scientific temperament and traditional ecological knowledge.

 

Q&A session brought out more issues – The question-answer session which followed the lecture also brought several important issues in to the foray. Answering a question about how much scientific peoples’ knowledge is, he said that one must understand that peoples’ knowledge is historical and locality specific and traditional. So the people of a certain locality would know better about the ecology and environment of a specific place rather than experts or engineers. Here again he emphasized on the need to include of common people in the decision making process.    

Answering a question about the climate change impacts in the Western Ghats, he said that there are no immediately visible impacts of climate change in Western Ghats. But he said that Himalayan range already had visible impacts of climate change in the form of glacier melting and increased precipitation. But he warned that Western Ghats will surely have climate change impacts in the future.

When asked about his opinion on the future of Western Ghats if the diluted version of his report, i.e. Report of the High Level Working Group headed by Dr Kasturirangan (A blog that compares Kasturirangan and Gadgil Panel report can be found here – https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/how-much-does-the-kasturirangan-committee-understand-about-water-issues-in-western-ghats/) gets accepted by the government, Dr. Gadgil laughingly said that he knew that his report would not be accepted but he was sure that Kasturirangan’s report would also not  be implemented (A letter by Prof Gadgil on Kasturirangan committee can be found here: https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/prof-madhav-gadgil-writes-to-dr-kasturirangan/). But he expressed his surprise on the fact that after his report, people are really awakened and they are now paying attention to these issues. He is happy to see that at the people in the ground level are really interested to know about the environmental issues. He said that the report by his group, had served the purpose of triggering this interest if not anything else. He expressed his optimism about the report. (SANDRP comment on Kasturirangan Committee submitted to MoEF can be found at: https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/comments-on-hlwg-report-submitted-to-ministry-of-environment-and-forests/)

Talking about gender imbalance he narrated an experience of 1984 of a Zila Parishad in Uttar Kannada district in Karnataka. There he organized a meeting of all the Zila Parishad members to know their views on environmental issues in their zila (district). In that meeting it was mainly the women members who vociferously talked about the environmental concerns and they gave excellent feedback on the issue. He added that from his experience of working on such issues all these years, he has found that in the local elected bodies it is the women members who are more concerned with environmental issues.

Answering a question regarding dam construction in northeast he said that very less knowledge is available about the geology of young HimalayanMountain. Giving the example of the recent Uttarakhand disaster he said that one of renowned environmentalist from the state, Dr. K. S. Valdiya have been completely ignored and was never consulted for any of the developmental activity in the state even though he has written extensively about the geology of the hilly state. This is actually ignoring scientific knowledge about the area and he expressed his fear that similar things might be happening in the northeast as well.

Answering a question about recent flood devastation in Uttarakhand, he said that from Dr. K. S. Valdiya what he had come to know is that lawless and a mindless construction activity like dhabas and hotels, in the river bed of Mandakini in Uttarakhand is one of the major reasons for the increased amount of devastation in the recent flood. He said that traditionally the people of Uttarakhand used to construct houses far from the river in order to save themselves from the fury of floods. He was also informed that for hydroelectric dam the residences of project engineers and labour have been constructed at wrong places and in the recent floods these constructions must have been affected (a detailed report on Uttarakhand floods is available here – https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/uttarakhand-deluge-how-human-actions-and-neglect-converted-a-natural-phenomenon-into-a-massive-disaster/).

Answering a question about whether inter-linking of rivers in justified or not and if environmental movements have taken a view of ‘changelessness’, Professor Gadgil said he is not sure whether environmental movements are trying to suppress debate and pushing for only one kind of debate, which is undermining scientific spirit. Regarding inter-linking of rivers, he said that all the pros and cons should be thoroughly studied and then only the decision should be taken. However what he has been informed by Dr. K. S. Valdiya that those who are in favour of pushing through the projects are often suppressing all kinds of debates. Here he brought the issue of Athirappilly dam again and said that River Research Centre which had been long talking about the pros and cons of the project, their voices had been suppressed. He said that if environmentalists are trying to suppress the debate then that is clearly wrong but he has got no evidence of that. But he has seen evidences of things happening in the other way round where project proponents are suppressing questioning of project proposals.

On a question regarding faster growth versus sustainable growth, he said that if faster growth is genuinely leading to employment generation and improve quality of life, then following the path of faster growth is right.  But if this is not happening, he said there were many evidences that faster is obviously not better. He ended the question answer session by quoting a German proverb which said ‘if you are running in the wrong direction then it is better to run slowly than fast.’

