vol 13 | issue 11-12 | dec 2015-jan 2016 rs. 15/- four ... · vol 13 | issue 11-12 | dec 2015-jan...

Contact :Himanshu Thakkar,Parineeta Dandekar,Bhim Rawat,Ganesh GaudDams, Rivers and PeopleC/o 86-D, AD Block,Shalimar BaghDelhi - 100 088, India.Ph: + 91 11 2748 4654/[email protected]://sandrp.wordpress.com/,www.facebook.com/sandrp.in,http://sandrp.in

1

Working for water resources development as if democracy, people and environment matter

Vol 13 | Issue 11-12 | Dec 2015-Jan 2016 Rs. 15/-

Index Four Boats at a River CrossingNachiket Kelkar

It was a pleasant November after-noon when we were travelling downthe Ganga River by boat, surveyingriver dolphins. Tall grass had grownon both banks through the flood re-cession period. The water level hadbecome very low already. Two mag-nificently large concrete buildings;one, the agricultural college, andthe second, the industrial office,stood precariously by the edge of arapidly eroding bank. At the turn ofthis bank, the Ganges Voyager ap-peared in a sudden sight. Britishtourists with gleaming shades, sun-ning their fair skins to balanced tantempered by muslin umbrellas putover brick-red wooden tables, wavedat us from the deck of the Voyager.Uniformed Indian attendants con-firmed that they were not wavingout to any dangerous people, in are-enactment of the old colonialdays. The Voyager had fifty air-con-

ditioned luxury rooms. Their win-dows were made translucent by palemauve and white chiffon curtainsartistically tied in an hourglassshape. The Ganges Voyager was likea luminous sculpture of marble, atrue white elephant, an unbeliev-ably striking white contrast fromthe grey of the Ganga River onwhich it moved. It was somewhatlike those two tall buildings thatlooked over an agricultural flood-plain and riverscape: there wassomething discordant and decep-tive. This was unlike the inland wa-terways ship that was anchored inthe shallower side off the other bank– which seemed purely involved insinister activity. Its dredging pillarsmoved up and down over a largepivot, extracting several kilogramsof river sediment in a single bout,of which many followed in rapid suc-cession.

Four Boats at a RiverCrossing 1

Bhutan HydropowerDevelopments in 2015 4

Maharashtra’s WaterSector in 2015:Did anything changewith the government? 10

Himachal PradeshHydropower Projectsin 2015 15

Groundwater CrisesDeepened in Indiain 2015 21

Hydropower projectscommissioned in 2015in India 28

Hydropower projects inIndia: Important 2015Developments 31

The Ganges Voyager. Photo: © Subhasis Dey/VBREC

2

Dams, Rivers & People Dec 2015-Jan 2016

Dredging operations along the Ganga.Photo: © Sunil Choudhary/ VBREC.

Our river dolphin survey boat on the other hand, was aknobbed, rivet-struck structure of only grey, brown, andblack. Pramod, our skipper, lay down on a ragged quiltblackened by the grime and grease of the sooty, noisyand shuddering engine. The bamboo platforms of theship were creaking with the slightest shift of body weightcaused by observers turning their heads in various di-rections to spot dolphins better. The boat was physicallyrattled by the huge V-shaped ripple that was created bythe Ganges Voyager. The observers silently imaginedwhat Ganges River dolphins underwater would have feltby the swamping concussion of the engine noises of bothboats together. Balancing their chairs on the boat, theywaited for the Voyager’s influence to subside. For usgetting a good population estimate of river dolphins wasthe ultimate objective today. Our boat had a couple ofcostly and high-end acoustic machines towing behind torecord dolphin sounds. The noises of the dredge, thevoyager and the terrible current must have wobbled andupturned the devices in the water. The Voyager musthave surely meant a lot of work for another small boatbeing rowed by three fishermen in the distance. To keepthem from netting over the acoustic device, our skipper

Our river dolphin survey boat. Photo: © Subhasis Dey/VBREC

asked them to row away backwards. But in doing so,their oars tripped over a giant trailing stir left by theVoyager. The boat viciously toppled and one of the oarschipped off at its corner edge. We could only imaginethe human strength it must have taken the fishermento keep the boat’s bow down after that jerk. This musthave been rather tiring – worth abandoning if not forthe day’s meal – much more than what the calm riverafforded in November generally.

As the wave extinguished in strength, we heard a loudbang, and a water fount sprung from the river’s calmingsurface. “Dolphin” shouted one of the volunteers, andothers thought the bang was perhaps of firecrackers fromsome wedding ritual in villages on the river’s banks. Itwas neither of these. But then a heavy black boat with atall crest arrived, a boat larger than both our surveyboat and the fishing boat. The man on the bow stoodwith a black cloth flag and vigorously waved it andshouted, hurling abuses. Two other men brandished theirrifles and flashed a commander torch. This was their

signal for us to stop and veer the boat towards them.They were an armed gang of bandits. As we turned, thebandits fired six shots at our boat, which landed in theriver around and produced six large founts. We had al-ready ducked under our chairs and sacks, in a display ofthoughtful cowardice – with the simple logic that theyhad guns and we did not. As our boat turned the banditssaw the banner on the boat’s side that read – “RiverDolphin Survey”. The bandits had nothing to do withus; they stopped firing. Hurling an abuse their leadershouted: “Get lost – or there will be trouble. We havescores to settle here with others. Your safety is in goingaway right now. Get lost!”

Pramod turned our boat back on track, with acousticdevices trailing and all, and off we went, downriver. Ourfisher friends later told us that there was an armed fightbetween two gangs because of some land dispute rightafter this flood season. And we happened to be the use-

A fisherman crosses the river with his boat.Photo: © Sameer Kumar/VBREC.

3


less sort of innocent bystanders, who had a fortunateescape. There was a complex silence on the boat afterthe shooting incident, and I am sure our team missedcounting some dolphins because of being caught in anendless web of nerves and thoughts. But soon, near themeander at Ismailpur, dolphin calves started surfacingaplenty with full zest and energy. As the survey pro-gressed, our silence and nervous ponderations brokeaway and the sense of wonder returned to the observ-ers. The marvel and delight of watching little dolphinsjump around the boat defeated the fear of bandits, theawe of the Voyager, and the fickleness of self-interestand life-insurance. Conversations into the night slowlytranscended into a warm but morbid humour on howwe were still alive. When had fieldwork in Bihar beendifferent?

The story of the four boats that met at this river cross-ing serves as a resounding metaphor of where we areheaded. The largest boats represented the highest power– and the smallest boats were brutally shaken by theshock-wave sent by the largest. They could dredge, theycould sell, and they could even drown you. The NationalWaterways Bill (2015) on the anvil currently – wants to

commodify and relegate our rivers to mere ‘freight-car-riers’ and ‘tourist routes’ because its imagination is nar-row and sickly. The bill shows complete indifference to-wards the wide diversity of ecological and social mean-ings embedded in India’s rivers. Its sheer scale and ar-rogant ambition makes it the most gigantic of water-grabs after the dam-building spree of the past 5 decades.They say that political ambition is the ship that can saileven without water. The Ganges Voyager is a stunningexpression of this, and will be bringing back a neo-colo-nial form of control. Its movement on the rapidly van-ishing river floodplain water is literal proof of a rigidand mindless top-heaviness.

As the boats, large and small, moved past each other –our collective destinies were slashed through by the an-tagonistic razor-edges of conservation, development,conflict, and neoliberalism in the Gangetic basin. Riverdolphins, fishes, fisher folk, farmers, bandits, conserva-tionists, tourists, vessels, barges, ships, boats, fishingnets and sediment particles all got tossed around mul-tiple times in that fleeting moment. There were fourboats – four viewpoints, four realities that clashed atthat crossing– but only over one finite river.

A boat used by gangs involved in illegal fishing with mosquito-nets. Photo: © T. Morisaka/VBREC.

4


Bhutan Hydropower Developments in 2015Bhutan is the only country in the world that measuresits development in terms of Gross National Happiness,which includes environmental conservation and preser-vation of culture1. However, Bhutan’s hydropower con-struction spree in the recent years has increased debtburden on the country. Concerns are emerging overBhutan’s profligate spending on a single sector withoutbringing commensurate benefit to its citizens. Hydro-power development in the country faces severe risk ofclimate change effects and has a huge social and eco-logical cost. But Bhutan continues to develop hydropowerclaiming that the revenues would fuel economic growthand the loans are self-liquidating.

Bhutan’s installed hydropower capacity currently standsat 1,606 MW, which is about 6% of the estimated 24,000MW hydropower potential of the country. The 11th Plan(2013-2018) targets to augment the installed power ca-pacity to 3,446 MW. The country produces way morepower than it needs and exports 75% of it to India.

In 2006, Bhutan and India signed an agreement on co-operation in hydropower. In March 2009, the protocol tothe 2006 agreement was drawn under which Indiaagreed to develop 10,000 MWs of hydropower capacityin Bhutan for export of surplus power to India by 2020.This capacity is expected to come from 10 mega projects.Of these, 3 projects - 1200 MW Punatsangchu-I, 1020MW Punatsangchu-II and 720 MW Mangdechhu, beingbuilt in the inter-governmental model, -are under con-struction.

Following an inter governmental agreement signed inApril 2014, the construction of 570 MW Wangchhu, 600MW Kholongchhu, 180 MW Bunakha and 770 MWChamkharchhu projects were approved by the govern-ment of India. The total investment on these projectswould equal almost twice the size of country’s economy.These are Joint Venture projects and the Bhutan gov-ernment owned Druk Green Power Corporation (DGPC)will partner with public sector Indian companies SJVNLLtd (formerly Sutlej Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited), THDCLtd (formerly Tehri Hydro Development CorporationLimited) and NHPC Ltd (formerly National Hydroelec-tric Power Corporation Ltd) for these projects. Theprojects would require debt financing of about Nu 140bn that would mostly be raised from the Indian market.

The foundation stone for the 600 MW Kholongchhu waslaid in June 2014.

The remaining three projects under the 10,000 MW tar-get, are in different stages of detailed project reports(DPR) evaluation. These are the 2,560 MW Sunkosh2,540 MW Amochu3 and the 2,640 MW Kuri Gongri4

projects. In the long-term Bhutan envisages 74 dams incascades across the country.

External debt growing at 9.5%: Borrowings to financehydropower projects and imports for the related construc-tion have sent Bhutan’s external debt soaring. In Jan 2015,the Royal Monetary Authority, Bhutan’s central bank,released its annual report for July 2013- June 2014, show-ing an increase of 9.5% in external debt taking it to USD1.8 bn. As of Sept 2014, the external debt was equivalentto 108% of GDP. This is a sharp increase since June 2009,when it amounted to 69.4% of GDP. Huge amounts arespent in making the annual repayments.

Rupee debt constitutes 64% of the total debt. As of June2014, hydropower loans account for 83.4% of the out-standing rupee loans. The loans for each project run intobillions of rupees. As of fiscal year 2013-14, disburse-ment amounted to Rs 25.7 bn for Punatshangchu I, Rs14 bn for Punatshangchu II and Rs 10.4 bn forMangdechu hydropower projects.

Bhutan needs to go slow on fresh hydropower develop-ment projects to safeguard its financial stability, sayreports. More than 40% of the country’s export is hydro-power, and its second major export, metal-based prod-ucts, is also highly dependent on cheap electricity. Thehigh dependence on hydropower exposes it to ‘tradeshocks’ and any uncertainty in these projects would, aUN report states, pose a great threat to the country’seconomy.

In Sept 2015, the Committee for Development Policy(CDP) of the United Nations recommended Bhutan’sgraduation from LDC (least developed country) statusin 2018 to 2021. This will entail a decrease in assistancefrom the United Nations, decrease in grants and increasethe loan component from development partners.

However the government, both the former and the cur-rent, has stressed that hydropower debts are self-liqui-dating. Legislators in favour of going ahead with har-

1 See: https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/flow-for-worship-flow-for-money-water-wheels-and-hydropower-in-bhutan/

2 The Government of India has been reluctant to make the funds available for this project. (https://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/8703)

3 The Government of India has expressed concerns that have held the project up. Media reports allude to security fears given that the dam issituated in close proximity to both the China and India border. (https://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/8703)

4 However, this along with the Amochhu and Sankosh HEP has been stalled due to India’s disinclination to fund the projects. Interestingly,all three schemes are reservoir based storage projects, which will have a significant impact on the quantity, quality, velocity and timing ofriver water, sediment and biota flow downstream in to India. (https://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/8703)

5


nessing more hydropower make the argument that thedebt is sustainable because projects will eventually gen-erate significant revenue, boost exports and fuel eco-nomic growth. Promise of returns on commissioning ofprojects, strong track record of project implementation,support from donors are some of the grounds taken byproponents of hydro projects. Uygen Wangchuk, secre-tary of the National Environment Commission and incharge of granting environmental clearances for newprojects, admits there are increasing pressures bothwithin and outside the government to push throughhydropower, mining and quarrying. And Bhutan hascontinued to pursue construction of big hydropowerprojects.

Hydropower advances in 2015 The Punatsangchu IIproject started construction of the dam on April 1, 2015.The 1,020 MW project is 15 km downstream of the 1,200MW Punatsangchhu I. The project was started in Dec2010. In May 2015, the Mangdechu project began con-creting the foundation of the dam, which will block theMangdechu and divert it through the tunnels. The damwill be built 141 metres high. The project will procurecement from the Bhutanese Dungsam Cement Project.

The 126 MW Dagachhu Project located in DaganaDzongkhag, Bhutan was fully commissioned on March17, 2015. This run of the river project is the first hydro-electric project that has been successfully completedunder Bhutanese management. The Dagachhu projectis a joint venture initiative between Tata Power of In-dia, and DGPC. Tata Power will import the power un-der a 25-year power purchase agreement, to sell elec-tricity in the Indian market. Dagachhu is registeredunder the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change’s Clean Development Mechanism(CDM). The CDM is an instrument of the Kyoto Proto-col that allows developed countries to invest in green-house gas (GHG) mitigation projects in developing coun-tries to earn credits for use to offset their own GHGemissions or for sale in the open market. The Dagachhuproject has led to other projects being cleared underCDM. The main promoter of the project was the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB), which has agreed to financemore hydropower projects in Bhutan.

Problems with hydropower: Time and cost overrunsare very common in the construction of hydropowerprojects escalating the expenditure.

Work on the 1200 MW Punatsangchhu-I hydroelectricproject commenced in 2008 and was initially expectedto commission by 2016 but the project is running overtwo years behind schedule. In July 2013, the projectwitnessed a geological surprise - the right bank of theproject site had sunk, with the loose rock-face graduallymoving down to the base of the dam site being exca-vated. The sinking riverbank necessitated stabilizing the

riverbank and design changes in the project. Thestrengthening work has compelled the project to maketechnological changes in constructing the dam. Theproject cost has gone up from the initial estimate of Nu40 bn to Nu 94 bn which is Rs 9400 crore (1 Nu = 1 INR).Additionally remedial measures for the right bank land-slide would cost the project an amount of Nu 3.5 B. TheIndian government which has provided 40% cost asgrants and loan for the rest, has approved the cost revi-sion, but the major share of the losses will be borne byBhutan. The increase in loan means a higher amount ofinterest to be paid. The delay has also cost the profitsfrom the foregone power generation.

It has been reported that a joint report by the Comptrol-ler and Auditor General of India (CAG) and the RoyalAudit Authority of Bhutan (RAA) indicates that the Geo-logical Survey of India knew that there might be “geo-logical surprises” in the area, still the project wasawarded to the Indian infrastructure company Larsen& Toubro without investigating more into the extent ofthese surprises.

The Punatsangchhu - II project reportedly came shortof a similar disaster when the left bank of the projectsite almost slid because of poor geology in Feb. 2015.Remedial measures had to be taken using cable anchorsto support lose mass and prevent it from sliding. Theproject authority said that the poor geology was not re-flected in the limited drilling investigations done pre-liminarily. The geological problems only became knownwhen the project began excavating deeper. As a result,the completion of this project has also been delayed.While the initial cost of the project was Nu 37.78 bn, thecost has been revised to Nu 75 bn.

The mega hydropower projects entail huge spending bythe government but create little employment for the citi-zens. The development of hydropower projects is highlycapital intensive. Currently, the power sector employs7,400 Bhutanese nationals. Most of the jobs created byhydropower are in construction, which is generally un-attractive to educated young Bhutanese, and youthunemployment rates remain high. The constructionwork is done by thousands of migrant workers, mostlybrought from India by contractors for the constructionwho are accommodated in shanties along roadsides andwork under dubious employment conditions.

India has been giving significant financial assistance tohydropower development in Bhutan through a mix ofloans and grants. Some have alleged unfavorable andinequitable terms of project execution causing a num-ber of Bhutanese businesses to fail. The projects bringplum contracts for Indian engineering and design con-sultants, developers, contractors and equipment provid-ers. However, many of the Indian companies designingand building the dams have poor track records. Much of

6


the construction material for the dams comes from In-dia.

