This Supreme Court appointed committee explains why the

Uttarakhand floods happened

For the very first time, official report links the greedy building of hydropower projects to the floods that
raged through Uttarakhand last year.
By Nidhi Jamwal | Grist Media 11 hours ago
(Photo credit: Reuters)
The year 2003 proved something of a watershed in economist Bharat Jhunjhunwalas life. He had retired from his position
as professor of economics at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, and decided to move to the Himalayan state of
Uttarakhand to spend his life in quiet on the banks of the Alaknanda, a tributary of the Ganga. But things didnt turn out as
peaceful as he expected: the endless blasting for the construction of a dam for a hydropower project nearby was a problem
that simply wouldnt go away. What Jhunjhunwala didnt realize was that it would spell years of litigation and the beginning
of a long fight against the mushrooming of hundreds of hydroelectric projects (HEPs) in Uttarakhand, which faced
devastating floods last year that killed thousands.
A recent landmark report by an expert committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), set up under the
direction of the Supreme Court, makes this connection. It is the first independent official report acknowledging the
destructive nature of hydropower projects and linking them to the floods that raged through Uttarakhand last year. In its
report, Assessment of Environmental Degradation and Impact of Hydroelectric Projects during the June 2013 Disaster in
Uttarakhand, the committee recommends the rejection of 23 HEPs in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins in
Uttarakhand.
There are several questions surrounding the hydropower projects in Uttarakhand considering the MoEF has previously
This Supreme Court appointed committee explains why the Uttarakhand fl... https://in.news.yahoo.com/this-supreme-court-appointed-committee-expla...
1 of 4 5/6/2014 10:12 PM
ignored calls to scrap some of them, will it act now? Theres question of the government having given permission to
newbies (such as makers of paan masala and bicycles), with half-hearted regulations on how these plants should be laid
out. Theres the forest and aquatic habitat, the muck collected at the dams for these projects, and the projects over 400
hundred more that the report doesnt name. Then theres dissent within the committee and talk of a parallel report, and
fears that scrapping these projects will pose a threat to our energy security the question that everyone wants an answer
to.
The report notes that the hydel projects fall within an eco-sensitive zone and are in the vicinity of protected areas such as
national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. They have not obtained mandatory clearance from the National Board of Wildlife,
the report says, adding that they would have irreversible impacts on the biodiversity of both the basins, and should not
be allowed to be constructed.
Last year, on June 15-16, Uttarakhand and its adjoining states experienced a multi-day cloudburst and a unprecedented
rainfall of 350mm. Snowfall ahead of the cloudburst also contributed to the floods, resulting in the bursting of Chorabari
Lakes bank near Kedarnath, and a large-scale calamity. Environmentalists shot off a letter to the MoEFwithin a month,
demanding suspension of environmental clearances to HEPs in the state and an independent inquiry into the role of such
projects in the disaster.
While the MoEF did not acknowledge the letter, the Supreme Court took suo moto action and directed both the MoEF and
the state government not to grant any further environmental clearance or forest clearance for any hydroelectric power
project in the State of Uttarakhand, until further orders. It also noted that the adverse effect of the existing projects,
projects under construction and proposed, on the environment and ecology calls for a detailed scientific study. To do so,
an expert body, chaired by Ravi Chopra, director of the Dehradun-based Peoples Science Institute, was set up last October
and it submitted its report to the MoEF and the Supreme Court in April.
For Jhunjhunwala, theres been no let up in the action. His home is 15 kilometers downstream of theSrinagar Hydro
Electric Project (SHEP), and right next to the proposed Kotlibel Hydroelectric Power Project 1(B) in Pauri Garhwal
district. In 1985, the MoEF granted environmental clearance to the 200 megawatt (MW) SHEP, which was later raised to
330 MW. The Supreme Courts order in August 2013 shows the project, which never really took off because of a number
problems including a lack of funds, changed hands from the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board in 1982toM/S Duncan
Industries Ltd in 1994,and is currently with the Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd (GVK).The SHEP has recently been
commissioned.
I realized there were a lot of problems with the project, says Jhunjhunwala. Its installed capacity had been increased
and the environmental clearance dated back to 1985, whereas the construction work began only in 2006. The project
should have applied for fresh clearance, and we [Jhunjhunwala and activist Anuj Joshi] decided to approach the Supreme
Court, he says. His efforts really began by focusing on the Kotlibel project, and he filed Right to Information applications
on the SHEP in the meanwhile. The Kotlibel 1B project is one of the 23 the committee mentions in its report.Whereas the
court dismissed our petition [to review the SHEP], I am glad, in response to it, a committee set up as per the orders of the
apex court has rejected 23 hydel projects in Uttarakhand.
The environmental cost of a hydel project
The expert committee didnt stop at the 23 hydel projects it has also come down heavily on the other HEPs in the state.
This is perhaps the reason two of its members [one from the Central Water Commission (CWC) and the other from Central
Electricity Authority (CEA)] walked out of the panel and reportedly submitted a parallel report. Both the CEA and CWC
members staged a walk out on March 5 and, I believe, have submitted their own report, which they have not shared with
This Supreme Court appointed committee explains why the Uttarakhand fl... https://in.news.yahoo.com/this-supreme-court-appointed-committee-expla...
2 of 4 5/6/2014 10:12 PM
other panel members, Chopra, the committees chairperson, told this reporter.
This has angered environmentalists, who are backing the committees report. Both the CWC and the CEA have always
acted as a lobby for hydroelectric projects. Their recent action is a contempt of court...An expert panel can have only one
report. A dissent note can be added to the report after approval of the chairperson, says Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator
of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP). Thakkar, an engineer trained at IIT Bombay, and his
colleagues have carried out a large number of studies on the environmental impacts of HEPs in Uttarakhand, including the
unprecedented floods in June last year.
