Hydel Power

Hydropower has now become the best source of electricity on earth. It is produced due to the energy provided by moving or falling water. History proves that the cost of this electricity remains constant over the year. Because of the many advantages, most of the countries now have hydropower as the source of major electricity producer. In 2003, the Indian Government, as a part of the liberalisation of its power policy, launched the Hydropower initiative, that would produce about 50,000 MW of electricity through 162 projects in 16 States by 2017, many of them privately built and owned. The State Government of Sikkim identified 35 potential hydropower projects and invited private companies for development projects since 2001-02. The first aim of Indias 2008 Hydropower policy is to induce private investment in hydropower while offering a bonanza of concessions to the private companies, and protecting them against major risks by passing on the burden to the public. For instance, a letter sent by the Energy and Power Department of the Government of Sikkim to the Affected Citizens of the Teesta (ACT) the group that carried out a relayed hunger strike to prevent dam building in Sikkim argued that any action to stop the Panan Hydro-electric project will cause severe losses to the Company, in this case the Himagiri Hydro Energy Pvt. Ltd., as they had invested huge amount of money and other resources for the project, and also to the State, as it will have to compensate the Company for its losses. Also, says the letter, such a precedent would create a negative environment for hydropower development projects in other parts of Sikkim, and hence in the interests of all the strikers must call off their agitation to ushera new era of peace and prosperity. This massive scheme of privatising precious natural resources around the country is based on the delusion that somehow, the business interests of unaccountable private companies and the general interests of the population coincide. Justified incessantly in the name of growth or development or the mythical national interest, this piece of popular fiction has transformed an indigenous Lepcha or a Bhutia into a national enemy, a threat to democracy and peace and tranquillity who is expected to silently acquiesce to the desecration of his real homeland in t he interests of a mythical one

Advantages of hydropower: No pollutants! The first benefit of the hydropower is that no air or water pollutants are produced. The water used does not contaminate the air or water by producing harmful wastes. No poisonous biproducts are produced. If we compare it to the a nuclear source which produce electricity from a radioactive substance in a nuclear reactor, then we notice that no pollutants are produced from a hydropower source as compared to the nuclear wastes and radioactive rays which are damaging

the life on earth. These wastes from nuclear reactors then reach water due to power system and this is how water pollution takes place, not only affecting humans but also aquatic life.

Say no to greenhouse gases No greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are produced which makes this source of energy environment-friendly. It prevents us from the danger of global warming.

Saving natural resources The hydropower does not use any fuel or fossil fuels. The natural balance in an ecosystem is not disturbed. The fossils are non-renewable so their saving is very important to make sure that they do not deplete.

A predictable renewable source of energy It is a renewable resource as it can be pumped again and again and water is recycled on the earth naturally and artificially both through the water cycle. Water never actually completely depletes. It dominates other renewable resources like wind energy because it has a predictable nature. The forecast can tell us about the rainfall and we can keep ourselves prepared for water collection.

Dams as a water reservoir Another benefit of dams is that they not only produce electricity but also saves and reserves water so that the water is not wasted into oceans and seas. So it is like two advantages in a single packet.

Economical advantage This source not only assists environment but also the economy. As no fuel is used and we also know that the prices of fossil fuels are raising very high so not much cost in made on the production of electricity. Other than that, no imports are needed to be made which saves money. The cost of this electricity is less than electricity produced from fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Constant source of energy

The prices of fuels keep on increasing on and off. Due to which the cost of electricity also keeps on changing but due to rainfalls the rate of hydroelectricity remains constant somewhat and does not increase much. Hydropower source can lighten the country 24/7 whole year.

Controllable source of energy The rate of electricity produced can be changed by varying the speed of water flow. The faster it would flow, the more energy it will have to run the turbines. So ultimately turbines convert the comparably greater amount of energy. So hydropower is sustainable and long-lasting source of energy. It produces a great amount of electricity. Dams can also be used for other purposes like fishing and sports. All these advantages show the importance of hydropower electricity which gives us a solution for the problems of this boom and gloom economy. Environmental threats related with hydel power The underground river The dams being built on the Teesta are of the run-of-the-river type, that require diverting river water through tunnels bypassing long stretches of the natural course, before the water is dropped back into the river at a downstream location after passing through a powerhouse. A cascade of projects along these rivers will mean most of the river would essentially end up flowing in tunnels, destroying the riverine ecology. The Teesta IV project is proposed in the vicinity of the confluence of the Rangyong and the Teesta, and if this dam is constructed, it would mean that the last free flowing stretch of the Teesta river will also disappear. These dams have been touted as environmentally benign as they do not require reservoirs that submerge l arge tracts of land. But extensive tunnelling in geologically fragile areas, dumping of excavated debris into the surrounding landscape and unevaluated social and environmental impacts, apart from the loss of culturally significant ecologies, make them a threat to the local communities and their way of life. Indias future powerhouse When the early plans on dam building on the Teesta were drawn, there was a recognition of the need to undertake a comprehensive study of the social, environmental and ecological impacts of dams in the region. But a year later, in 1999, under pressure from the Ministry of Power, the Teesta V project was granted clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), as the first of a six stage cascade plan to harness hydropower from the Teesta river. The approval was granted under the condition, that only after a comprehensive carrying capacity study of the