The trade imbalance with India, which supplies almostall of Bhutan’s needs such as petrol, construction mate-rials, grains, meat, has impacted Bhutan’s economy overthe last few years as rupees flow out at a much fasterrate than are brought in by Bhutan.

Moreover, while Bhutan exports power to India in sum-mer, it must import electricity at a higher price duringthe winter when river flow is low. In the last 3 years,DGPC generation of power in the lean month of Januaryhas only been 1/6th of the generation in the peak monthsof July-September5. On the other hand, the domestic de-mand for electricity has increased over the last couple ofyears. The rural electrification strategy has increased thecoverage of domestic electricity consumption with morepeople switching to electricity from traditional sourceslike fuel wood and kerosene. Construction works of thePunatsangchhu I and II, Mangdechhu and Dagachhuprojects have also necessitated power imports which arelikely to increase even further for the construction workof the 118 MW Nikachhu and 600 MW Kholongchhuprojects. With the establishment of a few small-scale in-dustries in the east and the commissioning of the 26 MWpower sink, the Dungsam Cement plant, the import ofpower is expected to increase further.

Officials from DGPC said domestic demand managementhas been mainly achieved through restrictions on ap-proving new energy intensive industries for the timebeing. This is contradictory to the frequent argument infavour of hydropower expansion that the revenue fromhydropower would fuel industrial growth.

Bhutan’s hydropower expansion is hinged on the as-sumption that it will profit from India purchasing a largefraction of the generated power. The massive invest-ments will be fruitless if India does not buy the power.However in July 2015, it was reported that Tata Poweris making losses in selling power from Dagachu’s projectin India. While DGPC gets the fixed price per unit un-der the power purchase agreement between the 2 com-panies, it loses out as it is also entitled to a significantshare of the profits that Tata Power may make.

Tata Power officials said that tariff rates in India havebecome very low because of poor financial condition ofdiscoms and power suppliers are landing losses. India’spower generation capacity has also been increasing. TataPower has also not been allowed yet to sell power im-ported from Bhutan at Indian Power Exchanges due toabsence of rules from the Indian Ministry of Power withregard to cross border trading in electricity through theIndian Power Exchanges.

Low power tariffs in India is even more worrying forBhutan as the cost escalations of the Punatsangchhuprojects, which are next in pipeline, would increase theper unit price of the generated electricity even more.

With such a huge volume of hydropower generation,Bhutan would aim to sell power to Nepal and Bangladeshthrough regional power grids, but it has been reportedthat existing agreements with India give little room tomanoeuvre.

In 2006, post commissioning of the 1020 MW Tala hy-dropower project, the share of hydropower to Bhutan’sGDP increased to 22%. However, the sector’s financialperformance has been deteriorating since 2007. The netprofit (before tax) per unit of electricity sold has fallensharply since 2007, driven by rising costs and decliningrevenue. In 2013, the share of hydropower to GDP wentdown to 19%. The share of electricity sector to the na-tional revenue steadily decreased from 44.6% in 2001 to20% in 2013. A research paper of the World Bank statedthat the hydropower sector’s “high commercial profit-ability” cannot be taken for granted and should thesector’s financial performance continue to deteriorate,Bhutan’s solvency could be threatened.

Changing climate threatens hydropower sector: Areport by the ADB warned that Bhutan could suffer se-verely due to climate change. Climate change effects cancause flooding, landslides and reduced energy produc-tion from hydropower. At the current rate of global warm-ing, Bhutan would see an average loss of 1.4% of GDPannually by 2050. Heavy reliance on glacier fed lakesfor hydropower makes Bhutan highly vulnerable to cli-mate change.

Bhutan has lost 20% of its glaciers in the last 20 yearsand river flow is predicted to fall significantly over com-ing decades, leaving dams inoperable. With higher tem-peratures and loss of snow cover because of shorter win-ter, the melting of the glaciers will be faster.

A study, using annual rings of trees found that the tem-peratures are rising in the region and that the first de-cade of this century has been the warmest in the past638 years (1376 to 2013).

A paper in Geophysical Research Letters shows thatwarming of 2° C would cause Bhutanese glaciers toshrink by two-thirds and glacier meltwater to decreaseby 90%.

Bhutan’s Director-General of Mines and Geology, hassaid that his teams working in the mountains are see-ing some glaciers retreat as much as 100 feet a year. Hepredicts that snowfall would decrease and more of theprecipitation would be in the form of rain which would

5 For details about how the profile of Bhutan’s power exports to India is changing, see: https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/changing-profile-of-indias-hydro-power-import-from-bhutan/

7


run off. While reservoirs being built by projects can storesome water, they come at a huge environmental cost asopposed to uphill forests and wetlands which store morewater in a sustainable manner.

Bhutan’s hydropower industry needs to account for cli-mate change effects to avoid future losses while it is ex-panding its hydropower infrastructure. The melting gla-ciers along with periods of prolonged heavy rainfall canalso lead to floods, erosion and landslides. The defores-tation for the hydropower projects and its parapherna-lia, the damming, blasting, tunneling and muck dump-ing all can increase the disaster potential of the hills.Climate change has increased occurrences of extremeweather events such as intensely heavy rainfall. Theimpacts of construction and operation of hydropowerprojects can cause disasters if there is such huge increasein the volume of river flow.

But, according to Yeshi Wangdi, director-general ofBhutan’s department of energy, the government wantsto develop hydropower schemes urgently before the cli-mate change effects kick in so that all the revenue wouldhave been reaped before the rivers run dry. On closeranalysis, it seems that the constructing a slew of hydro-power projects could speed the country’s approach toenvironmental disasters and cause losses that could farexceed the revenues from hydropower. There are les-sons here from what happened in Uttarakhand in June2013.

Another matter of grave concern is that Bhutan sits onan active fault line that also caused the earthquake thatdevastated Nepal in April 2015. There is risk of largeearthquakes in the region even in future. The disastermanagement department told the Bhutanesemedia following the Nepal earthquake that Bhutan isunprepared to face earthquakes. The dams constructedfor hydropower accumulate large volume of water in-creasing the earthquake risk.

The receding glaciers leave glacial lakes behind themwhich are highly susceptible to overflow events calledGLOF (glacial lake outburst flood) often caused by rains,earthquakes, erosion or increase in the volume of waterby inflow as happened with the Lemthang Tso.

The Lemthang tsho (lake) at the source of the MochuRiver burst on June 28, 2015 evening in Laya emptyingall its water into the Mochu. Flash floods in the riverwashed away six wooden bridges, livestock, caused 3major landslides downstream and affected land andtrails. The Punatsangchu project being on the course ofthe water was also under risk. The burst was triggeredby the interconnecting of 2 ponds on the glacier abovethe lake causing sudden drainage from the ponds. The

increased water discharge eroded and widened the lake’soutlet causing the outburst. Such increased volume offlow can also result from heavy rains or earthquakeswhich were initially suspected as likely triggers by ex-perts in Bhutan. The gushing water, in such flood situa-tions can cause dams to burst and have catastrophic re-sults.

Steps have been taken by the Bhutanese government toprevent loss of lives from such floods. Flood siren sys-tems are installed along rivers alert when the water levelgoes up. Warning sirens connected through a satellitesystem are activated along the river valley alerting thepeople downstream to evacuate and get to higher ground.There may be some lessons here for other Himalayancountries similarly at risk due to GLOFs.

Environmental damage: The construction of hydro-power projects is damaging the pristine environment ofBhutan. Thick clouds of dust from the heavy construc-tion at various hydropower projects have covered sev-eral Bhutanese towns. The projects are touted as beingenvironment friendly as they are supposed to be run ofthe river projects, but that is more like propaganda. Inreality, each ROR large hydro also involves large damsand also tunnels and drying up of downstream rivers,besides many other impacts. The blasting required fordams and underground tunnels have caused landslides,damaged the forests and dried up underground springs.The rivers are diverted through tunnels disrupting thelives of humans, animals and aquatic species who de-pend on the river water for many of their needs6. Thehabitats of the endangered white bellied heron andgolden mahseer, a rare species of Himalayan carp havebeen destroyed by the construction of these projects.

There was a major landslide at the under constructionMangdechu hydropower project on Aug 14, 2015 killingfive Indian workers and risking many other lives. Theproject involves construction of a 56 metre high concretedam. Recovery works were impeded by repeated slidesand sliding debris and the bodies of the workers couldnot be unearthed for over 3 days.

Project officials and newspaper reports called the slidenatural. The Economic affairs minister said that therewould be an investigation of the incident so that “impor-tant lessons are learnt”. However he had not plannedfor any action to be taken if the disaster had been causedby negligence, as per the reports.

It seems that this was, in fact, a case of negligence. OnJuly 15, 2015, four weeks before the fatal accident, thework at the site was stopped after a landslide at thedam pit. Reinforcement work was done on the slide areaeven then but it turned out ineffective. It is question-

6 For an account of how the fish ladder at the Kurichu Hydropower project is not functioning, see: https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/fish-ladder-at-kurichhu-hydropower-project-bhutan-some-thoughts/

8


able why work was being carried out during rains whenthe area was prone to landslides and why the dam wasbeing constructed at a geologically unstable site. Thefive Indian workers who were trapped in the dam pitwere employed by the contractor of the project,Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. of India which has a poortrack record for respecting worker rights.

The projects also dump the debris from the constructioninto the river. Riverbeds have been destabilized by sandmining along the rivers which supplies building mate-rial for the construction industry.

Improper planning: It seems there has also been nosystematic planning in undertaking the numerous hy-dropower projects. The construction of hydropowerprojects is coming at the cost of damage to the high rev-enue earning tourism sector and to the agriculture sec-tor which is the largest employer of Bhutanese people.Proposed projects such as the 4,000 MW Sankosh damwhich is going to be, if it comes through, among the fivetallest dams in the world, might flood agricultural landand important religious sites. The dumping of debris intorivers from dam building has clogged channels and ru-ined paddy lands.

The hydropower initiative supported by India and finan-cial institutions like ADB and other foreign players willdam almost all of the big river systems in the country.Institutions like ADB are so enthusiastic about pushinghydropower in Bhutan that they see Bhutan’s strongenvironmental conservation practices as ‘hurdles’ in thisdevelopment. ADB says: “Bhutan’s strong environmen-tal conservation policies have affected the pace of imple-menting power projects because of the time required tocomplete procedures such as environmental impact as-sessments, public consultations, forestry clearances, androad planning.”

WWF’s Living Himalayas Initiative said that there areno cumulative impact assessments to identify the bestand avoid riskiest places to build hydropower. Assam hadsuffered flood losses mainly in 2004 when the 60 MWKurichhu Project, built by NHPC in Bhutan, released floodwaters which reached Indian territory. Same fears arenow expressed for Mangdechu and Konglongchu projects.In 2014, when Indian PM Narendra Modi laid the foun-dation of 600 MW Kholongchu hydropower project, whichis located in the Manas river basin in Bhutan, it triggeredprotests by different organizations in Assam, includingthe Chief Minister.

Transparency: Environment activists, conservationists,student leaders on Feb 17, 2015 raised concern over thelack of authentic information in the public domain on thecurrent state of existing and proposed hydropower projectsin Bhutan being built with the assistance of Governmentof India and their possible downstream cumulative im-pact on Assam and West Bengal. As India is extending

knowhow and finance to execute these projects, Indiashould ensure that environmental clearance is done tak-ing into consideration the downstream impacts of theprojects on Assam and northern West Bengal and theIndian ministry of environment and forests should beengaged in the process. But the Indian government ap-pears unconcerned - on July 30, 2015, India’s Union Wa-ter Resources Minister Uma Bharti said in the Lok Sabhathat hydro electric projects in Bhutan under construc-tion or under planning stage are run of the river typewith “very little” storage to meet the peaking power gen-eration requirements and no adverse impact is expectedfrom these projects in the downstream reaches.

International Rivers alleged that neither governmenthad put the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) re-ports in the public domain and concerned authorities inboth the governments declined to share them. Environ-ment activists have alleged that Royal Bhutan Govern-ment was yet to respond to UNESCO World HeritageCommittee’s request, made in 2012, for information, in-cluding the EIA report, on the 720 MW Mangdechhuhydropower project under construction and the cumu-lative impact on Royal Manas National park in Bhutanand Manas National Park in Assam. From the little bitof information trickling down through the thick barri-ers put by the authorities concerned, it appears that 70potential sites have been identified by the Central Elec-tricity Authority (CEA) of India and every river inBhutan is proposed to be dammed.

The tradition of open criticism is lacking in Bhutanesesociety, reports suggest. Many NGOs have yet to raisequestions and environment conservation doesn’t featureon party manifestos.

Environmentalist Yeshey Dorji said that the project af-fected community is misled with promises of roads,schools, hospitals, and electricity on construction of hy-dropower projects but these promises have not been de-livered on in earlier projects as they are not providedfor in the mandate of the project.

The government’s move to construct more projects andgoing deeper in debt while the under constructionprojects are doddering towards completion, has comeunder criticism. By and large it is agreed that large damshave not benefited local communities.

Government’s approach: The government’s responsehas mostly been that the increasing debts are no causeto worry, as the hydropower loans are “self-liquidating”.The PM of Bhutan has said that the economic opportu-nities and benefits outweigh the environmental impactsof hydropower projects. He was responding to a petitionto have at least one of Bhutan’s major river systems, theChamkharchu, without a dam. The PM said that therevenue would go to providing free education and healthcare and benefiting the economy. He said that the envi-

9


ronmental impact of the project would be minimal as itis a run off the river project. He also disapproved thatthere are issues of climate change saying that sale ofpower to India, from every hydropower project will off-set millions of tons of greenhouse gasses that would oth-erwise be emitted in India.

The PM said that the government has to abide by itsagreement with India to increase power generation to10,000 MW by 2020. The way current projects are beingcarried out is based on earlier agreements, which thegovernment has to abide by. The government blames thepast government for getting into lopsided agreementson hydropower projects. The PM assured that his gov-ernment had worked diligently to ensure that the sub-sequent ventures that the two governments had signedare reasonable and benefit Bhutan.

On Sept 22, 2015, the economic affairs minister, NorbuWangchuk confirmed that the 10,000 MW target by 2020was unachievable and that the target needed to be re-viewed. Bhutan would harness only half the target, 5,000MW of electricity, by 2021. The progress rate of hydro-power projects has been poor. The government wouldhenceforth proceed by opting for a project wise approachand take up possible hydropower projects, the ministersaid. He said that the impact of hydropower on theeconomy, profitability and feasibility need to be lookedat and if required, the government might down scalethe proposed projects.

The government hopes to provide jobs and build othersectors of the economy through expanding and sellinghydropower. Some MPs have suggested that Bhutan’sDGPC and the Construction Development CorporationLtd. be given opportunities to execute works at theprojects to develop local expertise.

The government is concerned about not having a say infixing the export tariff. The government is worried thatinvolving too many private players with minimal own-ership and authority with the government poses dangerof not just losing revenue but also its pristine environ-ment. It is keen to ensure that hydropower projects infuture do not become concentrated in the hands of fewbusiness entities.

To address these concerns, the National Council insti-tuted a committee to review the discrepancies and non-compliances in the hydropower development policy andprograms, which presented its recommendations to theNational Council on Nov 27, 2015.

The committee reported violations of provisions of theLand Act 2007 in the acquisition of private lands forpublic and national purposes. The property valuationrates have not been revised and compensation to land-owners has been unfair. Procedure and criteria for re-habilitation and resettlement need to be drawn up.

For enforcing local development coupled with hydropowerdevelopment, the committee has recommended drawingup of a framework for the use of local development planfund incorporating consultative procedure with the localdevelopment committee. It also pointed out that the sys-tem of social impact assessment is lacking.

The committee suggested that the national employmentpolicies and laws be better enforced specially because ofthe dire situation of unemployment in the country.

The committee called for proper costing in the DetailedProject Reports (DPR) by accounting for the time gapbetween the preparation and commencement of projects.More time and resources should be invested in carryingout pre feasibility studies and DPRs to avoid geologicalsurprises at later stages. A third party should carry outDPR preparation and techno-economic vetting and ac-countability should be fixed on those who develop them.The committee recommended giving preference to localconsulting firms in the preparation of DPRs andstrengthening the DGPC to build local capacity in de-veloping future hydropower projects.

It also recommended that anything outside of a clearpolicy or law should need the support of Parliament be-fore acted upon.

On Nov 30, 2015, the National Council agreed to therecommendations of the committee. The National As-sembly is expected to amend the Bhutan Electricity Act2001, Bhutan Sustainable Hydropower DevelopmentPolicy (BSHDP) 2008 and related policies soon.

The recommendations, if well implemented, would checkcost escalations and bring some benefit to the locals fromhydropower construction. The government also needsto make the entire process involved in implementinghydropower projects more transparent and make theagencies involved in the projects accountable to thepeople. The EIA, SIA and Cumulative Impact Assess-ments need to done properly, transparently and in aparticipatory and accountable way.