Concluding Remarks by Former MoEF – Jairam Ramesh in his concluding remarks highlighted couple of points which Prof. Gadgil has raised. He said that the greatest contribution of the work done by Prof. Gadgil is that it had brought high levels of ecological sensitivity which is grounded in the primacy of local democratic institutions and anchored in  a belief on the scientific method. He said for the younger generation Prof. Gadgil is a role model. But he also points out that as a democracy India has to make a choice between growth and environmental concerns and he warned against the romanticization with environmental movements. He pointed out that India faces a unique challenge of adding 10 million jobs to its labour force every year. He opined that India cannot choose between faster or sustainable growth but India’s growth has to be faster and sustainable. The responsibility of the scholars, activists and government here, according to him is to find ways and means to reach this. The twin pillars to reach this have to be what Prof. Gadgil has mentioned in his talk – 1. Organized skepticism or the respect for the scientific methods and  2. Respect for full functioning of democratic institutions at all levels, from bottom to the top. Emphasizing on the need for laws to implement environment policies in a fast growing economy, he said that Indian Parliament has passed some of the most progressive laws in the world but it is in the implementation and enforcement of these laws where India has failed again and again.

Parag Jyoti Saikia (meandering1800@gmail.com)

Ministry of Environment and Forests · Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand Disaster: MoEF should suspend Clearances to Hydropower projects and institute enquiry in the role of HEPs

SANDRP3 Comments

Letter to MEF:

Suspend ECs to Hydropower Projects in Uttarakhand

Institute independent enquiry into the role of HEPs in increasing the disaster

in Uttarakhand

July 20, 2013

To

1. Union Minister of State (IC) of Environment and Forests

Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi11003

2. Secretary,

Union Ministry of Environment and Forests

Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi11003

Respected Minister and Secretary,

Sub: Suspend ECs to Hydropower Projects in Uttarakhand

Institute independent enquiry into the role of HEPs in increasing the disaster

in Uttarakhand

1. Uttarakhand Disaster and Hydropower projects It is now beyond doubt that existing and under construction hydropower projects in Uttarakhand have played a significant role in increasing the proportions of disaster in Uttarakhand this June 2013. Here are a few examples just to illustrate:

Þ    Srinagar HEP This 330 MW project under construction had been illegally dumping the muck into the river or piling heaps on the slope without an adequate retaining wall. Moreover, it is learnt that the project closed the gates of the dam on the evening of June 16, 2013, but opened them up suddenly in the early hours of next morning, which led to flooding of hundreds of houses and buildings in the downstream Srinagar town. The piled muck heaps were washed into the town.  The town was submerged in not only water, but also 10-30 feet of muck. The project itself has suffered damages.

Þ    Singoli Bhatwari and Phata Byung HEPs on Mandakini river The 99 MW Singoli Bhatwari and the 76 MW Phata Byung HEPs are both under construction projects on Mandakini river in Rudraprayag district. Both projects have been illegally dumping muck along the river banks, which was carried by the river to the downstream villages and towns upto Rudrapayag and beyond. Both the projects have suffered severe damages. Water levels in the MandakiniRiver rose 30 to 40 feet at various locations, destroying roads, private and public properties. All bridges downstram of the S-B project were washed away snapping links across the river and causing enormous hardships to the local people, rescue, relief anf rehabilitation efforts.

Þ    Vishnuprayag HEP on Alaknanda River The operators of the 400 MW project did not open the gates in time, leading to the reservoir behind the gates filled with boulders, see before and after photos at: http://matuganga.blogspot.in/2013/06/press-note-30-6-2013.html. The river than bypassed the project and created a new path as can be seen in the photos, firstly, creating a huge flash flood in the downstream area and also eroding the banks and the road. Lambagad market and  Govindghat township have suffered massive destruction of private property and public property, including the bridge to the Hemkund Sahib trek, endangering the lives of pilgrims and tourists.

Þ    Maneri Bhali I and II Due to lack of protection wall and lack of timely opening of the gates, the people residing on the banks of the project suffered huge flood disaster, large number of houses were washed away and lives lost. Maneri Bhali I is itself damaged and yet to start generation, even Maneri Bhali II started generation only after July 12, 2013.