Teesta was completed would any subsequent clearances for dams in Sikkim be given. But starting in 2004, the MoEF cleared six other projects on the Teesta river basin, before the study was completed, in violation of its own stipulations on clearances. Pressure from other Ministries seems to be the probable reason for such violations, as Sikkim is an important part of the Central Governments master vision of North-Eastern region as Indias future powerhouse with around 168 dams planned. This was made quite evident by the Union Power Minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde in 2009, when he dedicated to the nation the Teesta V project. The carrying capacity study, done by Centre for Inter-Disciplinary Studies for Mountain and Hill Environments (CISMHE), began in 2001 and came out in 2007. The report made it very clear that contrary to view promulgated by the Government, the dissenting groups were not anti development, but were in favour of infrastructure development that does not threaten their traditional lifestyle and culture. They desire economic security, and improvement in the quality of life, the report says, in the form of better healthcare, universal education, better communication infrastructure and electricity, by improving upon the existing resources rather than by bringing in factory-oriented industrial development that threaten their environment, religion and culture. The misery of Teesta V This dedication to the nation, the Teesta V 510 MW hydropower project, became a tribulation for the local people. Jung Bahadur Chetri, a resident of the Singbel village was rendered homeless when his house cracked open as a result of dam construction. Farming activities were disrupted, and access to water suffered as sources have dried up. Leila Chetri, one of the affected complained that If you ask for even a glass of water now, its difficult for people to get. People say that this dam is for our development. But we havent got anything from it, not even a single job. Just misery. According to the Sikkim Government, the dams are most eco-friendly with negligible pollution. When questioned about the dangers of dams in a seismically sensitive zone, the Government official claimed that the entire Himalaya is a sensitive zone but the Central government has planned hundreds of dams across the mountain ranges, not only in Sikkim. And then almost cynically used the concern to explain the cracking up of homes by stating that [n]o one can prove that peoples homes were damaged owing to the blasting. It could be for other reasons such as earthquakes or landslides. In an affidavit to the Supreme Court appointed Central Empowered Comittee in 2007, the Chief Secretary of Sikkim conceded that there was an environment governance crisis in the Teesta V project, where the power company had grossly violated the terms, conditions and guidelines of the MoEF by dumping excavated debris into the Teesta river, obstructing its free flow causing thereby huge damage to the forest and environment. The public hearing for the project, held way back in 1997, took place before the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report was submitted, a violation of the standard procedure that requires such a report to be handed over at least a month in advance, and the

company (NHPC) could not provide satisfactory answers to the questions and concerns raised in the public meeting. The impacts of the dam became known to people only after the construction began, much to their dismay. About 928 families were affected by the construction, no insignificant number in a small State, while the clearances were given based on the assessment that only 72 families will be affected. An RTI application by ACT also revealed that 48 persons died during the construction of the Teesta V, and about 31 seriously injured, a striking indication of the dangerous work conditions and abominable safety procedures a normal affair as elsewhere in the country. Also, there has been massive corruption in the payment of compensation to the affected, being paid only a faction of what official records indicate. We cannot let our sacred land be destroyed Ever since the Teesta Hydropower projects were announced in Sikkim and their impacts began to be felt, the regions indigenous communities and the Buddhist community have lined up in opposition to them. After the MoEF cleared six projects on the Teesta Basin after 2004, a resistance movement started developing, that first began in Dzongu villages but then moved to Gangtok. The Affected Citizens of Teesta (ACT) an organization formed in 2004 spearheaded this movement. In December 2006 ACT met the Chief Minister of the State and demanded that the projects in Dzongu be scrapped, and other projects in Sikkim be reviewed. Instead, the State Government began acquiring land for the Teesta III and Panan projects, which are planned in the heart of Dzongu. ACT responded by starting its non-violent resistance and relay hunger strike, while Dawa Lepcha and Tenzing Lepcha went on an indefinite hunger strike, a fast that was to last for 63 days. The Hindu Business Line reported that the decision to go on a hunger strike was prompted by a total lack of empathy on the part of the State Government towards the concerns of the people. Their extraordinary courage and sacrifice drew attention, and many groups and individuals from outside Sikkim extended their support and expressed solidarity with the protesters, and many even joined them in their struggle. The growing strength of the movement made the authorities nervous, and they resorted to making threats, arbitrary arrests and petty harassments, but under tremendous pressure, they bowed down to the protesters demands, agreeing to review the projects. The indefinite strike was called off, but the relay strike continued, subject to the fulfilment of all the Governments promises, which it did not fulfil. So about seven months later, three members of the ACT fasted again a fast that would last this time for 96 days demanding an end to all Hyropower projects in Dzongu. For the Lepchas, the issue is not about fair compensation or land. The strikers made this very clear when they said that [w]e Lepchas are nature worshippers. Many of our holy lakes and springs are in Dzongu. We cannot let our sacred land be destroyed. In February 2009, 43 ACT activists were arrested when they decided to enforce an MoEF condition that no facilities be built for housing workers, which Himagiri Hydro violated by building sheds for its workers, which the activists dismantled. The Government decided to arrest