Bhutan needs to make a comprehensive assessment of theneed, benefit, options and impact of hydropower develop-ment. It should learn from its past experience with financ-ing partners, geological surprises, cost overruns in hydro-power development, problems in negotiating sales of gen-erated electricity, environmental destruction, impact onagriculture and tourism. It should avoid over dependenceon one sector and explore other options that will allow thepreservation of its sovereignty, its rich ecological heritagewhile also improving the life quality of its citizens, creat-ing jobs and protecting interests of local businesses andindustries. It should also consider micro hydro and solarpower as options for local access to electricity.

Anuradha ([email protected]), SANDRP

10


Maharashtra’s Water Sector in 2015:Did anything change with the government?

In 2015, with the change in the ruling party after 15long years, Maharashtra had a massive opportunity tobreak free from the crisis-ridden and scam-ridden im-age of its water sector. Water and dams have been cen-tral behind the embarrassing loss of Congress-NCP gov-ernment in the 2014 Loksabha elections. But could theruling BJP government actually deliver such a “Para-digm Shift” as it likes to call it? Is there light at the endof the tunnel for the state that is facing not only man-agement scams, but repeated droughts and extremeweather events?

We try to review happenings around water, dams andrivers in Maharashtra for the past year 2015 and to lookfor a possible direction where the sector is heading, try-ing to fathom what it holds for the rivers and the peopleof the state.

2015 cannot be looked atin isolation, it is but oneyear in the series ofnatural and manage-ment challenges facedby the state. 2012marked a failed mon-soon and the surfacing ofthe infamous damscam[1]. Rather thantackle these issue sin-cerely, administrationand ruling collation triedto whitewash the scam itself, while glorifying thedrought. White Paper on Irrigation Projects nonchalantlyjustified the most outlandish cost and time escalationsof dams[2].

Water Resource establishment and ruling party control-ling WRD for nearly 15 years was not bothered that morethan Rs 70,000 Crores of public money led to no increasein irrigated area in a decade. March 2013 saw severeunseasonal hailstorms in Marathwada and Vidarbha.

Special Investigation Team report headed by Dr. MadhavChitale constituted to look into the problems of WRDand offer suggestions was also published. But SIT re-port turned out to be too soft on mistakes and corruptpractices for which common people were paying theprice[3]. Although the state waited desperately for anormal monsoon, 2014 turned out to be a drought yearagain, punctuated by unprecedented hailstorms whenthey were least expected.

All the unrest and turmoil had evident political ramifi-cations for NCP-Congress. As BJP won the 2014Loksabha elections NCP, it was rightly said that water

and dams played the deciding role in this politicaltussle[4]. Not only was NCP deeply entrenched in thedam scam with Ajit Pawar named in most major irregu-larities, his crass remarks and poking fun at the plightof thirsty farmers were the last straw for the Marathipopulace. In November 2014, BJP’s Devendra Fadnaviswas sworn in as the 18th Chief Minister of the State.Change in ruling government has meant several changesin water governance. But are these real and deep-rootedchanges or temporary & superficial reactions to the pastincumbency and public outrage?

The turmoil in water sector has affected farming com-munity intimately. Although 52.7% of the state’s popu-lation depends on agriculture and allied activities, thesector contributed to just 11% of the state’s income in2014[5].

Adding to that, 2015monsoon proved to bedisastrous again: 3rddrought year in past 4years. Agriculture De-partment recorded just59.9% average rainfall,with regions likeMarathwada, Solapurand Kolhapur clockinghistorically low rains.Kharif foodgrain produc-tion is down by 34%.

More than 1000 farmers committed suicide in 2015, andwe saw the painful emergence of Marathwada as a placewhere farmers gave up hope.

While there is no dearth of bad news on the water front,that is not the complete picture of Maharashtra. Resil-ience is seen not only in farmers and rural communitiesbut in administration as well.

Unexpectedly, the Chief Minister has become a PosterBoy for soil and water conservation and never loses anopportunity to speak about Jalyukta Shivar Yojana (Wa-ter rich farms Scheme) which, with all its drawbacksand limitations, has become a remarkable movement inMaharashtra. Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) has takenaction against at least one business house and severalengineers embroiled in the dam scam. Irrigation Projectsare funded based on their completion status, avoidingspreading the meager state funds thin. Government isat least making noises about instilling some water dis-cipline in the kingdom of sugarcane. Local communitieshave pitched in enthusiastically in JalYukta Shivar, incleaning rivers, in protests against unjustified projects,in legal battles etc.

Although the dominant narrative in Mahasrahtra’swater sector has been drought for the past three years,that’s not the complete picture.

We try to review happenings around water, dams andrivers in Maharashtra for the past year 2015 and tolook for a possible direction where the sector is head-ing, trying to fathom what it holds for the rivers andthe people of the state.

11


Unexpectedly, the Chief Minister has become a PosterBoy for soil and water conservation and never losesan opportunity to speak about Jalyukta ShivarYojana (Water rich farms Scheme) which, with all itsdrawbacks and limitations, has become a remark-able movement in Maharashtra.

In February 2015, the Fadnavis government took adisastrous step by scrapping the 15 year old RiverRegulation Zone Policy. This move, along with ac-tions like denotification of Forest land in Vidarbha,zero action against dams which have flouted Envi-ronment Laws, reduction in Ecologically SensitiveAreas in Western Ghats, etc underlines that the cur-rent government is not supporting environmental pro-tection.

Activists and experts continue in their quest of under-standing and addressing the inherent problems of Wa-ter Resource establish-ment in the state andsuggest measures.Maharashtra’s watersector still remains oneof the most vibrant are-nas for experiments andchallenges in the coun-try.

The year 2015 beganwith Union Minister of Water Resources, River Devel-opment and Ganga Rejuvenation Sushri Uma Bhartiseeking a special meeting with the new CM about ParTapi Narmada and Damanganga Pinjal Link Projects[6].

While Gujarat is pushing for Par Tapi Narmada linkwhich will give it 1350 Million Cubic Meters (MCM) ofwater partly from Maharshtra, Maharashtra is stronglyagainst diversion of any water to Gujarat. From theMeetings of the Special Committee on ILR (Interlinkingof Rivers), it is clear that water sharing issue is still notsettled between the two states. In this din, Gujarat orMaharashtra are not even considering thousands oftribals who will be displaced and whose livelihoods wouldbe destroyed by this proposed project.

In January 2015, the Anti Corruption Bureau an-nounced that it will probe 12 projects against which al-legations had been raised by activists of the Aam AadmiParty[7]. August saw the ACB finally booking criminaloffences against 11 per-sons, including six offi-cials of Maharashtra Ir-rigation Department, inconnection with irregu-larities of Rs 93 crore inexecution of BalgangaDam in Raigad. Threemore people were ar-rested in September.This has been the stron-gest action taken so farin the dam scam. How-ever, ACB’s reluctance intaking any strict actionagainst the politicalmasters behind the scam points to politicalnegotiations..The enquiry will possibly conclude in 2016.

January also marked the first meeting of the State Wa-ter Council (SWC), under the Maharashtra Water Re-source Regulatory Authority (MWRRA), headed by theChief Minister. Although the council is supposed to meetevery 6 months, this has been its first meeting in 13years! The CM has pushed for work as per the Integrated

State Water Plan, however, the WRD does not have thewill or the expertise to work on any such plan. We ex-

pect a lot of turmoilaround MWRRA in thecoming year. This holdslessons for all the statesin India which have es-tablished WRRA underpressure from WorldBank or the Centre.

In February 2015, theFadnavis government

took a disastrous step by scrapping the 15 year old RiverRegulation Zone Policy[8]. RRZ policy divided river inzones and regulated setting up of industry and infra-structure activities along the river bed & flood plain.Scrapping of the policy is essentially pandering to theindustry, while compromising the health of alreadyweakened river systems in Maharashtra. The move hasbeen widely criticized and has been challenged in court.This move, along with actions like denotification of For-est land in Vidarbha, zero action against dams whichhave flouted Environment Laws, reduction in Ecologi-cally Sensitive Areas in Western Ghats, etc underlinesthat the current government is not supporting environ-mental protection. This points to several conflicts in thecoming year.

Month of March was like a bad déjà vu for the state.March 2014 saw agriculture over 10 lakh hectares de-stroyed, mainly in Marathwada and Vidarbha. In 2015too, February and March unseasonal rains and hail-

storms battered farmersin Vidarbha, Konkan,Marathwada and UttarMaharashtra (Nashik,Jalgaon and Dhule Dis-tricts) impacting over8.5 lakh hectares ofcrops, thousands offarmers and landless la-borers.[9] Despite analarming rise in extremeweather events,Maharashtra still doesnot have a State ClimateChange Action Plan in

place. It has been more than 8 years that the plan isunder preparation even as lakhs of farmers continue tosuffer. Irony is that Union Environment Minister of In-dia comes from Maharashtra and while he gave a speechin Paris Climate Change Convention about need to pro-tect the environment and vulnerable groups, his ownstate does not have the rudimentary measure in placeto understand and address climate change.

12


March 2015 saw the publication of the EconomicSurvey Report of Maharashtra for the year 2014-15.Although the CM and his select media earlier reportedabout how this Report will be different than others as anew methodology for assessing irrigated area will beadopted[10], all this turned out to be misleading. Thereport still does not have figures either for the GrossIrrigated Area, or for the ratio between Gross croppedarea to Gross irrigated area, which were the most con-tentious issues in the past. This is in addition to the factthat the state has not been publishing Irrigation StatusReport, Water Audit Re-port or IrrigationBenchmarking reportsince the past 5 years.Will 2015-16 see truedata?

April and May saw wa-ter crisis darkening overthe state. In April itselfthe state had only 28%storages withMarathwada dams hold-ing only 13% water and4 of its dams at 0% LiveStorage. Manjara and Lower Terna Dams of Marathwadahave been at 0 Live Storage for more than two yearsnow!

In the meanwhile, repeated droughts and heavy depen-dence on groundwater meant that 2331 villages in thestate now fall in critical or over exploited areas, manyconcentrated in Vidarbha and Marathwada. TheMWRRA, acting as the State Groundwater Authorityunder the Groundwater Management Act 2009, suddenly“notified” 76 overexploited and 7 critical watersheds[11]in Districts of Ahmednagar, Amravati, Aurangabad,Buldana, Jalgaon, Jalna, Latur, Nashik, Osmanabad,Pune, Nashik, Satara and Solapur, to prohibit sinkingwells deeper than 60 meters. While it cannot be doubtedthat the state needs effective regulation of groundwateruse, this step was knee-jerk, without any support of in-stitutions or personnel to ensure its implementation.However, it rekindled a strong discussion on groundwa-ter and MWRRA is now working on a White Paper onGroundwater in Maharashtra.

In June we witnessed a possible political compromiseled to softening of ACB action against Ajit Pawar.[12]He was issued no summons and could answer queriesfrom his home!

Starting from July 2015, Nashik on the banks ofGodavari hosted the World famous Kumbh Mela. Al-though Kumbh, intimately related with the river andwater, raised many questions about the pollution ofGodavari in Nashik, it also saw the emergence of a strong

people-led movement to clean the Godavari, supportedwith consistent court orders and follow up.[13] However,the issue was not only pollution, it was also release ofwater for religious purposes when the downstream inGodavari (Marathwada) was facing an unprecedenteddrought. The case went to the High Court and is nowbeing heard, along with other cases related to droughtmitigation.

July also saw the Chief Minister make some points inhis unprecedented speech in Monsoon session of theMaharasthra Legislative Assembly.[14] Riled by the con-

tinuing demands of theopposition to declare fullloan waiver for farmers,he stated farmersneeded assured irriga-tion, reliable electricitysupply and not contin-ued loan waivers. Hepointed out how 2008-09loan waiver of upto Rs7000 Crores has beenlargely ineffective. Hestated: “Till the time youdon’t give water to a

farmer’s fields, you can’t save him from suicide.” He alsotook on the issue of large dams vs irrigated area fron-tally and stated, “Maharashtra has the country’s 40%large dams, but 82% area of the state is rain fed. Wehave moved away from our vision of watershed and con-servation… We did not think about hydrology, geologyand topography of a region before pushing large damseverywhere. But this has to change.” He then went onto talk about the Jalyukta Shivar Yojana. For a stateentrenched in large dam politics for several decades, aCM saying that large dams is not the way to future is ahuge thing. Jalyukta Shivar tells us that these are notempty words, but backed by a program full of positiveenergy. A good 2016 monsoon can be a game chager forthe state.

July was also a milestone with reference to water pollu-tion. In a historic judgment, the National Green Tribu-nal, acting on a case filed by environmental organistionVanashakti, directed four civic bodies, along with theMaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation(MIDC), the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board(MPCB), and operators of the Dombivli and Ambernathcommon effluent treatment plant to pay up over Rs 100crore fine for the restitution and restoration of the pol-luted 122-km long Ulhas and Waldhuni river. This hasbeen one of the biggest fines related to pollution andrestoration. The order is a shame for MPCB as the NGThas not relied on MPCB even for oversight of the work.That the industries are failing their responsibility intreating their wastes is well known, but MPCB has con-

Starting from July 2015, Nashik on the banks ofGodavari hosted the World famous Kumbh Mela.Although Kumbh, intimately related with the riverand water, raised many questions about the pollu-tion of Godavari in Nashik, it also saw the emergenceof a strong people-led movement to clean theGodavari, supported with consistent court orders andfollow up.

13


sistently failed in ensuring pollution control, which isits main duty.

By August, the shadows of drought were becomingclearer. Ujani, the biggest dam on Bhima Basin inSolapur was at 0 % Live Storage. This was also at a timewhen upstream dams like Bhama Askhed were brim-ming with water, which could not be put to use. SANDRPwrote about the necessity of releasing this water forUjani. But no step was taken. Water conflicts were sim-mering in Godavari and Bhima Basins, MWRRA wasfaced with appeals on releasing water from upstreamdams. In the absence of institutional and legal mecha-nism to tackle the issue, “equitable water distribution”has proved to be a false promise.

Even as Bhima basin inMaharashtra and sub-sequent Krishna basinin Karnataka andTelangana faced ter-rible water scarcity,Tata Dams in thesource region of BhimaBasin and Koyana Damin the downstream, con-tinued to transfer water outside the Bhima and KrishnaBasins to the water rich Konkan Basin[15]. Just in theperiod from July 1 to Aug 6, Maharashtra diverted morethan 350 MCM water (conservative estimates). We wroteto the Chief Minister, to Tata Power, to TataSustainability Group, but received vacuous answers atbest. Till date, when Tata Dams hold highest percent-age of water in all Bhima basin dams, they have notreleased a drop for the parched downstream. Water fromTata dams could have helped parts of Marathwada too.Despite the State Water Policy of first priority to drink-ing water, second for agriculture and only after that forindustry, (hydropower is an industry), no strong policymeasure was taken to tackle this even in the most se-vere drought. This situation would have been scandal-ous in any other society. NCP tried to politicize the is-sue, but that did not work.

By the end of September, monsoon rainfall figures werelocked and the extent of poor monsoon was out there tosee. According to the State Agriculture departmentNashik Solapur, Kolhapur, Beed, Jalna, Latur andParbhani districts received less than 50% rainfall in-clude. Most of the deficient blocks are concentrated inSolapur and Marathwada region .174 blocks have re-ceived between 50-75% rainfall.

However, strangely, the IMD rainfall figures told a dif-ferent story, whereas the State figures said thatMaharashtra got 59.9% of its normal rainfall, IMDpegged it at 73%! At district levels, these contradictionswere starker. It is sad that for a state where nearly 85%

farmers depend only on monsoon rains, we do not havea reliable forecast system, a reliable weather insurancesystem, no climate change action plan, and neither reli-able rainfall data. We wrote about this, but received noresponse from IMD or State departments.[16]

In September and October Relief and RehabilitationMinister Eknath Kadse stated that sugarcane crushingmay not be allowed this year due to scanty rains andlow water in dams. Although needed, this was an emptystatement without answers to question like what willhappen to sugarcane standing on the field. Expectedly,the announcement fizzled out.

Then it was said that Collectors of respective districtswill allow crushing on acase to case basis, afterassessing water avail-ability till July. SANDRPtalked with collectors inSolapur andMarathwada where sug-arcane is concen-trated[17]. No one hadreceived any such no-tices. Crushing continues

unhindered today, without any restriction, any regula-tions. During my trip to Marathwada recently, I wit-nessed water lifting by Lokmangal Sugar Factory inOsmanabad from Lower Terna Dam, which is at nega-tive Live storage for the past three years (water level isbelow dead storage level), even as downstream areasand Latur protest for drinking water.

The government and administration has fallen woefullyshort in regulating any aspect of water use in sugar in-dustry. The drought provided an excellent opportunityfor the new government to set up a system for this sec-tor, but that opportunity has been lost. This is also apolitical and strategic failure of the current government.