Þ    Dhouliganga HEP This 280 MW Dhouliganga HEP of NHPC is also being held responsible for floods in the downstream area, the power house of the project itself was submerged and project is yet to start generation.

Þ    Small HEPs A large number of small HEPs have suffered damages and are also being held responsible for increased disaster impacts. Such projects include 4 MW Kaliganga I and 10 MW Kaliganga II, 9.5 MW Madhyamaheshwar HEP, 5 MW Motighat HEP, Assiganga I and II HEPs, among others. We have been urging the MoEF to amend the EIA notification to include all hydro projects above 1 MW under category B1 so that they all have EIAs, EMPs, ECs, EAC sanction and public consultation process. Kindly make this change urgently.

For further details about existing, under construction and proposed hydropower projects in Uttarakhand, see: https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/uttarakhand-existing-under-construction-and-proposed-hydropower-projects-how-do-they-add-to-the-disaster-potential-in-uttarakhand/.

2. List of Uttarakhand Hydropower projects with EC on the MoEF webiste As per the legal norms under the EPA 1986 and EIA notifications of 1994 and Sept 2006 (both are relevant since some of the projects got clearance under earlier notification), the developers are supposed to send six monthly compliance reports to MoEF and it is also legal obligation of MoEF to put such compliance reports on the MoEF website, see section 10(i) and (ii) of the EIA notification of Sept 2006. It is very important to note that these reports are supposed to reflect the extent to which the projects are complying with the conditions of environment clearance and environment management plans. These reports are an important mechanism for MoEF to know about the status of compliance of the projects. A perusal of the Environment clearance site of the MoEF (See: http://environmentclearance.nic.in/Search.aspx) and looking for the Uttarakhand river valley projects granted Environment clearance, we find that the site displays a list of seven hydro projects, in which since Srinagar project figures twice, the site effectively contains only six names. In the first place this is the first illegality of MoEF, since this is not a complete list. To illustrate, the 76 MW Phata Byung HEP under construction on Mandakini river does not figure on this, there are other projects too that does not figure on this list. We urge MoEF to kindly put up the full list here and also fix responsibility for this legal lapse for not putting up full list.

3. Compliance reports of Under Construction of HEPs not available Since full list of under construction HEPs of Uttarakhand is not displayed on MoEF website, the MoEF is also unable to fulfill its legal duty of putting up compliance reports. Even among the project displayed on the MoEF website, latest compliance report is available only for one project, namely Singoli Bhatwari HEP (it is file of massive size at 30 MB, most people wont be able to download this, MoEF should ask for file size of 1 MB or below and upload them in smaller size segments). So for the rest of the projects there is no compliance report on the MoEF website. This is clearly a serious violations on the part of the MoEF and MoEF needs to urgently hold accountable those who are responsible for this serious legal lapse. The MoEF also needs to take urgent action against those that have not submitted the reports as required, suspension of their environment clearance can be the first step.

4. Suspend Environment Clearance of the projects prime facie responsible for disaster damages MoEF should urgently suspend environment clearance of those projects that have been found to be prime facie responsible for the damages. We urge MoEF to suspend the clearances of following projects: Singoli Bhatwari, Phata Byung, Srinagar (all under construction projects), Vishnuprayag, Dhouliganga, Maneri Bhali I and II (all operating projects), for the reasons described in para 1 above. As a direct consequence there off, MoEF should also ask these projects to suspend their work including repair and reconstruction work till further orders. These are also required from the point of view of future safety of the downstream people and areas and also revisit the features of the projects from this perspective.

Such suspension is also necessary since the projects need a review considering that following issues have not been considered by giving clearances to the projects:

1. Change in climate due to HEPs leading to, among other changes, more erosion and landslides, more irregular rainfall patterns, more violent cloudbursts.

2    Inadequate assessment of landslide impacts of the project by GSI and MoEF.

3    The only norm for use of explosives has been made by Director General of Mines Safety for mines and pucca houses. These norms are being mindlessly applied to the fragile Uttarakhand hills and structures there.

4    Impact on forests of explosives via (1) losening of soil; (2) depletion of aquifers.

5    Impact on global warming by deforestation and depletion of aquifers.

6    Impact of project on disaster potential and implied cost of disaster.

7    Reservoir Induced Seismicity. NCSDP only looks at the safety of the dam structure. There is not agency that looks into the impact on the area, including hills, forests, water sources, houses and other structures.