the activists instead of penalising the company, perhaps in its unending crusade to keep the company profitable. The greater the economic power of the malefactor so it would seem the softer the hand of the State. One is reminded of Dawa Lepchas remark, that the only law that the Government is currently upholding is the Land Acquisition Act, which allows it to displace people. All other laws are thrown to the winds. efficient climate

The gold rush for hydro-electric projects in Sikkim has been spurred by the efficient climate that has been created by the State Government by bending over backwards to bring in private companies, as Latha Jishnu reports in the Business Standard. Land acquisition, environment and forest clearances that normally take three to four years are done in two years, by a government that is proactive and quick in decision making, according to one of the major private developers. This can be safely translated as ruthless and subservient to business interests in normal English. The Comptroller Auditor General (CAG) of India report noted that all the projects that were awarded by the State government were through MOUs without calling for bids, which ought to be the standard method not a surprise as there were reports of handsome commissionschanging hands as promoters vie for projects. Environmental Impact mis-Assessments The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, a mandatory document for large projects, are the basis on which public hearings are conducted and environmental clearances granted. Shripad Dharmadhikary notes that this crucial mechanism has been reduced to a ritual almost always done in haste and the proper procedures and processes have often been subverted. They remain, he says, the shoddiest documents around, in which vital facts are ignored, and impacts downplayed. The documents presuppose the building of the dam, and often include glowing tributes to the benefits of the project rather than being honest assessments of the ecological and environmental impacts and costs. The EIA reports often contain arguments that seem to range from the incredible to a carefully choreographed farce; for instance, the EIA for Teesta IV contains a section titled Aquatic Ecosystems that begins with what looks like an objective assessment of the disruption of aquatic habitat due to dam building. It notes that the water quality of the Teesta presently does not show any sign of strain from anthropogenic pressures but construction activity, creation of a reservoir, reduction of water downstream, etc. will lead to habitat fragmentation, hamper the fish migration and pose serious threat to biota within the stretch and other disruptive effects. It immediately adds however, that since there is a dam downstream (Teesta V) that has already blocked fish migration, and there will be dams upstream (like the Teesta III), and since damming has already killed the rivers ecosystem, lets dam it anyway!

Dams and democracy It is not surprising why even limited mechanisms for public debate and participation are dangerous for the planners and builders of large development projects, especially dams. Large dam projects around the world have a very poor record in terms of economic performance and environmental and social impacts, and many would not have been built if their true costs were assessed and made public. In a poor country like India, crowding out public funds and resources for mega-projects deprive other sectors such as education, health, communications, and others that might really benefit the local communities and the poor. Moreover, the amount of risks and construction costs for large dams are so high and pay-back periods so long that they make most large dam projects economically unviable, if not generously subsidised by the public. Hence, dam builders and their agents have done their best to shield themselves from democratic control, and the the role of the local communities has most often been reduced to that of a passive spectator, that must capitulate to these large schemes built in their name without making too much fuss. For instance, Public Hearings, a small but crucial window for people to voice their opinions and raise objections about environmental impacts, are now no longer mandatory according to an EIA legislation passed in 2006. Dharmadhikary writes: The new notification also restricts participation in the hearing to local people, while other persons having a plausible stake in the environmental impacts can submit their opinions in writing. Since neither of these two is defined, these new semantics collectively give enormous scope to authorities to exclude people from the process, as well as exclude those who may have the expertise and skills to help the locals in the opposition to large dams. Public hearings often fail to perform their limited function as sometimes people are not informed in time about the meetings or those opposing the project are not allowed to speak. Sometimes the meetings become opportunities for politicians to make speeches, as in the Teesta III project public hearing, where a Chairperson of the Sikkim Pollution Control Board concocted this diatribe you should reap the benefit-because no one can stop this project, no matter which political party comes to power tomorrow. No one can stop this as the Govt. of India has given the orders. These projects are not meant to harm or bring tension to anyone.anyone who disturbs this project is not a Sikkimese[and] is a useless person if he opposes such a good project; such people are your opposition and anti-social elementsbut because you are in the opposition, you are opposing the Governmentsince you are opposing the Government of India you are an antinational

--------------------------xxx-------------------------