During this time and in November, water sharing is-sues in Godavari basin around Jayakwadi dam wors-ened. They were systematically politicized by the up-stream. Massive protest marches against the water re-lease were organized by the sugar lobby in Ahmednagar.MWRRA ordered release of 12.84 TMC (Thousand Mil-lion Cubic Feet) water from upstream dams toJayakwadi, this has been the biggest and earliest suchannouncement so far[18]. The upstream users went toSupreme Court to challenge this. Similar water conflictarose between Ujani dam and its upstream in Pune dis-trict. In dramatic happenings between MWRRA andBombay High Court, Expert Member of MWRRA had toresign, faced with severe conflict of interest charges.[19]

Finally, MWRRA ordered release of less than 2 TMCwater for Ujani from upstream in its order in January2016. MWRRA allowed Tata dams to go scot free in this

Even as Bhima basin in Maharashtra and subsequentKrishna basin in Karnataka and Telangana facedterrible water scarcity, Tata Dams in the source re-gion of Bhima Basin and Koyana Dam in the down-stream, continued to transfer water outside the Bhimaand Krishna Basins to the water rich Konkan Basin.

14


[1] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/how-is-2012-13-maharashtra-drought-worse-than-the-one-in-1972/[2] http://www.civilsocietyonline.com/pages/Details.aspx?238[3] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/clean-chit-by-the-chitale-sit-report/[4] http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/water-proved-crucial-for-bjps-victory-in-maharashtra-election-46992[5] White Paper on Finances, Government of Maharashtra, 2015[6] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/interlinking-conflicts-maharashtra-se-gujarat-tak/[7] These projects include Kondhane, Chanrea, Balganga, Kalu, Shai, Susari, Gadnadi, Shill, Jamda, Shirshinge, Kal Kumbhe and Gadgadi[8] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/maharashtra-scraps-river-regulation-zone-pandering-to-industry-at-the-cost-of-rivers-and-people/[9] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/battered-maharashtra-and-melting-tibet-the-climate-change-connection/[10] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/maharashtra/economic-survey-will-adopt-new-model-for-irrigation-growth/[11] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/maharashtra-groundwater-authority-can-it-save-the-state-from-deep-trouble/[12] http://www.firstpost.com/politics/maharashtra-irrigation-scam-ncp-leader-ajit-pawar-gets-to-answer-acb-questions-sitting-at-home-

2278670.html

[13] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/Xkksnkojh&/otkjksg.k-hoisting-godavaris-flag-this-kumbh/[14] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/we-pushed-large-dams-not-irrigation-cm-fadnavis-assembly-speech/[15] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/as-krishna-bhima-basin-farmers-in-maharashtra-karnataka-ap-telangana-face-drought-crop-fail-

ure-water-scarcity-maharashtra-diverted-350-mcm-water-from-the-basin-literally-to-sea/[16] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/state-says-59-9-rainfall-imd-says-73-highlights-and-discrepancies-of-maharashtras-monsoon-2015/[17] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/sugarcane-crushing-and-marathwada-a-syrupy-debate-amidst-lowest-jja-rainfall-in-the-century/[18] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/hydro-hegemony-dams-and-equitable-water-distribution-learnings-from-maharashtra/[19] https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/mwrra-orders-release-of-less-than-3-tmc-water-for-ujani-dam-too-little-too-late/[20] http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai/want-to-punish-the-guilty-but-won-t-review-irrigation-projects-girish-mahajan/story-

KEvBJo3i36rUg30kOeg9vM.html[21] http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-maharashtra-proposes-drastic-reduction-in-ecologically-sensitive-area-of-western-ghats-2142191

order. The water release directed by MWRRA is so mea-ger that hardly any of this will reach the dam. The newyear dawns with the MWRRA facing a slew of appealsabout equitable water distribution and without a strongIntegrated State Water Plan, River Basin plans, WRDand a framework of water laws. MWRRA is woefully in-adequate to take any of these decisions.

The year also saw an important PIL filed by PradeepPurandare against the state clearing irrigation projectsin the absence of Integrated State Water Plan, whichwas against MWRR Act. In a significant order, theBombay High Court had asked the state to stop work on191 such projects which flouted the ISWP. It is due tosuch pressure from outside the government that the workon ISWP is at least happening. The draft Godavari RiverBasin Plan was put up for comments, but it was severelycriticized and is back at the drawing board now.

Although there is an enquiry instated to look at irregu-larities of just some projects, white elephant projects likeKrishna Marathwada Lift Irrigation Scheme are stillbeing pushed by the government even when the projecthas no water availability. We have already spent Rs 500Crores on the scheme which ultimately will cost morethan Rs 5000 Crores, but without any guarantee of wa-ter! Government has refused to take strong steps to scrapprojects like Krishna Marathwada, Kal Kumbhe Hydro-power Project, Pranhita Chevella Project, Lower TapiLift Irrigation Scheme, Shirapur Lift Irrigation Scheme,etc.[20] The WRD Minister has said so much. He needsto realize that proposing unviable projects was also atthe heart of dam scam, not only later corruption.

On the environment front, the state rejected Gadgil re-

port (Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report) andit has been reported ESA (Ecologically Sensitive Area)area of the state even as per the diluted HLWG (HighLevel Working Group) has been drastically from about17,000 sq kms to about 6,000 sq kms[21]. This will beremarkably short sighted and will witness a number ofimmediate and long term impacts.

2016 opens with a somber note as about 15,000 villagesare grappling with drought and serious crop losses.Maharashtra’s journey in the past few years indicatesthat conflicts are on a rise, institutions are not able tocope up with the challenges, nature is playing truantwith changing climate. Times like these are challeng-ing. In these times of these multifarious stressors, largedams are again being questioned as a new water move-ment builds up. At the same time, this movement willneed to think on multiple aspects, including need for ademocratic institutions, clearly defined and open watersharing rules, appropriate cropping pattern, push formethods like System of Rice Intensification, effective andequitable groundwater legislation and its implementa-tion, etc. Only setting up small scale structures will nothelp and they will not survive in shadow of large andmisconceived projects. As Solapur’s dynamic CollectorTukaram Mundhe puts it, “The problem is not so muchabout availability of water. It lies in managing the avail-able water.”

Maharashtra needs to work with nature, rather thanagainst it. Let us hope the new year brings in new prom-ises and new opportunities.

Parineeta Dandekar,[email protected]

15


Himachal Pradesh in Northern India is foremost amongIndian states in pushing large hydropower projects. Ithas operating hydropower projects with total installedcapacity of 7970 MW, under construction hydropowerwith 2216 MW and largest capacity projects under con-sideration for clearances. As this review of Hydropowerdevelopment in Himachal Pradesh in 2015 shows, HPhas also started facing the consequences of too manyprojects, with fragile Kinnaur area facing multiple di-sasters in 2015, including the penstock burst disaster atSorang HEP. However, the Expert Appraisal Commit-tee on Union Ministry of Environment and Forests con-tinues to sanction more projects. In 2015, the commit-tee recommended first stage clearance to 219 MW LuhriProject on Sutlej river and 210 MW Purthi Project onChenab river. During the year, the 800 MW Kol Damproject was commissioned, and as our separate reviewof hydropower projects commissioned in 2015 shows, theproject faced large number of serious problems and con-tinues to face them even post commissioning.

Ailing Hydropower Sector Several hydropower as-sets in Himachal Pradesh and other hilly states are upfor sale, as many independent power producers that havetaken up hydropower projects are facing execution risks,mounting debt and liquidity issues. The challenges facedby the sector are compounded by the market conditionof low electricity tariffs in the recent years.

State Electricity Boards are averse to buying electricityfrom the National Hydroelectric Power CorporationLtd.’s (HPCL) projects because of high tariffs. The pri-mary reason behind high tariffs is time and cost over-runs.

Although the hydropower companies in HimachalPradesh are running losses and producing surplus power,yet the state and the central governments continue tohave very ambitious hydropower targets.

Government push for more hydropower The Direc-torate of Energy (DoE), Govt of Himachal Pradesh hadadvertised 37 power projects in Himachal Pradesh worth1,137 MW seeking bids from the power companies on abuild, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) basis in July2014. As many as 11 of these projects are located in theChenab basin, seven in the Ravi basin in Chamba dis-trict and 11 projects in the flood-ravaged tribal Kinnaurdistrict, where the tribals are already up in arms againstthe power projects. The government got just one bid forthe 98 MW Stingri project in Lahaul, as the deadline forbids expired in December 2014. The deadline was ex-tended till March 31, 2015. The Independent Power Pro-ducers (IPPs) claimed that the projects were unviablebecause of being located in remote areas.

HIMACHAL PRADESH HYDROPOWER PROJECTS IN 2015

Again, the government got just two bids as the deadlineexpired on March 31. On May 6, the DoE extended thedeadline till May 30 and proposed easing of the allot-ment policy relaxing norms of upfront premium, bankguarantee and signing of the implementation agreementto woo power firms. The DoE proposed that the fine ondelay would not be charged if the delay is not attribut-able to the firm; the upfront premium be reduced; thebank guarantee of Rs 2 crore per MW be reduced andreplaced with a cap of a maximum of Rs 20 lakh. This isdespite the fact that one megawatt of electricity costsRs 7 crore to Rs 10 crore and even more in the remoteChenab basin.

Throughout the year, various media reports wronglyprojected hydropower as the best hope to improve India’scapacity to meet energy demands while being a non-pol-luting source (in fact they are responsible for severemethane emissions, showing how ill informed the me-dia reports were). Some of the benefits attributed to us-ing hydropower are that they offset reliance on fossilfuels and are not under risk of fuel price hike, but thisignores the huge social and environmental impacts ofthe projects. They are said to be the ideal solution formeeting peak demand, as they are relatively easier toswitch on and off, compared with thermal sources. How-ever meeting peeking demand requires optimal use ofexisting plants, not coming up with more plants, butunfortunately no one is making any efforts in that di-rection. They are also said to have a longer life thanother renewable ones, but other renewable capacitiescan be rebuilt at the same locations, which is not pos-sible for hydro projects.

Expanding the electricity user base in the country isconstantly taken as a ground for pushing hydropower,as around 280 million in India do not have access to elec-tricity. But these grid connected hydropower projectsnever benefit the local populations. In any case, suchlarge hydropower projects are not the best way to makeelectricity accessible to those that do not have accesscurrently. The protests of locals trying to safeguard theirvillages and livelihoods and the concerns of environmen-talists are quelled in the name of the greater ‘nationalinterest’.

Impact of hydropower projects The hydropowerprojects in Himachal Pradesh are mostly run of the riverprojects. The river water is diverted through an under-ground headrace tunnel which provides the head for thewater to fall through. The fall is used to extract energyby means of turbines located in underground power-houses deep inside the hills. The blasting of the hillsrequired to lay the steeply falling head race tunnel andthe construction of underground power houses and the

16


reservoir at the head, greatly disturb the fragile eco-logical balance in the mountainous regions of HimachalPradesh. The river dries up as its water is diverted overlong stretches and landslides are caused as the hill isblasted damaging forests, roads, houses, water sourcesand farmland in the villages.

Every large hydro project is expected to conduct theEnvironment Impact Assessment (EIA) of that projectalone, which is known to be a dishonest, cut and pasteeffort in most cases. It is done in isolation, no effort hasbeen made to do carrying capacity, cumulative impactassessment to know how many projects can be con-structed in a river basin. In particular, the Sutlej basinof Kinnaur district has become an example of howbumper-to-bumper projects can spell doom. Projects thathave started functioning have already blocked the flowof Sutlej. The absence of fish above Rampur till Karchamand Tapri is indicative of the adverse effect of structureswhich have obstructed the connectivity of the river. Thelocals fear that when the remaining projects would startfunctioning, no water would flow downstream affectingthe aquatic life and livelihood of people living along theriver. There is a need to have basin wise study. Seniorscientists have recommended that the number of projectsin each basin should be decided on the basis of the car-rying capacity of the basin and overlapping of projectsshould be prevented by maintaining flowing river for adistance of at least 7 km between each project.

A panel of experts set up by the Department of Energyof the Himachal government, Panel of Environmentaland Social Experts (PESE), to make an independentevaluation of the impact of 38 hydropower projects inthe valley of the Sutlej came up with its report in Febru-ary 2015. The panel said that popular opposition to largehydel power projects on the Sutlej is being fanned bythe government’s indifference to the problems of thepeople, loss of livelihoods and destruction of the envi-ronment.

The panel also studied the draft Cumulative Environ-ment Impact Assessment (CEIA) report prepared on thedirections of the union Ministry of Environment, For-ests and Climate Change. The report said that the CEIA’sconclusions were not supported by facts and figures. Itsaid that some of the institutions tasked with studyingthe impact of hydropower development didn’t even meetthe local people. Residents of Kinnaur, the Spiti valley,Mandi and Shimla districts have alleged that the CEIAconsultants did not study the impact of indiscriminateblasting and loss of forests and farmlands on sources ofdrinking water such as natural springs. They have re-jected the assessment as a “fraudulent exercise”.

Protesters have been especially agitated over assess-ments of the minimum distance between projects, andthe minimum volume of flow in the channel during the

dry season. The PESE questioned whether the CEIArecommendation of an average gap of 500 m betweentwo projects as being sufficient for the river to recuper-ate, is based on any scientific calculation.

The panel also noted the stiff opposition from the peopleof the Spiti valley to the construction of any hydel projectsin view of its fragile environment. Four hydel projectswith a combined capacity of 635 MW are planned in theSpiti river, a tributary of the Sutlej. The opposition ofthe people of Spiti is included in the CEIA summary asa brief last point, which states that the trans-Himalayanzone should be a “no-go” area for hydel projects, but isnot included in its final recommendations.

Himachal Pradesh falls in Seismic Zones 4 and 5 - a re-gion classified as highly vulnerable to high-intensityquakes. Large-scale construction of dams in theHimalayas has alarmed geological experts. HimalayanEnvironmental Studies and Conservation Organizationfounder and Padma Shri awardee Dr Anil Prakash Joshi,at a conference in Shimla on November 4, 2015 said thatpolicy makers have not learnt from the tragedies inKedarnath, Nepal and Pakistan. There will be unparal-leled damage if an earthquake strikes the region. Joshisaid that even though locals have often confronted gov-ernment officials over construction of dams, the govern-ment has constantly supported large constructions with-out thinking about the consequences on local people andnature. Himachal Pradesh University vice-chancellor AD N Bajpai said an earthquake could destroy the entireKinnaur district of Himachal Pradesh because of thenumber of tunnels there.

On March 10, 2015, a massive landslide triggered byheavy rains damaged the Saal hydropower project of theHimachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) inChamba district. The landslide caused the entire hill to‘break’ away, leading to more than 80 per cent damageas the four-way, penstock, powerhouse and control roomwere completely buried under tons of debris.

The hot water sulphur springs of Tatta Pani in Mandidistrict alongwith 41 villages were submerged due toconstruction of 800 MW Kol Dam project in Bilaspurdistrict of Himachal Pradesh. The state government isnow trying to restore the hot water springs by boringthe hot water beds through pipes. The dam was com-missioned in 2015. The project continues to face seriousproblems at every level. The project submerged morearea than had been approved by the clearances grantedto the project. The project was opposed by people whowere displaced or lost their livelihoods.

Urni Landslides: The inhabitants of tribal district ofKinnaur have repeatedly been facing road blockages atUrni dhank on NH 22 due to landslides. In March, withthe Sutlej River swelling up due to rains and snow, thetemporary alternate routes from the other bank of the

17


river were also blocked. The locals under the banner ofHim Lok Jagriti Manch (HLJM) and Karcham WangtooSangarsh Samiti, Kinnaur, have demanded acquiring theadit tunnel II of the Karcham-Wangtoo power projectfor use by the road traffic.

On June 20, the HP High Court issued notices to theCentral and the state governments on the issue of poorcondition of roads in Kinnaur. Due to active and heavylandslides, traveling on this road had become very dan-gerous and risky. The order was filed on a PIL whichalleged that the roads were badly damaged due to indis-criminate, erratic and unscientific blasting by the JPCompany constructing the Karcham Wangtoo HydelProject.

A study by the Geological Survey of India wronglyblamed the landslides in Urni village, Kinnaur districton the horticultural and agricultural activities in theregion. The study observed that in the Kinnaur valley,agriculture is practiced on steep slopes having thin soilcover. The irrigation water acts as lubricating agent inthis structurally fragile slope triggering landslide action.The study said that the landslide at Urni was a result ofreactivation of the old Urni landslide, due to changes inthe rainfall and snowfall pattern in the preceding twoyears which caused fluctuations in the soil moisture andinstability in the rocks. The study also recognized thatthe highway had been widened at the location of thelandslide and the steep slope at the location had desta-bilized the old landslide. The natural question here isthat if the area was landslide prone in the past and ifthe slopes were structurally fragile then why were thesefactors not considered at the time of allowing theKarcham Wangtoo project to come up?