According to the MoEF committees report, Uttarakhand has an ambitious plan to develop 450 HEPs with a total capacity
of 27,039 MW. So far, 92 projects (3,624 MW) have been commissioned. Another 38 projects (3,292 MW) are under
construction, and 38 more projects (3,318 MW) are awaiting clearance.
Hydel projects are often projected as a clean source of energy. However, there is a huge environmental cost attached to it.
SANDRP notes that the MoEF has been clearing bumper-to-bumper HEPsin the hill states of the country, including
Uttarakhand, paying little attention to their impact on the environment. In 2010, a Comptroller and Auditor Generals
reportnoted that permission for some HEPs had been given to cycle manufacturers, paan masala firms and garment
manufacturers with no experience in building hydropower projects.
Several other experts have been warning against the HEP rush. In 2010, a High Court-appointed committee headed by
Himachal Pradeshs Additional Secretary (Forests), Avay Shukla, pointed outthat 400 hydel projects were in different
stages of allotment or implementation in the Ravi, Beas, Sutlej and Chenab basins, while another 600 were awaiting
allotment.
While all these projects are based on the run of the river model, in which water is dammed, led through a head race tunnel
to a turbine to generate power, and then led back to the river through a tail race tunnel, they are lined up end-to-end on the
same river. Shukla warned that this could eventually cause entire river beds to dry up or cease to provide aquatic
ecosystems. He recommended at least 5km of riparian distance between two projects on one river.
The MoEF, for its part, has paid little attention to this. Until a couple of years ago, it did not prescribe a minimum distance
between hydropower projects. Now, the ministry specifies, though not strictly, a minimum distance of one kilometer
between two hydro projects, which is a joke, says Thakkar.
There are several other ways a hydel project impacts the local ecology. Large dams with reservoirs significantly alter the
timing, amount and pattern of river flow. This changes erosion patterns and the quantity and type of sediment transported
by the river. Along with the water, sediment fills up the reservoir. This is also the case with Uttarakhand's rivers. So, when
the unusually heavy rainfall hit the region last June, rivers burst their banks and flooded downstream areas with both
water and sediment.
In the last couple of years, various companies have been blasting the hills in Alaknanda valley to make tunnels for the
HEPs. This has destabilized the mountain and its capacity to bear heavy rainfall has gone down, says Jhunjhunwala.
A group of local NGOs have already filed a case in the National Green Tribunal demanding compensation for the losses
suffered by the local people due to the 330 MW SHEP, which had dumped large quantities of muck beside the gates of the
dam on Alaknandas river bed. Private developers can approach insurance firms or the government to cover up their
losses, but what about the local villagers? questions Vimal Bhai, convenor of Matu Jansangthan and one of the petitioners
at the tribunal. He has welcomed the decision of expert body to drop 23 HEPs in the state, but is demanding a
This Supreme Court appointed committee explains why the Uttarakhand fl... https://in.news.yahoo.com/this-supreme-court-appointed-committee-expla...
3 of 4 5/6/2014 10:12 PM
comprehensive assessment of all the dam projects in the state.
Sediment aside, the release of minimal water downstream by HEPs leads to the loss of rivers integrity in the non-monsoon
months, which disrupts fish migration. A survey of 125 dams by the World Commission on Damsindicates that a major
reason for the extinction of freshwater species in North America is blocking the passage of migratory fish species. Lower
catches of fish, a common side effect of dams, has been reported worldwide.
Hydel projects also eat into the local forest cover. The New Delhi-based EIA Resource and Response Centre carried out an
analysis of all hydropower projects granted forest clearances since 1984, and found that a total of 99 hydel projects have
received clearance involving the diversion of 5391.17 hectares of forest land in Uttarakhand.
Will axing the projects prove a threat to energy security?
In 2012, it was reported that there were fears that over Rs 17,000 crore worth of investments in Uttarakhand would be
impacted if the government stops work on various hydel projects in the state. Stopping hydel projects is also seen as a
threat to Indias energy security.
Chopra, however, dismisses such fears. Uttarakhand government has planned to build 450 hydropower projects. We have
recommended dropping of only 23 projects. The state still has enough on its platter, he says.
Vimal Bhai has strong reservations against the development model being followed in the country. He alleges that most of
Tehri Dams water is meant for Delhi (more than 300km away), whereas people in about 40 villages, displaced due the
project, are living without basic amenities and have been awaiting rehabilitation for the last 30 years.
The need of the hour is demand-side management of energy and not mindless promotion of projects, which destroy our
rivers, ecology and culture, says Jhunjhunwala. In spite of repeated efforts, officials of GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd,
and Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd (which operates the 400MW Vishnuprayag hydropower plant that was badly damaged
in the floods and shut down) were not available for comments.
Little is expected of the MoEF, which in the past has set up committees, but failed to take any corrective action. Two years
ago, the Wildlife Institute of India had recommended dropping 24 proposed HEPs because of irreversible harm to the
rivers. The expert body chaired by Chopra has rejected 23 of them. For now, all eyes are set on the next hearing of
Supreme Court May 7 and hopes are high that for once, there will be action.
Nidhi Jamwal is a Mumbai-based freelance journalist with over 15 years of experience in environmental journalism. She
tweets @JamwalNidhi
This Supreme Court appointed committee explains why the Uttarakhand fl... https://in.news.yahoo.com/this-supreme-court-appointed-committee-expla...
4 of 4 5/6/2014 10:12 PM