8. The performance of the projects in view of changing climate, receding glaciers, possibilities of increased flashfloods, landslides and so on.

5. Institute credible, independent enquiry MoEF should urgently institute credible, independent enquiry into the disaster impacts due to the wrong and illegal functioning of the projects mentioned in first para above, including the impacts on people, their lives and property, on the property of the state and other institutions. This should be done on urgent basis so that an assessment of the existing situation can be done urgently before the ground realities change significantly and while the memory of the events are fresh in everyone’s mind.

6. Change EIA notification to include all hydro projects above 1 MW As noted in last bullet points in para 1 above, we urge the MoEF to amend the EIA notification to include all hydro projects above 1 MW under category B1 so that they all have EIAs, EMPs, ECs, EAC sanction and public consultation process.

7. Change EIA notification to include commissioned projects to send six monthly compliance reports and also undergo 5 yearly review For example, in US, the Federal Electricity Regulatory Commission has detailed regulations as to what happens once a project undergoes such emergency situation, see: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/regulation/dam-safety.asp. This includes, “Every 5 years an independent consulting engineer, approved by the Commission, must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet (10 meters), or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre-feet (2.5 million cubic meters)… The Commission staff also evaluates the effects of potential and actual large floods on the safety of dams. During and following floods, the Commission staff visits project dams and licensed projects, determines the extent of damage, if any, and directs any necessary studies or remedial measures the licensee must undertake.”

Most hydropower projects of Uttarakhand would come under above description and MoEF as a regulator should be following similar review process for all projects sanctioned by it every five years and also ensure that even projects once commissioned also send six monthly reports to MoEF ensuring compliance of the norms. Such a mechanism has also been recommended by the BK Chaturvedi committee.

 

Hence we urge MoEF to urgently review the EIA notification to ensure submission of six monthly compliance reports for commissioned projects and also ensure 5 yearly review of the environment clearances.

We will look forward to your urgent response on these issues.

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,

Endorsed by:

Ravi Chopra, People Science Institute, Dehradoon, psiddoon@gmail.com

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala, Former professor of IIM Bangalore, Uttarakhand, bharatjj@gmail.com

Prof Prakash Nautiyal Aquatic Biodiversity Unit, H N B Garhwal University, Srinagar, Uttarakhand, lotic.biodiversity@gmail.com

Dr Mohan Singh Panwar, H N B Garhwal University, Srinagar, Uttarakhand mohanpanwar310@yahoo.in

Malika Virdi, Himal Prakriti, Uttarakhand, malika.virdi@gmail.com

E Theophilus, Himal Prakriti, Uttarakhand, etheophilus@gmail.com

K. Ramnarayan, Save the Rivers Campaign and Himal Prakriti,  Uttarakhand, ramnarayan.k@gmail.com

Dr Prakash Chaudhary, Uttarakhand Peoples Forum, drprakashchaudhary@gmail.com

Vimal Bhai, Matu Jan Sangathan, Uttarakhand, bhaivimal@gmail.com

Prashant Bhushan, Senior Supreme Court Lawyer, New Delhi, prashantbhush@gmail.com

11. Neeraj Vagholikar, Kalpavriksh, Pune, nvagho@gmail.com

Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre, Delhi, qadeeroy@gmail.com

Shripad Dharmadhikary, Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, Pune, manthan.shripad@gmail.com

Dr A Latha, River Research Centre, Kerala, rrckerala@gmail.com

Samir Mehta, International Rivers and River Basin Friends, Mumbai, samir@internationalrivers.org

Valli Bindana, Ganga film maker,  Delhi, vallibindana@gmail.com

Marthand Bindana, Ganga film maker,  Delhi, marthand.bindana@gmail.com

Madhu Bhaduri, Ambassador of India (Retd), Delhi, madhu.bhaduri@gmail.com

Vandana Shiva, Navdanya, Delhi, Vandana@vandanashiva.com

Manoj Mishra, Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, Delhi, yamunajiye@gmail.com

21. Himanshu Thakkar & Parineeta Dandekar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, 86-D, AD block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, https://sandrp.in/, ht.sandrp@gmail.com, 09968242798

Copy to: 1. Jt Secretary, MEF

2. Director-IA, RVP, MEF

News coverage:

1. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/power-projects-need-a-closer-look/article4939421.ece

2. Activists blame six hydel projects for disaster in Uttarakhand urge moef to suspend clearance, Business Standard, July 21 2013