There has been no effort by the state government or theMinistry of Environment to recognise that there existsa linkage between the destabilisation of slopes and con-struction activities of the hydropower projects. In thecase of landslides, which are being linked to an increasein rainfall or irrigation methods, the government hasbeen providing relief packages. “The demand that wehave been making is that the affected people should begiven compensation, not relief. Had there been no projectactivity the impact of even a natural calamity or heavyrainfall would not be so drastic,” said R S Negi, a seniorcitizen of Kinnaur and member of Him Lok JagritiManch, a forum that has been raising issues of localrights over resources.

Negligence of companies: Besides the impacts of the con-struction of the hydropower projects in fragile regions,the negligence of the constructing companies, cost-cut-ting measures and the lack of safeguards in the con-structions have increased the vulnerability to disasters.

A major fire broke out in a transformer of the under-ground powerhouse of the 120 MW Sanjay Jalvidyut

Pariyojna (SJP) near Bhaba Nagar in Kinnaur district.The project did not have a fire tender or water sprin-klers and its operators had no anti-fire gears or foamingsystem to inert the flammable oil surface or to douse thefire. The underground powerhouse burnt for 27 hoursbeginning the morning of Jan 22, 2015. The incidentbrought to light the poor fire fighting and preventivemeasures in the board-run, private and public sectorpower projects, which have underground powerhousesin the state.

Sorang disaster On Nov 18, 2015, a burst in the pen-stock pipe of 100 MW Sorang hydropower project inKinnaur district washed away homes, cattle shades andfarms in Burang and surrounding villages leaving atleast 3 people dead, 4 missing, several injured and hun-dreds of livestock washed away. Several saved their livesby clinging to pillars. Six homes were destroyed fully.The main bridge of the village was blown away & dis-connected the villages with rest of the state. The acci-dent cost losses of crores to Burang villagers & theHimachal Pradesh state.

Villagers had spotted a leak in the penstock pipe longbefore and complained about it many times to the com-pany and district administration. But neither the com-pany nor the administration paid any heed to it. Thevillagers and experts accused the Nagarjuna Construc-tion Company, executing the 100 MW Sorang powerproject of being negligent. The company and the moni-toring cell of the Directorate of Energy had failed to fol-low safety norms and standard operating procedure setby the CWC. The incident happened during a trial runbut no warning was issued to the residents that testingwas being carried out that night. Moreover, the com-pany had not deployed experts during the testing andcommissioning of the project. Even before the testingwas over and successful, the owner company had offi-cially announced selling energy from it.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court (HC), on Jan 2, 2016,ordered compensation of Rs 20 lakh each to the kin ofthe 24 engineering students, who were swept away inthe Beas river in 2014 after floodgates of the Larji damwere opened and water was released into the river with-out prior warning. The HC held the HPSEB responsiblefor the tragedy. “The HPSEB authorities had failed toexercise due care and caution, thus, are to be saddledwith liability at least to the extent of 60%,” it added andcalled the Larji Dam as ‘Killer’. While compensation iswelcome, it is not clear if the HC also held the respon-sible officers accountable and directed corrective mea-sures to avoid recurrence of such incidents in future.

Karcham Wangtoo Thousands of tribals, includingproject-affected people, workers, students, women’sgroups and farmers from Kinnaur district joined the anti-JP company Jan Andolan at Tapri in Kinnaur district

18


on Feb 24, 2015. The protestors gave a call to get backthe land that had been illegally acquired by the JP com-pany, including apple orchards. They claimed that noteven bona fide non-tribal farmers from Himachal wereentitled to acquire tribal land in the state. Farmers de-manded proper rehabilitation and compensation for theloss caused to the farmers and the ecology by the projects.Farmers said that many villages could be wiped out ofexistence due to landslides caused by the unscientificcutting of the steep fragile hill slopes of Kinnaur. Due tounscientific and heavy blasting the entire hill on the rightbank of the Sutlej river has become vulnerable to land-slides and the road is hardly being restored. Similarly,the arterial roads connecting to villages like Meeru andUrni have become prone to landslips.

Leaders raised the pathetic state of affairs of local de-velopment under local area development authority(LADA) funds and catchment area development fund andpromise of free electricity to tribals as per state hydropolicy. As per the policy of the government, the projectmanagement is supposed to spend 1% of the cost on thelocal area development and the amount has to be depos-ited with the government. Although the project was com-missioned in 2011, the payment of the LADA funds wasstill being finalised in June 2015 when the state govern-ment allowed the sale of the project subject to honour ofpending liabilities.

Exploitation of Workers: About 1,300 workers of theJaypee Workers’ Union of 1,000 MW Karcham-Wangtooand 300 MW Baspa-II projects in the tribal Kinnaur dis-trict went on strike for 112 days starting January 2015.The workers had demanded - a Rs 1400 wage hike bring-ing them at par with Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.(SJVNL) workers in the Nathpa Jakhri project, imme-diate downstream of the Karcham Wangtoo HEP,regularisation of workers and implementation of theFactories Act. The workers said that the managementof Jai Prakash Vidyut Ltd. (JPVL) had not paid even 10% of what the SJVNL and HPSEB-run Sanjay VidyutYojana located in the same Sutlej basin were paying toits workers.

On January 25, 2015, the JPVL hiked wages by Rs 300but the workers termed the hike as peanuts. In response,more than 250 policemen were deployed at the venue.Citing ‘law and order’ concerns, the SP, Kinnaur, askedthe striking workers to vacate the premises. Section 144was imposed at the camps and continued for over twomonths although the strike had been peaceful, theweather conditions were harsh and many workers hadfallen ill after having been shunted out of their camps.

The workers were also demanding justice for the fami-lies of the workers who had died while working on theproject. One of the leaders alleged that many workershad died and even FIRs were not registered in some of

the cases. The leader cited an example of a worker,Nirmal Singh, who died in April 2009 after falling, whileat work. The workers had demanded an inquiry into theincident but the post-mortem was not conducted and themedical report was fiddled with, they charged.

The striking workers alleged that the company was ille-gally recruiting fresh workers as the company soughtthe government’s intervention to allow and provide pro-tection to the company to carry a workforce of 150 to thetrouble-torn project sites for “overdue maintenancework”.

In September 2015, JPVL sold Karcham-Wangtoo andBaspa hydropower plants to Jindal Steel Works EnergyLtd. for Rs 9,275 crore. In an interview following thesale, on CNBC TV, Suren Jain, MD of JPVL stated thatKarcham Wangtoo and Baspa projects were the “cashcows” for JP Power bringing in revenue of Rs 1800-1900crore in the previous financial year. Contrast this to thewage hike demanded by the workers - their demand, itseems, amounted only to a paltry 0.15% of the revenuegenerated! The company is present in many branches ofthe infrastructure sector - cement, construction, power,real estate - and their apparent approach of maximisingprofits by cutting costs, ruining the environment, ex-ploiting workers and even resorting to seemingly illegalacts is a business model that should not be accepted orencouraged by the government.

On Nov 29, 2015, a blast killed at least two workers andinjured 5 others at the site of the 450 MW Shongtong-Karcham project in Kinnaur district being constructedby Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited(HPPCL). The blast occurred when an engineer was in-specting a dynamite installed to carry out a blast at thesite. (

Three engineers were killed on June 14, 2015 while con-ducting repairs at the powerhouse of 2 MW Rongtonghydropower project in Kaza sub-division of Lahaul-Spitidistrict. They were swept by a heavy current of waterreleased when a technical snag developed while doingmaintenance work in the powerhouse. Local villagersrescued some other workers at the site. The hydropowerproject had not been functional for the preceding sixmonths and repair was being carried out. The projectwas started during winters but due to breaking of pipes,power generation had halted. (

On Aug 12, 2015, NHPC temporarily shut down its 231MW Chamera-III project in Chamba district due to land-slides after heavy rains in the region. The NHPC on Dec14, 2015 temporarily shut down its 520 MW Parbatiproject in Kullu district for a long 2 month period, untilFebruary 2016, for carrying out repair and maintenance.The units of this project were commissioned very re-cently, in 2014, by the government owned Bharat HeavyElectricals Limited. It seems suspicious why the project

19


had to be shut down for over two months, so soon aftercommissioning. (

Bad business practices: The HPPCL had been carry-ing out illegal constructions in the clearance zone of theammunition point of the Indian Army at Powari inKinnaur district for its Shongtong-Karcham HydropowerProject. A huge quantum of ammunition and explosiveis stored at the Army’s unit at Powari which could causehavoc in case of any mishap. In 2005, the central gov-ernment had issued a notification restricting construc-tion in the clearance zone - within 1200 yards of theperiphery of the point. The HPPCL went ahead and al-lotted the project to a company, which commenced con-struction work despite several objections raised by theArmy between 2007 and 2013. Finally, on May 31 2015,the High Court restrained the HPPCL from carrying outany construction activity in the zone.

In April 2015, the Central Electricity Authority (CEA),the authority that grants techno-economic clearances(TEC) to projects, wrote to the Central Electricity Regu-latory Commission that the project capacity of theKarcham Wangtoo hydropower project in Kinnaur dis-trict will have to be maintained at 1,000 MW. The projecthad been running at 1,200 MW capacity which is 20%higher than the 1,000 MW approved under the TECgranted to its developer, JPVL. Earlier, the CEA hadsent a show-cause notice to JPVL for violating TEC con-ditions in the Karcham Wangtoo project. Both the CEAand the Himachal Pradesh state Government had ex-pressed safety concerns on allowing the plant to operateat 1,200 MW capacity.

The 111-MW Sawra-Kuddu project is being constructedon the Pabbar river in the Hatkoti valley in Shimla dis-trict by the state run HPPCL. The project faced opposi-tion from the local farmers for constructing a fifth adittunnel right underneath the village. The locals fear thatthe impact of blasting for the proposed tunnel woulddestroy the apple orchards and houses in the village.The farmers demanded a ban on its construction andcompletion of the project as per the original plan. HPPCLsaid that the additional tunnel was being constructed tospeed up work as the project was running five yearsbehind schedule! On July 28, 2015, the National GreenTribunal (NGT) ultimately stepped in and ordered a halton construction of the fifth tunnel at the site. The Thana‘gram panchayat’ had sought a stay on construction worksaying the project authority has not applied for a “noobjection certificate” from the local ‘gram sabha’.

The Sawra-Kuddu hydroelectric project is being con-structed with funding from the Asian Development Bank(ADB) under its Clean Energy Development Programme.Work on the project commenced in 2007. The project hasbeen delayed by more than five years from January 2012to June 2017. The delay has led to a cost overrun of

Rs.606 crore and generation loss of Rs.727.77 crore dur-ing this period.

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India said thatthe project may be commercially unviable on commis-sioning. The inordinate delay would increase the cost ofelectricity generated from Rs 5.03 crore to Rs 10.50 croreper MW and that of per unit generation cost from Rs2.34 to Rs 6.95, much higher than the average sale rateof Rs 3.43 per unit. The CAG report identified slowprogress by contractors, inadequate provisioning of someworks in the detailed project report, subsequent changesin design and the late handing over of the sites to con-tractors as the main reasons for the cost escalation anddelay. The construction of the headrace tunnel wasawarded to Aban Coastal for Rs. 115.92 crore in June2007 but the contractor’s progress was below par rightfrom the beginning. The power corporation, however,extended an additional Rs. 29.53 crore to the contractor.

Financial bungling seems to be rife in hydropowerprojects in Himachal. The 126 MW Larji hydropowerproject in Kullu district, commissioned in 2007 with anoutlay of Rs. 1461.33 crore saw a delay of four years,and is one of the most expensive hydropower projects.The 100 MW Uhl (Stage III) hydropower project in Mandidistrict, originally scheduled to be commissioned byMarch 2006, is heading to huge cost overruns, said agovernment official.

The 960 MW Jangi-Thopan-Powari projects has beenmired in controversies from the time it was announced.These projects had initially been allocated as two sepa-rate projects, Jangi-Thopan (480MW) and Thopan-Powari (480MW), to Brakel Corporation after biddingin September 2006. Unable to make the upfront pay-ment Brakel roped in Adani Power Ltd to pay Rs 280.60crore for the committed bid amount. Later, Brakelchanged the project terms by convincing the governmentto merge the two contiguous projects into a single ex-ecutable one. The merger lowered construction costsconsiderably, which was challenged in court by RelianceEnergy. The High Court struck down the project alloca-tion to Brakel on the grounds of misrepresentation offacts and for combining the two projects which it termedas illegal. The state government cancelled the projectallocation and imposed a fine of Rs 280.60 crore on Brakelfor misrepresentation of facts and revenue losses accruedbecause of delays in executing the project and the sumpaid (via Adani Power) was forfeited as a penalty im-posed. The cabinet had further decided to approach Su-preme Court to seek damages to the tune of around Rs1,365 crore from the company in lieu of general loss.

Fresh bidding was conducted and on Aug 5, 2015, theproject was offered to Reliance Energy. The state gov-ernment said, at that time, that it was yet to settleAdani’s claims of repayment of Rs 282 crore that the

20


Adani company claimed it had paid to Brakel when itwas allotted the project in 2006. “It has been verifiedthat money came from Adani’s account, but we do nothave company’s legal document to support its claims”,said SKBS Negi, Additional Chief Secretary of Power.Officials commented that the companies may be part-ners, but it was an “internal arrangement” betweenthe two. However, on September 4, 2015, succumbingto intense pressure from Adani, the cabinet decidedto refund the upfront premium of Rs 280 crore thatAdani Power had paid and forfeited as penalty!

Protests against small hydro: Tribals from Panvivillage in Kinnaur held a protest demonstration out-side the Directorate of Energy in Shimla against theconstruction of the 9 MW Ralla-Taranda hydro projecton Nov 24, 2015. The fear of losing their houses and agovernment primary school forced the Panvi tribalsto march to the state capital Shimla. They said theblasting for the construction of the underground pow-erhouse and the tunnel of the 9 MW Ralla-Tarandaproject would render them homeless. They have nowconstituted the Panvi Bachao Sangharsh Samiti to savetheir village located above the Panvi Khud, a tribu-tary of the Sutlej river in Kinnaur. They also submit-ted a memorandum to Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh,asking him to order the scrapping of the project.

Such protests also question the legitimacy of the cur-rent environment governance regime where allprojects below 25 MW are considered environmentallybenign and hence not requiring environmental clear-ance, environmental impact assessment, environmentmanagement plan, public consultations, environmen-tal appraisal, monitoring or compliance. There is anurgent need to change this situation, requiring allprojects above 1 MW to be included for such scrutiny.This is particularly urgent in states like HimachalPradesh as a large number of small hydropowerprojects are being constructed and proposed here.

Conclusion: This year has seen numerous disasterscaused by hydropower projects in Himachal Pradesh,yet the government hasnot taken any steps toensure that such eventsdo not repeat in the fu-ture. The only acts ofthe government havebeen to promote hydro-power projects and attract investments by relaxingnorms. For every large hydropower project, a detailedproject report is prepared and clearances are requiredfrom various government agencies. The CEA givestechno-economic approval, the Central Water Com-mission (CWC) approves the hydrology design, safetyand cost estimates, the Central Soil and Material Re-search Station (CSMRS) approves the construction

material aspects and the Geological Survey of India(GSI) looks into the geological aspects. It is shockingthat despite there being such requirements on paper,hydropower projects are allowed in places which arefragile, vulnerable to disasters and completely devas-tated by the construction activities, even without ba-sic assessments. The overruns in time and cost onlysuggest that the bureaucratic decisions are flawed.The government has displayed a complete lack of willin regulating the acts of the developers undertakingthese projects and has demonstrated absolute disre-gard for the rights of the locals of the project sitesand also for the sustainability of the environment oreven the projects. The government and constructioncompanies try to convince the locals to consent tothese projects by offering some influential local peoplecontracts or employment at the project site. However,the companies exploit their workers exposing them todangerous conditions causing many casualties and fa-talities and pay meagre wages. The government looksthe other way as these companies flout labour lawsand takes note only when it has to intervene to assistthe management to repress protesting workers.

Why are so many projects being proposed in HimachalPradesh although many projects have been in the pipe-line for years and completed projects are generatingat below the promised levels of generation and receiv-ing low tariffs? In fact, currently operational projectsare running inefficiently and not producing power totheir capacity.

The model of functioning of business is such that it viewsnatural resources as commodities and attempts to ex-tract maximum surplus. Large hydropower projects aremassive infrastructure projects which see investmentsfrom big business conglomerates. Such businesses areusually in a cozy relationship with the political class.The protests of powerless locals, poor EIAs and ap-praisal, flawed public hearings, lack of cumulative im-pact assessments, increased vulnerabilities, unsafe con-struction and operation or unfavourable reports of geo-logical conditions stand little chance of any impact.

It is high time that thereis an independent as-sessment of all the hy-dropower projects of thestate, and the state gov-ernment publishes a

white paper on these issues. Until then, not only shouldnew projects not be taken up, but under constructionprojects should also be stopped. Else, what is happeningin Himachal Pradesh is surely a recipe for a disasterbigger than what happened in neighbouring Uttarakhandin June 2013.


"This year has seen numerous disasters caused byhydropower projects in Himachal Pradesh, yet thegovernment has not taken any steps to ensure thatsuch events do not repeat in the future."

21


GROUNDWATER CRISIS DEEPENED IN INDIA IN 2015

Groundwater issues made news repeatedly in the year2015. The year saw a 14 per cent deficit in southwestmonsoon increasing the dependence on ground waterfor agricultural, industrial and domestic use. The fall-ing water table and pollution of surface and ground watersources made the situation critical in various parts ofthe country. Competing demands on the ground waterled to protests and litigation. The National Green Tri-bunal (NGT) tried to safeguard the ground water andpushed the State machinery into action through its or-ders in various matters. Towards the end of the year,the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) came upwith revised guidelines for evaluation of proposals forground water abstraction.

GROUND WATER DEPLETION

As per the latest assessment carried out by the CentralGround Water Board (CGWB) in 2011, the total annualreplenishable ground water resource of the country isaround 433 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM) and net annualground water availability is 398 BCM of which Indiawithdraws 245 BCM (62%) annually. This is much higherthan China’s groundwater withdrawal at 130 BCM an-nually.

According to the CGWB, around 39% of the wells areshowing decline in ground water level. Out of 6607 as-sessment units (Blocks/ Mandals/ Talukas/ Districts) inthe country, 1071 units falling in 15 States and 2 UnionTerritories have been categorized as ‘Over-exploited’,based on the stage of ground water withdrawal as wellas long term decline in ground water levels.

According to gravitational data from the NASA’s GRACEsatellite system, the aquifers in poor, densely populatedregions, such as northwest India, Pakistan and NorthAfrica are under the most stress. The Indus Basin inIndia and Pakistan is the world’s second most stressedaquifer. Aquifers take thousands of years to fill up andonly slowly recharge with water from snowmelt andrains.

A total of 10 states declared drought in more than 280districts in the country because of 14 per cent deficit insouthwest monsoon in 2015. Last year too, the rainfalldeficit was 12 per cent. Additional extraction of ground-water due to deficit monsoon is likely to take the level ofstress on groundwater to danger levels.

BURDEN OF AGRICULTURE

The agricultural sector relies heavily on groundwaterfor irrigation. Groundwater accounted for over 60% ofirrigated area in the country. The Ministry of WaterResources has assessed (as on March 2011) that the an-

nual ground water withdrawal for domestic and indus-trial purpose is only 9.27% of the total ground waterwithdrawal while the remaining 90.73% is for irrigationpurposes. Irrigation using ground water increased eversince the green revolution started. The UN World Wa-ter Development Report 2015 estimates that between1960 and 2000 India’s mechanised tube wells, used inirrigation, increased from one million to 19 million.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES The government hasincentivised usage of groundwater by giving subsidiesfor irrigation equipment and cheap electricity leadingto unbridled pumping out of groundwater for irrigation.Owing to the dip in groundwater levels, irrigation hasbecome a challenge and farming is becoming unsustain-able. Pumping out the ground water from the ever-deep-ening water table requires expensive deep tube wellsincreasing the farming expenses. The state electricityutilities are in a poor state, as they have not developedenough to keep up with the increasing demand from in-dustrial and other sectors. This has led to power short-ages resulting in reduced supply to farmers adding totheir hardship.

CROPPING PATTERN Further, the cropping pattern inIndia has worsened matters. In eastern India, thegroundwater is in a relatively better state. But irriga-tion suffers due to the lack of electricity in these areas.Thus, the abundant water supply has not seen an in-crease in water intensive sugarcane or paddy in theseareas and these crops have continued in water stressedMaharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The share ofMaharashtra in total sugarcane production has gone upby nearly 9 percentage points, while states like Biharand Assam have lagged behind.

SUGARCANE IN MAHARASHTRA Marathwada, whichis the strong hold of sugar factories saw a 40% rainfalldeficit this year, made starker due to the drought lastyear. Dams in the region had little live storage andgroundwater in the region is in the “over exploited” or“critical” category. Yet crushing took place unhinderedin the sugar factories.

Sugarcane crushing and processing is an extremelywater intensive process. Average water consumption ofa factory stands at 14 lakh litres each day. More thanthe factories, the sugarcane crop itself sucks upMaharashtra’s water. In 2013-14, farmers grew sugar-cane in two lakh hectares of land which is around 9.4%of the state’s cultivated area, consuming 71.4% of its ir-rigation water.

The Maharashtra Government made an announcementin August that it might consider banning sugarcanecrushing in Marathwada to protect drinking water sup-

22


plies. This announcement lacked the backing of anyproper plan and was withdrawn eventually. Prohibitionon the digging of borewells deeper than 60 m in overexploited watersheds was also being considered as insome places, wells as deep as 1,500 m were being dug toextract groundwater. However no such prohibition wasimplemented on the ground. More

Why farmers continue to plant water-intensive sugar-cane in drought-hit Marathwada?

Maharashtra’s political class has acquired heavy stakesin sugar and sunk vast amounts of public funds into in-frastructure for the crop. There is a strong support sys-tem for farmers to grow sugarcane and the farmer isassured of the crop being bought in the market createdby the local sugarcane factories. Moreover sugarcane isa hardy grass that needs little care and is fairly diseaseresistant.

In 2012, when large parts of Maharashtra reeled undera crippling drought, one Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar coop-erative sugar factory in Keshegaon in Osmanabad dis-trict in the Marathwada region, reused the surplus wa-ter extracted from sugarcane in further sugar makingand in irrigating the fields thereby increasing its pro-duction. However it is unlikely that the other factoriesreplicate this model, as there is no pressure on them toincur extra expenditure and recycle water.

PADDY IN TN In the past five years, Tamil Nadu hashad the world’s most rapid drops in ground water at 0.34metres/year. The absolute drops in some cases were 4 min five years. Yet the primary crop in Tamil Nadu is ricethrough traditional method which requires standingwater for a significant period of time in hot conditions.Over 1.9 million ha is under paddy cultivation, which is12.16% of the State’s total surface area. TN has gonefarthest in pushing for water saving rice cultivationmethod, System of Rice Intensification (SRI), whichneeds to be taken to the rest of the paddy area in thestate and at the same time try to reduce the area underPaddy.

Large surface water irrigation reached its limit in the1960s in TN, though there is still big scope for rainwa-ter harvesting and local water systems. The popularityof low-cost motorized pumps and generous state subsi-dies on fuel, have resulted in a proliferation of tube wellsfor irrigation.

Ground water extracted by means of open wells, tubewells and bore wells accounts for 54 per cent of all irri-gation in TN. Irrigation accounts for 93% of the demandon ground water. Close to the coast, as groundwater lev-els fall, there is a risk that seawater will be drawn intothe aquifer - this can result in salty soil that many foodcrops are unable to tolerate. Saline soils take years torehabilitate. About 2 per cent of the blocks are already

saline. Scientists at the International Water Manage-ment Institute have found that already some 95% of openwells in the state are dry, and the amount of irrigatedland has fallen by half in the last decade due to sourcesof groundwater drying up.

The Tamil Nadu floods in December 2015, increased theaverage groundwater level to the highest in six years insix districts. Chennai saw its average groundwater levelshoot up from 5.63 metres below ground level (MBGL)in June 2015 to just 2.01 mbgl in December. Chennai’sJune levels were also one of the worst for the city in thesix year period. Other districts that registered recordlevels of groundwater are Kancheeepuram from 6.59MBGL in August 2015 to 0.82 MBGL in December;Thiruvannamalai from 8.58 MBGL to 2.62 MBGL;Vellore 10.01 MBGL to 3.35 MBGL; Dharmapuri 8.95MBGL to 4.02 MBGL; and Villupuram 8.26 MBGL to1.73 MBGL. Moreover, the incursion of salinity saw amarked decrease. However these gains have come athuge cost of floods taking a heavy toll on the residentsand following a once in hundred years’ rainfall. It is nec-essary to focus on improving recharge structures likeirrigation tanks and ponds to sustain the ground waterlevels.

PUNJAB In Punjab, 73 per cent area under agricultureis dependent for irrigation on tube wells, which numberapproximately 13 lakhs. The over-exploitation of thesubsoil water due to the reckless pumping out of thewater has led to decline in the subsoil water table. Al-ready, more than 100 blocks have been declared over-exploited. The state is now looking to immediately re-furbish its canal network.

The canal network was the major source of irrigation inmany areas in the past before the state governmentstarted providing free electricity for agriculture. Freeelectricity was a major incentive to shift to tube wellirrigation. In southern Punjab, it led to a shift from cot-ton to paddy cultivation. The government procures 80%of the rice grown in Punjab and provides a high and as-sured minimum support price for rice and wheat. Be-cause of the continuing policy of free power and an as-sured Minimum Support Price, farmers are bound to thisconvenient yet ecologically unsustainable wheat-ricecrop pattern. Crop diversification has been recommendedas the solution to Punjab’s ground water problem andthe state has been provided with funds from the Centrefor the same. But plans to cultivate crops that make moreefficient use of groundwater have failed repeatedly. More.

OTHER STATES In Uttar Pradesh 4.2 million tubewells,25,000 deep wells and 30,000 government tubewells, areexhausting groundwater resources for irrigation, accord-ing to the UP irrigation department. About 70% of theirrigation water comes from groundwater sources. Atsome places, the water table has gone down by 8 ft over

23


three years. From 20 blocks in 2000, the number of blocksaffected by ground water crisis increased to 179 in 2011,according to the CGWB. The groundwater is being drawnway faster than it is recharged. Ruthless deforestationand modification of hill slopes in catchment areas, sys-tematic neglect of local water systems, wetlands and riv-ers, excessive use of fertilizers and tractors, making thesub-soil less porous have all led to less water percolat-ing through the soil.

In TELANGANA, continuous drought and fast deple-tion of ground water level have forced farmers to go infor drip and sprinkler irrigation. The demand for boththe units has increased so much that the government isunable to meet the demand.

BEVERAGE INDUSTRY

On the one hand farmers are facing increased hardshipbecause of falling groundwater levels, drying up of wells,expenditure on irrigation equipment and loss of incomeas a result of reduced crop production from water short-ages. On the other hand, they are facing competitionfrom the beverage industry which locates its bottlingplants even in water starved areas only driven by profitcalculations and absolutely disregarding the conditionof the local communities. Besides exploiting the ground-water, these plants contaminate the land and water withtoxic pollutants. Such beverage industries faced opposi-tion across the country through the year.

Perundurai Bowing to outrage by farmers and politicalparties, the state government of Tamil Nadu cancelleda new Coca-Cola bottling plant in Perundurai in Erodedistrict on April 20, 2015. The groundwater resources inPerundurai have been declared as “over-exploited” bythe government and Coca-Cola was allowed to draw 30lakh litres of water a day. Groundwater in Erode andneighbouring districts is polluted by industrial wastesand is colored dark red from pollution. The locals op-posed Coca-Cola’s plant as it would worsen water short-ages in the area, and bring more pollution. They werefurther informed by the nearby campaign against CocaCola in Plachimada (Kerala) where the governmentclosed down the company’s plant in 2004, for causingpollution.

Mehdiganj On Nov. 26, 2015, the Panchayats joined bythe local MLA in the vicinity of the Coca-Cola bottlingplant in Mehdiganj in Varanasi district of Uttar Pradeshdemanded that the plant stop using groundwater. Thevillages within a 5 km radius of the plant experiencedwater shortages soon after Coca-Cola began operationsin 1999. The area’s groundwater was declared as over-exploited by the government last year. The area is largelyagrarian, and relies on groundwater to meet most of itsneeds, including drinking, irrigation, cleaning and forlivestock.

Pepsi police In May 2015, PepsiCo’s bottling plant inSuriyur, Trichy district in the state of Tamil Nadu ob-tained police protection for water being brought to theplant, which is located in a water-stressed area. The lo-cal community has campaigned to shut down the plantbecause of the growing water shortages ever since theplant began operations in 2011. Earlier, local authori-ties responded to the growing protests by sealing thecompany’s bore wells.

On April 21, 2015 the NGT asked the government toinvestigate the water user ratio, the present actual wa-ter consumption and actual effluent discharge at theoptimum capacity for the Coca-Cola bottling plant inMehdiganj, Varanasi district. In 2001, Coca-Cola usednearly 7.5 liters of groundwater to produce 1 liter of car-bonated product in Mehdiganj.

The NGT has issued notice to Coca-Cola’s bottling plantin Hapur district of Uttar Pradesh after the CentralPollution Control Board (CPCB) reported “alarmingfacts” in an inspection report. The company allegedlyillegally discharged untreated waste water into the pondsituated behind the plant.

Other instances of groundwater depletion reported in2015

Water level in the parched Pithampur industrial area inDhar district, Madhya Pradesh, has dipped by over 200ft over the last five years to an alarming 600 ft (180 m)allegedly due to overexploitation of groundwater by in-dustries and farmers in nearby villages. Farmers hereare forced to install RO filters to use the water on theirfields. The RO filter rods have to be changed within twomonths as the water drawn from tubewell is very hard.The hard water has also affected crop output. To curboveruse of groundwater, Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam(AKVN), Indore, had directed the industrial units to in-stall water meters and pay for the water drawn fromborewells. Only few of the industrial units have com-plied so far.

Over-exploitation of groundwater, coupled with virtu-ally no recharge of the water table in the absence of goodrains in recent years triggered the geological eventknown as “sinkhole” in the dried Chitravathi riverbedin the perennially drought-prone district of Anantapurin Andhra Pradesh. The sinkhole had a depth of 30 ftand a diameter of 25 ft. The Groundwater Departmentsaid the intensity of drawing ground water through ag-riculture borewells was high in the vicinity of the river.

The CGWB, has found that the water table is recedingin eight valleys in Himachal Pradesh where it is beingexploited for drinking, irrigation and industrial purposes.The ground water is receding at a very fast rate in KalaAmb valley in Sirmour district which is an industrialhub. There is hardly any stream or river in the area and

24


the people and industry are dependent on groundwater.As per the CGWB study in 2011, the groundwater ex-ploitation in Una valley increased to 124.04%. Subse-quently, a ban was imposed on tubewells for irrigationand for industrial purposes in Una valley. Some expertsalso attribute decline of underground water to illegalmining in Chaki River in the area that is the main natu-ral source of water.

A local commissioner appointed by the NGT has in hisreport stated that various construction projects for malls,residential complexes and even the Additional OfficeComplex for the Supreme Court of India in Delhi areexploiting hundreds of litres of groundwater or simplyletting it down the drain.

POLLUTION

The Minister of State for Water Resources informed theLok Sabha on May 7, 2015 that the ground water qual-ity monitoring by CGWB indicated that the ground wa-ter in parts of 20 states is contaminated by Fluoride andin 21 states by Nitrate in excess of World Health Orga-nization (WHO) guidelines. Ten States have excess con-centration of Arsenic, twenty-four States have higherconcentration of Iron and fifteen states have higher con-centration of heavy metals such as Lead, Chromium andCadmium beyond norms prescribed by the Bureau ofIndian Standards (BIS-2012). UP is the worst pollutedstate. According to experts, if heavy metals enter thegroundwater, they cannot be removed. At best, they canbe diluted but they remain stuck to the aquifers forever.Lack of control on effluents, which have polluted thebasins as a whole, has resulted in this situation envi-ronmentalist Manoj Misra said. More

A study published in January 2015 reported that drink-ing water samples in South-West Punjab were highlycontaminated with uranium, thereby increasing the ra-diological and chemical risks to human health. The studyregion falls in the major cotton belt of Punjab (Malwaregion of Punjab), which sees widespread use of pesti-cides and fertilisers by farmers, which might have con-tributed to the high concentration of heavy toxic ele-ments in the groundwater of this region.

The fluoride content in water has been found 22 timeshigher than the permissible limit in Narnaul, headquar-ters of the Mahendragarh district in Haryana during asurvey on ground water by the National Programme forPrevention and Control of Fluorosis (NPPCF) in Decem-ber 2015. Samples were taken from the main source ofwater such as borewells and tube-wells. Alarmed offi-cials of the NPPCF launched a special awareness driveto motivate the people not to consume groundwater. Mostof the people in Mahendragarh district are compelled touse groundwater for drinking and other purposes be-cause of the scarcity of canal water. Persistently deplet-

ing water table and fluoride-rich soil of Mahendragarhare the reasons behind rising fluoride content in ground-water.

High levels of pollution in the Chhoiya River have forcednearly 30% of the residents of Shahpurlal village, 30 kmfrom Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh to migrate to safer areas.Effluents from industries located in the area are dumpedin the river. Industrial effluents and toxic metals haveseeped into the soil thus polluting the groundwater aswell, villagers say.

GARBAGE / URBAN POLLUTION Groundwater pol-lution in Aravalis caused by tonnes of untreated wastelying near the Bandhwari waste treatment plant inGurgaon district, Haryana is leading to disease like skinlesions, bloody diarrhoea and dermatitis among peoplefrom neighbouring villages. The waste treatment plantmeant for Gurgaon and Faridabad districts has beenlying defunct for the last two years. However, it’s stillbeing used as dumping yard and leachate has seepedinto the ground, polluting the water. Every day, munici-pal corporations of Gurgaon and Faridabad dump 1,100metric tonne waste at the 30-acre site.

The Haryana government admitted in an RTI responsein October 2015 that 92 acres in the Aravalis have beenidentified as a landfill site for garbage generated inGurgaon and Faridabad. Villagers from GothraMohbatabad, Faridabad district, Haryana and the ad-joining areas are opposed to it as the groundwater inthe entire region will be polluted and destroyed. Theregion is located around 100-200 ft higher in compari-son to the city level. Since the entire Aravali functionsas a major water recharge zone, any leakage of leachatefrom solid waste would pollute the groundwater.

POLLUTING INDUSTRIES Residents of Angadh vil-lage near Nandesari GIDC (Gujarat Industrial Devel-opment Corporation) near Vadodara in Gujarat ap-proached the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB)in March 2015 as they were receiving reddish brownground water from tube wells. The dumping of indus-trial waste in the area is polluting the groundwater.

The NGT ordered closure of Bhushan Steel and StripsLtd in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh for 4 weeks declaringit to be a polluting industry that is contaminating theground water and extracting high quantity of groundwater for industrial use without permission from theCGWA. An NGO testing the ground water in 2011 inGhaziabad also found alarmingly high amounts of car-cinogenic hexavalent chromium in the groundwater inat least three areas - in both the trans- and sis- Hindonparts of the city.

Farmers of two panchayats — Girisamuthiram andNecknamalai — have been irrigating their fields withsewage water from Vaniyambadi Municipality in Vellore

25


district in TN for the last three decades, rather thangroundwater, since the groundwater is highly pollutedwith effluents from the leather industries causing thecrops to wither. The leather industry has dischargeduntreated effluents into water bodies, particularly thePalar riverbed. Ground water in and aroundGirisamuthiram has been declared unfit for human con-sumption. Experts from Krishi Vigyan Kendra say thatirrigating the fields with sewage water will harm thesoil and that agri-produce grown on such soil would beunfit for human consumption.

The Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh (BBN) Industrial Areain Solan district, Himachal Pradesh, which houses closeto 3,000 units of cement factories, textile units, stonecrushers, aluminium smelters, lead-acid battery manu-facturers, boiler producers, brick kilns, pharmaceuticalsand cosmetics companies is creating an environmentalcrisis in the region. The industrial activities are causingdepletion of groundwater due to heavy extraction, in-creasing river pollution, air pollution, generation of flyash, illegal dumping of hazardous waste and riverbedmining in the area.

In Punjab, the groundwater is contaminated, not onlyby general pollutants but also with heavy metals andradioactive uranium. The Punjab government has de-cided to turn to canals for potable water. 83 of the 85villages in a pocket in Moga district and 35 of 36 vil-lages in a part of Barnala district had contaminatedground water.

The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) told theNGT on November 20, 2015 that large amounts of in-dustrial effluents have been found in the groundwaterand rivers flowing through several districts of UttarPradesh. Enormous quantities of harmful substancesincluding municipal and industrial effluents enteringHindon from the districts of Saharanpur, Muzzafarnagar,Shamli, Meerut, Baghpat, Ghaziabad and Gautam BudhNagar, were found, which caused ground water contami-nation and have adverse health impact on the natives ofvillages in these districts. The CPCB has recommendedstoppage of untreated wastewater being discharged intothe river system or water bodies to prevent ground wa-ter from getting contaminated and that all sewage betreated.

GOVERNMENT MEASURES

Union Minister for Water Resources Uma Bharti saidthat a comprehensive policy is needed to address theover–exploitation of ground water involving both sup-ply and demand side management. Ground water aug-mentation measures, conjunctive management of sur-face and ground water, regulation of ground water de-velopment, enhancing water use efficiency are impor-tant measures required for ground water management.

The Minister has said that her Ministry is already tak-ing the following measures (as can be seen from the com-ments in the brackets, none of these are helping, thegovernment is completely non serious):

- Promoting rainwater harvesting and artificial re-charge measures in the country. A Master Plan hasbeen drawn and circulated to all State Governmentsfor harnessing surplus monsoon runoff to augmentground water resources (This is unfortunately not inhigh priority or focus, with highly inadequate alloca-tion of financial or institutional or regulatory re-sources)

- A nationwide programme of Aquifer Mapping whichwill facilitate participatory ground water manage-ment involving local communities. (Mapping has juststarted under 12th Five Year Plan and mapping itselfwont help unless local communities are legally andresource wise empowered)

- Pursuing the enactment of a law on ground water inall States/ UTs. So far 15 States/UT’s have adoptedand implemented the ground water legislation. (Butnone of the states have implemented it)

REGULATION Minister Uma Bharti has said that thegovernment is mulling to enact a law to put a cap on theusage of river water as well as underground water. Inorder to set parameters over the usage of river waterand underground water, a committee has been formedto come up with a law with the nod of the states.

With an estimated 5,00,000 flats under construction inNoida and Greater Noida, the CGWA has recommendedthat only one basement be allowed for any future workto prevent de-watering of groundwater. One basementis up to three metre below ground level. The Noida andGreater Noida are entirely sitting over Ganga-Yamuna“Doab” belt. Many real estate projects along YamunaExpressway have even come up on the active floodplainof River Yamuna. Recently Okhla Colony in South EastDelhi on Yamuna floodplain and a hospital building inKalka Ji ridge area in Delhi suffered from basementflooding. However many basements and undergroundMetro lanes have been built in Delhi, which have se-verely affected the groundwater hydrology. During de-watering of flooded basements the huge amount of ac-cumulated water is simply discharged into drains as hasbeen noted in the case of construction of the AdditionalOffice Complex for the Supreme Court of India.

The CPCB has ordered that 119 sugar mill owners situ-ated along the Ganga in Uttar Pradesh should use wastewater for irrigation instead of dumping it into the river.The state ground water department’s data of last yearshows that groundwater levels in 820 developmentblocks were ‘diminishing’.

26


Minister for mines and geology T Harish Rao informedthe Telangana state Assembly on March 24, 2015 thatthe government was taking steps to prevent deple-tion of ground water due to illegal sand mining in theGodavari, Manjeera and Maneru catchment areasthrough strict vigilance.

REVISED GUIDELINES OF THE CGWA The CGWAcame up with revised guidelines for evaluation of pro-posals for ground water abstraction. The CGWA hasnotified 162 areas for ground water regulation. Theguidelines empower the district administrative heads/head of the municipality for granting of NOC’s forground water withdrawal, checking violations, sealingof abstraction structures, prosecuting offenders andaddress complaints. Under the latest guidelines:

- In the notified areas, ground water abstraction ispermissible only for government water supplyingagencies and for drinking and domestic purposeslimited to the cases where public water supply sys-tem does not exist. Water meter installation is man-datory in case the abstraction is done other thanby an individual household.

- In the non-notified areas, all industries, new andexisting, extracting groundwater will need to ob-tain a no-objection certificate (NOC) to drawgroundwater. Earlier this was required only of newand expansion projects.

- The new guidelines have a separate category forwater intensive industries which includes morestringent regulations for groundwater usage andprohibit extraction of groundwater by such indus-tries in over-exploited areas.

- In areas even where the ground water level is un-safe the allowed quantity of groundwater use is de-pendent on the quantity of ground water rechargedby the industry.

If enforced these guidelines would compel industrieslocated in ground water stressed areas to rechargegroundwater in order to extract it further. They wouldalso prevent over exploitation by beverage industriesand bring an end to the operation of existing indus-tries whose prolonged extraction have already de-pleted the ground water to unsustainable levels.

But the guidelines are unsatisfactory on various counts.They fail to stipulate measuring and monitoring mecha-nisms for groundwater recharge even though theamount of allowed abstraction depends on recharge.The new guidelines have yet again not brought agri-cultural use of ground water under regulation.

Unfortunately the CGWA’s past record has not beenvery promising. Despite bottling plants requiring a li-

cense from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)which in turn required an NOC from the CGWA, thou-sands of units extracting groundwater from over-ex-ploited areas were given licenses by the CGWA. Whenasked how they could do this, flimsy reasons weregiven, says Himanshu Thakkar of SANDRP. Even instates having their own rules, the implementation ofgroundwater legislations has been a challenge.

RECHARGE The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sani-tation has prepared 4,898 Hydro-Geo-MorphologicalMaps (HGM maps) for ground water prospecting andselecting sites for artificial ground water recharge.

The forest department has started constructing largeearthen dams that will help store rainwater and re-charge groundwater in Gurgaon and Mewat. About fourdams are expected to be ready before next monsoon.The 220-m-long dam in Ghamroj village will have acatchment area of 180 ha, it will recharge 25-50% ofthe total rainfall in the area.

NGT and the COURTS - the last resort

The NGT made many attempts to ameliorate theground water crisis by giving orders to concerned gov-ernment authorities to take measures to recharge andprevent pollution of groundwater. In some cases theNGT made rules and ordered action of its own to tacklethe ground water problem.

On August 20, 2015, the tribunal ordered that rainwa-ter harvesting be ‘adopted as a rule’ in all govern-ment projects and institutions. It called for a reporton installation of RWHS on all flyovers in Delhi. Inother matters, the tribunal took several hospitals,malls, hotels and companies to task for not complyingwith its orders on installing rainwater harvesting onJuly 8, 2015. The NGT imposed fines to the tune of Rs3-5 lakhs and issued warrants on many of the viola-tors and their officials.

The district magistrates and five Senior Superinten-dents of Police in western Uttar Pradesh were finedby the NGT on February 17, 2015 for their repeatedfailure to reply to its notice on polluted rivers causingcancer among villagers. The NGT had taken suo motucognisance of a newspaper report on the polluted wa-ters of the Kali, Krishna and Hindon rivers havingcontaminated the groundwater of the villages on theirbanks. Drinking of the groundwater caused bone de-formities among several villagers, and some of themhad died of cancer. The Allahabad High Court also di-rected the District Magistrate and the top officials ofthe Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB)in Ghaziabad to initiate criminal and departmentalproceedings against those responsible for allowing in-dustrial effluent to contaminate groundwater.

27


The NGT appointed a commissioner to prepare a re-port on the massive concretisation of Ghaziabad, UttarPradesh. The practice of concretisation of soil, greenareas is a violation of the Biological Diversity Act 2002.The Ghaziabad Development Authority and NagarNigam have failed to install rain water harvesting sys-tems at public places and buildings. Ghaziabad is wit-nessing a fall in the ground water-level which has gonedown over 3 m in the span of 5 years. It has beendeclared as a ‘critical area’ by the CGWA.

The Supreme Court also gave orders to take steps toconserve ground water. Passing order on a PIL theSC on July 31, 2015 issued notice to the Centre andDelhi government asking them why extraction ofground water through borewells should not be regu-lated and meters be installed to curb wasteful use.There are nearly 5 lakh illegal borewells in just thenational capital. A National Sample SurveyOrganisation (NSSO) study says almost 16% of Delhi’surban households and 30% of its rural ones don’t havesufficient drinking water throughout the year.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

Groundwater is a local resource and hence central-ized regulation is likely to fail in the absence of publicparticipation and decentralized approaches. Active par-ticipation by citizens can go a long way in protectingground water as was seen in various places across thecountry. In Pune, a citizens’ action group waged a le-gal battle to save River Mutha after the local bodydumped debris on the river which over the years lostits water-carrying capacity. The Environment SupportGroup of Bangalore took up protection of lakes inKarnataka. The group also forced the state to imple-ment the high court directions to set up lake protec-tion committees.

In Delhi, a 200-year-old water body in Dwarka wasrevived recharging the groundwater with 1 crore litreof water this monsoon in a short span of 23 days. Thecredit for its revival goes to the residents of the areaand environmental activists who had put in physicallabour to remove the silt, deepen the water body andchannel the water while also pursuing the DDA forassistance. The residents have taken up the cudgelsto ensure that two natural groundwater recharge sitesin the area get water body status in the records ofDelhi government and the Delhi Development Author-ity.

In Rajasthan, a public-private partnership rented roof-tops and set up collection networks of pipes and un-derground storage tanks. Part of the rain captured byhis system goes to the homeowner, the rest through aseries of pipes to community reservoirs.

A group of companies, research organizations, and in-dustry associations created a web platform called theIndia Water Tool by compiling data from departmentslike the CGWB, the Indian Meteorological Department,the Ministry of Water Resources and the CPCB. Civilsociety and the government can use the tool to evalu-ate water risks and learn about water levels and wa-ter quality.

THE WAY AHEAD

Demand for ground water is ever increasing and evengreater in times of drought. Since ground water ismostly used in agriculture, increasing water use effi-ciency in this sector is extremely important. Use ofdrip and sprinkler irrigation and developing canal net-works can help. A re-look at the cropping pattern andthe government policies which sustain them is neces-sary, especially where there is groundwater overdraft.

The System of Rice Intensification saves on seed, wa-ter, fertilizer, pesticide and increases yield per acreand should be widely adopted. Unlike the traditionalmethod this does not require flooding of the field.

Organizations including the World Bank have sug-gested measures like increasing water tariffs in ur-ban areas for sustainable development and manage-ment of groundwater in the country.

Water bodies, including rivers, ponds, marshes, lakesand other wetlands and flood plains which help groundwater recharge have been destroyed or gobbled up byencroachments and urbanization blocking the naturalrecharging of aquifers. Planned urban development isrequired to safeguard the ground water rechargemechanisms.

Wastage of water and pollution of ground water haveto be dealt with an iron hand. The government andthe citizens have to respond to the ground water prob-lem urgently to avert a crisis and for a happier 2016.

Groundwater is India’s water lifeline and will remainour mainstay, whether we like it not. With every pass-ing year, our dependence on groundwater for all sec-tors is increasing, but our government is yet to wakeup to this reality. Once we accept this reality, thesustainability of this water lifeline will be the focus ofour all our water resources plans, policies and pro-grams. Then we will be better able to use the bountyof rainwater, protect groundwater recharge systemsincluding rivers and create more of them, while alsogoing for bottom up participatory groundwater regu-lation in an effective way. URGENTLY.


28


Hydropower projects commissioned in 2015 in India:The problems they all show

Indian government continues to have very ambitioushydropower targets, even though all the evidence sug-gests why we should be reviewing the way we are tak-ing decisions about hydropower projects. As per CentralElectricity Authority, India has 42641 MW of installedcapacity from large hydropower projects at the end ofDec 2015. The installed capacity from projects below 25MW is not included in this figure.

CAPAITY ADDITION IN 2015: Troubled projects

During 2015, India added 1824 MW of large hydropowercapacity. Some of the important projects commissionedduring the year include: 800 MW Kol Dam in HimachalPradesh (one unit each on 30.03, 31.03, 10.04, 12.06),450 MW Baglihar II in Jammu and Kashmir, 80 MW atLower Jurala Project in Telangana, 330 MW SrinagarHEP in Uttarakhand and 96 MW Jorethang Loop Projectin Sikkim. The first project is in Central Sector, nexttwo in state sector and the last two in private sector.Except for the 80 MW from Lower Jurala, rest of thecapacity is all in Himalayan states.

If we look closely, all of these projects have had a verytroubled track record and most continue to face seriousproblems even after commissioning.

KOL DAM: Serious problems at every level

Appraisal blunders NTPC’s Kol Dam, the largest ofthe commissioned projects this year on Sutlej river, cameup flouting the repeated directions of the National Boardof Wildlife, since the project developers had forgottenduring appraisal that it was submerging Majathal wild-life sanctuary, and no clearances were taken for thisbefore starting work! That long drawn episode endedwith Supreme Court granting approval.

Affected people oppose displacement Large num-ber of people to be displaced by the project have beenprotesting in various ways including indefinite fast. Theproject affects areas of Mandi, Solan, Shimla andBilaspur districts of Himachal Pradesh. In Feb 2013, theoustees from the sulphur bath springs and the pilgrim-age centre at Tattapani urged the government to let ven-dors operate this tourist season as filling of the damwould not take place before November 2013. The projectfor which MOU was signed in 2001, rehabilitation couldnot be completed even till 2013. Work at the dam sitehad to be stopped for several days in Feb 2013. In Janu-ary 2016, farmers started opposing the irregularities inthe Kol Dam Transmission lines.

Time and Cost Over runs The project was sanctioned

in 2002 to be commissioned in 2008-09, but it took doublethe stipulated time to finish finally commissioned in2015. Its initial cost was Rs 4527.15 crores, but by June2014, the cost had already reached Rs 7220 crores andthe final cost is likely to be double the original cost. Thereport of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India,in their audit of NTPC in 2010 had made scathing re-marks in this regard: “However, it was observed thatthe Company had taken inordinate time ranging from18 months (in case of Kol Dam) for awarding of firstpackage of main civil works from the date of TEC… Wefind it difficult to agree with the reply (about the de-lay)… Management’s anticipation of commissioning theproject in April 2012 is doubtful in view of poor progressof main dam contractor…”

Serious accidents and causalities at the Dam Therewere a number of serious accidents during project con-struction in which workers have lost their lives. ForExample on March 7, 2006, four laborers were killedand three were injured at the Kol dam site.

Repeated Leakages during testing The project alsosaw repeated leakages. Central Electricity Authority, initse monthly updates had noted, “Impounding of Reser-voir started w.e.f. 19-12-2013, however reservoir emp-tied due to leakage in diversion tunnel.” This processhad to be repeated several times, each time, problemscropping up at one place or another.

Poor quality work and faulty design leads toPlunge pool erosion during commissioning To-wards the end of Oct 2015, part of the river bank by theside of the plunge pool, in immediate downstream of thetail race water release point of Kol Dam project collapsed,creating serious risk for the project. The Tribune reportwas revealing: “The construction of 800 mw Kol Damhas come under scanner as both sides of the “plungepool” have been damaged in a few months of operationwhich not only shows the poor quality of constructionbut also the faulty design. The Kol Dam has not beeninaugurated formally but its structure has started erod-ing… To control the speed of water a plunge pool hadbeen constructed at the bottom of spillway in the bed ofthe river. According to sources from the Kol Dam, theyhave stopped releasing water since the first week of Sep-tember. A visit to site revealed that the much damagehas been caused to the sides of plunge pool… On the otherhand, an official said it was not just a case of poor qual-ity of construction, but also faulty design that the plungepool was damaged even with the less flow of water. VenodChaudhary, GM of the Kol Dam, said some damage hadbeen caused to both ends of the plunge pool and esti-

29


mate was being prepared for its repairs which wouldexceed Rs 5 crore and the repair would take around fourto five months.”

The official explanation was not very convincing: “Theleft and right bank of plunge pool have got some ero-sions. The erosion of side slope of plunge pool is an in-evitable phenomenon which occurs during initial yearsof operation”.

LOWER JURALA HEP Two 40 MW units of LowerJurala project (total installed capacity of 240 MW) inTelangana commissioned in Oct 2015, generated 8.78million units power in October 2015, and no power inNovember and December 2015. This project was to becommissioned in 2011-12, but the first units were com-missioned four years letter, with cost overrun of over110% with latest available cost estimate of Rs 1969crores.

Disasters This project also faced disasters in consecu-tive years in 2009-2014, as CEA has noted in theirmonthly updates: “Floods in October, 2009. Floods in2010. Flooding in Aug., 2012… Weir work front inundatedwith flood water during July-2013. … units 4,5,6 whichare under different stages of erection are completelysubmerged in water on 30.07.2014 due to sudden gushof water through the upstream gate of Unit No.4. It wasdewatered by 03.09.2014.” The reason for the disasterwas changed in latest CEA report in Nov 2015: “PowerHouse flooded on 30.07.2014 during synchronizationprocess for Unit# 1 to Unit# 3.”

Opposition CEA also noted that project faced an agi-tation: “Weir works hampered due to agitation by vil-lagers. Works stopped since May 9, 2011… Works re-sumed on 1.12.2012… Local agitation against raisingthe weir height upto crest level (2014).”

BAGLIHAR II HEP 450 MW Baglihar Hydropowerproject was inaugurated at Ramban in Jammu and Kash-mir by the Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modion Nov 7, 2015.

No power generation: However, within days of inau-guration, the project stopped generating power. A reportin Rising Kashmir raised a question on Nov 17, 2015,quoting officials: “We don’t understand why PM inaugu-rated the project when it has not benefited the state”.

No transmission line: The project inaugurated by thePrime Minister did not even have transmission line, thesame report said: “”The project was inaugurated despitethe fact that work on an alternate transmission line tosupply power to Kashmir from the second phase ofBaglihar project is still not complete,” said an official.”

Workers agitation: Another report in Rising Kashmiron Nov 17, 2015 said: “Over 3,000 workers of BagliharPower Project have been protesting against the companymanagement for a week, now, demanding release ofpayment of Rs 65 crores.”

Worst ever Disaster? Baglihar project faced possi-bly the worst ever disaster that any hydropowerproject in India has faced, it was so severe that at one

Dry Rangit River in Sikkim Downstream of Jorethang Loope HEP Photo by Mona Chetri

30


stage there was serious talk about abandoning theproject. But that is a long story requiring a separateblog. This is how a paper presented at InternationalConference on Hydropower for Sustainable Develop-ment in Feb 2015 described this event: “A similar situ-ation was faced during construction of Baglihar Hy-dro Electric Project in J&K – India, when a minimumheight of 65m out of 143m high Dam was achieved anda high discharge varying from 3000 – 6250 cumecs,against designed diversion discharge of 3000 cumecs,was consistently received at Dam Site from June toAugust -2005 with repeated rapid fluctuations in dis-charge causing several drawdowns, developing hugenegative pore pressures and disturbing the hill slopesnear Diversion Tunnels , thus blocking both DiversionTunnels, one after the other, in a period of one month.This caused huge impounding and triggered overtop-ping of the Dam till a temporary outlet was puncturedthrough the main Dam for the first time in history &was followed by construction of four gated construc-tion sluices in the Dam to cater to summer discharges.Due to overtopping consecutively during two monsoonseasons of 2005 & 2006, followed by operation of 4high level construction sluices during next two mon-soon seasons of 2007 & 2008, with huge water columnfalling from a minimum height of 65 m, about 20m –30m scouring of bed rock below the Dam foundationwas caused along with large scale damages to sideslopes, developing a deep crater on the right bank,which finally required about 7 lac cum of concrete &other works for restoration at an approximate cost ofINR 1200 Cr and delaying the commissioning of projectby about 22 months.”

SRINAGAR HEP This 330 MW project of private com-pany GVK in Uttarakhand has seen multiple disas-ters and was a source of a massive disaster in down-

stream area in June 2013, asconcluded by Supreme Courtappointed Ravi Chopra Com-mittee based on scientific analy-sis and investigation. Evenpost-commissioning there havebeen repeated news of massiveleakages. Earlier, the projectfaced major agitation, also dueto the submergence of the DhariDevi Temple, among other rea-sons. The project has facedlong drawn litigation and oppo-sition. It is universally seen asone of the most controversialhydropower projects in India.

JORETHANG LOOP HEPBoth the 48 MW units of thisDans Energy’s 96 MW projecton Rangit river in Sikkim were

commissioned on 22 and 23 Sept, 2015. It was sched-uled to be commissioned in 2012-13, so it has seenalmost three years of time over run. It is part of thecascade of five projects, but there has been no cumu-lative impact assessment of these five projects on theRangit River. The affected people had to file a peti-tion in the High Court against the project developerand the High Court order in 2014, while awardinghigher compensation, noted, “The Respondent No.6having thus taken over possession carried out callousand random construction activities causing landslidesand slips through the entire length of the road, dam-aging even the un-acquired land of the Petitioners…The stand and conduct of the Respondent No.6, ap-pear to be quite unreasonable, unfair and rather defi-ant… From the sequence of events alluded to abovethe indifferent and defiant attitude of the RespondentNo.6 appear to be obvious. The Petitioners most ofwhom are poor farmers and tillers of the land whichhad been acquired, were deprived of the use of theirland since the year 2007 or soon thereafter”. The postcommissioning photos of the project shows the disas-ter the project has meant for the immediate down-stream areas.

What does all this show? The above narrative showshow seriously problematic are each of the hydropowerprojects that were commissioned in 2015. The reasonfor going into above details about projects commis-sioned in 2015 is to illustrate how seriously problem-atic our decision-making has been, even currently.Evidently, there is a need to overhaul decision makingsurrounding hydropower projects. Are we paying anyattention to this? Unfortunately, no.

Himanshu Thakkar,SANDRP ([email protected])

"Jorethang Loop HEP: the stagnant reservoir water upstream of the dam and almost dryriverbed downstream of the dam can be seen (Photo by Mona Chettri)"

31


Indian government continues to have very ambitioushydropower targets, even though all the evidence sug-gests why we should be reviewing it. As per CentralElectricity Authority, India has 42641 MW of installedcapacity from large hydropower projects at the end ofDec 2015. The installed capacity from projects below25 MW is not included in this figure.

CAPACITY ADDITION IN 2015: Troubled projectsDuring 2015, India added 1824 MW of large hydro-power capacity. Some of the important projects com-missioned during the year include: 800 MW Kol Damin Himachal Pradesh (one unit each on 30.03, 31.03,10.04, 12.06), 450 MW Baglihar II in Jammu and Kash-mir, 80 MW at Lower Jurala Project in Telangana, 330MW Srinagar HEP in Uttarakhand and 96 MWJorethang Loop Project in Sikkim. The first project isin Central Sector, next two in state sector and lasttwo in private sector. Except for the 80 MW fromLower Jurala, rest of the capacity is all in Himalayanstates.

As we reviewed these projects closely in a separateblog, all of these projects have had a very troubledtrack record and most continue to face serious prob-lems even after commissioning.

What does all this show? The reason for going intoabove details about projects commissioned in 2015 isto illustrate how seriously problematic our decision-making has been, even in these times. Evidently, thereis a need to overhaul decision making surrounding hy-dropower projects in vulnerable areas which face lo-cal opposition.

Are we paying any attention to this? Unfortunately,no.

To illustrate, let us look at the decisions taken by theUnion Ministry of Environment and Forests’ ExpertAppraisal Committee on River Valley and HydropowerProjects. All hydropower projects above 25-50 MWneed clearance from this committee, as also all largeirrigation projects.

EAC DECISIONS IN 2015: As our earlier analysisshowed1, the EAC has had zero rejection rate and hasbeen clearing huge number of dams and hydropowerprojects, far exceeding the need, justification or car-rying capacity of the river basins, with very little at-tention to the prudent environment governance.

During the year 20152, EAC continued this tradition

of zero rejection rate! Even for the couple of projectsthat it did not agree to approve immediately, it askedfor a reformulate of the proposal, keeping the optionsopen.

During 2015, EAC recommended environment clear-ance to twelve projects; six of them were hydropowerprojects, all from Arunachal Pradesh. Rest of the sixwere irrigation projects, including two controversiallift irrigation projects from Maharashtra (Shirapur andKrishna Marathwada) and one irrigation project eachfrom Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Telangana.

It should be added here, as a reminder to the decisionmakers, that the work at Lower Subansiri Hydropowerproject continued to remain stalled for the four fullyears as on Dec 16, 2015. This is an indication, if onewas required, to show how costly the consequences ofwrong decisions can be.

The EAC cleared 21 projects for first stage environ-ment clearance, including 9 hydropower projects, twoeach from Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, HimachalPradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and one from Sikkim. Italso cleared four irrigation projects (one each fromRajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha) and eightlift irrigation projects (five from Karnataka, two fromMaharashtra and one from Uttar Pradesh). It alsookayed 16 applications for extension of validity for thefirst stage clearance, the validity, which is supposedto be for 2-3 years, went on for 4-5 years!

The EAC discussed Cumulative Impact Assessments(CIA) of Tawang, Subansiri, Siang, Dibang and Kamengriver basins, all in North East India this year. Worry-ing, during each of these discussions it eventually ap-proved shoddy and seriously problematic CIAs, dilutedits own recommendations and refused to understandthe concept of conflict of interest.

EAC did say no to first stage environment clearanceto Purthi HEP in Lahaul and Spiti district in HimachalPradesh, but gave its ok when it came back with aslightly different configuration. It did say no to exten-sion of TOR to Lara Sumta and Sumta Kathong HEPs,but suggested they can apply afresh! It has not yetcleared Ken Betwa, Etalin and Pancheshwar, but hasnot said no either to any of them. It did mentionSANDRP submissions dozens of times, but did not in-vite SANDRP, or any other group to the EAC meet-ings even once where SANDRP submissions and de-veloper response were discussed. There has never been

Hydropower projects in India: Important 2015 Developments

1 https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/the-expert-approval-committee-has-zero-rejection-in-six-years/

2 This review is for EAC meetings till November, the minutes of the EAC meeting of Dec 22-23, 2015 were not available till Jan 8, 2016, whenI finished writing this article.

32


Edited by Himanshu Thakkar at 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 88.Printed at Sun Shine Process, B -103/5, Naraina Indl. Area Phase - I, New Delhi - 110 028

NOTE: Please note that we are continuing the publication of DRP as a non RNI publication, so this is forprivate circulation only. DRP is not for sale. Those who have subscribed will continue to get printed copies tilltheir subscription lasts. For any voluntary support towards continuing publication of DRP, please write to:[email protected].

a point-wise discussion in the EAC about the meritsand demerits of the developer’s response. Just to il-lustrate how problematic has the EAC decisions havebeen, see our blog about the 86th meeting of EAC heldin August 2015 https://sandrp.wordpress. com/2015/09/22/why-the-decisions-and-minutes-of-the-86th-meet-ing-of-eac-on-river-valley-projects-need-to-be-re-viewed/.

All this only goes to illustrate how seriously problem-atic are our decisions about dams and hydropowerprojects.

GENERATION PERFORMANCE OF HYDRO-POWER PROEJCTS The basic purpose of buildinghydropower projects is generation of electricity, letus see how India’s hydropower projects perform in2015. During the year, with total installed capacity of42641 MW as on Dec 31, 2015, India’s large hydro-power projects, as per the data from Central Electric-ity Authority, generated 129.11 BU (Billion Units, oneunit equals one kilowatt hour), compared to 130.8 BUin 2014. So even though installed capacity in 2015went up by 1824 MW, generation went down by1636 Million Units! Our earlier analysis3 has shownhow the returns from hydropower projects in Indiaare diminishing in different respects. The trend con-tinues in 2015.

Peaking power It may be added here that USP(Unique Selling Proposition) of hydropower projectsis that they can provide peaking power ( power sup-ply in the hours when the demand is highest). Thereis no agency that is either monitoring or trying to op-timize peaking power from hydropower projects. How-ever, let us take a snapshot of this situation. A reviewof the daily Power Supply reports of the NorthernRegion Load Despatch Centre shows that on Dec 31,2015, Northern region had peaking shortage of 1529MW. Northern Region, incidentally, should give us thebest illustration in this regard since it has, at 18815MW, the highest hydropower capacity among all re-gions of India. On Dec 31 2015, hydropower projectswere providing 10041 MW of generation during peakhours, and 2446 MW generation during off peak hours.So net peak load provided by hydropower projects onDec 31, 2015 was 7595 MW, which is just 40% of thehydro installed capacity of 18815 MW in the region.

This snapshot tells us that on Dec 31, 2015 (inciden-tally, the rivers have minimal flows at this time andhence all the more reason even for run of river projectsto operate in peaking mode) about 60% of the hydro-power capacity was NOT providing peaking power,which it was supposed to do! It may be added thatNorthern region had only 1529 MW of peaking short-age, which could have been easily provided by the moreoptimum performance of these projects. It also tellsus that as far as peaking power requirement is con-cerned, we do not really need more hydro since thecurrent capacity is sufficient to cater to our peakingneeds, if operated optimally, in a manner that hydro-power projects are supposed to operate! Even as asnapshot, this tells us a lot!

HYDRO DISASTERS IN 2015 The year 2015 showedincreasing disasters related to hydropower projects.Such disasters included the one at Chutak Hydropowerproject in Kashmir, Sorang hydropower project inHimachal Pradesh, Vishnuprayag hydropower projectin Uttarakhand, Multiple disasters in Kinnaur districtin Himachal Pradesh, among others. At Rishikesh inUttarakhand, hundreds of people had narrow escapein Dec 2015 due to sudden release of water from TehriDam, as alleged by the news reports. The High Courtof Himachal Pradesh, in Jan 2016, while announcingcompensation to families of the students who lost theirlives due to Larji Dam mishap in Oct 2014, called LarjiDam a Killer.

IN CONCLUSION This year end review of hydro-power projects in India tells us that our decision mak-ing surrounding hydropower projects is flawed andthat we can and must change the way the decisionmaking system in functioning.

On the other hand, power generation performance ofhydropower projects continue to diminish and evenfor peaking power requirement, we do not really needmore hydropower.

It should also be added that as large number ororganisations from all over the world wrote to theUnited National Frame Convention on Climate Change,Large Hydropower must not be considered as a solu-tion in the climate change context.

Himanshu Thakkar, SANDRP([email protected])

3 https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/diminishing-returns-from-large-hydropower-projects-in-india/

vol 13 | issue 11-12 | dec 2015-jan 2016 rs. 15/- four ... · vol 13 | issue 11-12 | dec 2015-jan...

Documents