Digging Our Rivers’ Graves? - WordPress.com...2016/02/03 · Budget 2016-17 29 2 Dams, Rivers & People February-March, 2016 1. NWB as a river-control ploy: the Bill, at its core,

Contact :Himanshu Thakkar,Parineeta Dandekar,Bhim Rawat,Ganesh Gaud,Anuradha VenugopalanDams, 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 14 | Issue 1-2 | February-March, 2016 Rs. 15/-

Index Digging Our Rivers’ Graves?A summary analysis of the ecological impacts

of the National Waterways Bill (2015)

Nachiket Kelkar(Email: [email protected])

Introduction: The National Water-ways Bill (NWB, Bill No. 122 of 2015)was tabled by the current centralgovernment’s Minister of Transportand Shipping, Mr. Nitin Gadkari, inMay 2015. This Bill plans to convert106 rivers and creeks across India intowaterway canals, purportedly for ‘eco-friendly transport’ of cargo, coal, in-dustrial raw materials, and for tour-ism purposes. The primary reasonsprovided for this bill are that 1) in-land water transport is fuel-efficient,cost-effective and eco-friendly, 2) thesystematic development of waterwayswill create progressive economic op-portunities in the country, and 3) thepotential of water transport isunderutilized in India. The Bill hassince been examined by the StandingCommittee appointed of Rajya SabhaMembers and experts on the matter,who submitted their findings in Re-port No. 223 (Rajya Sabha Secre-tariat, August 2015). Recently, the Billhas been cleared by the Lok Sabha,and awaits final discussion in theRajya Sabha within a fortnight’s time.As of now the NWB appears to enjoysupport across party lines, states andpolitical positions and agendas. Thereis also a belief that waterways wouldmean maintenance of enough waterflowing in our rivers – yet the meansthrough which this is proposed to beachieved involve capital dredging andlarge-scale conversion of floodplainenvironments and riverbanks to con-crete embankments. A serious concernof observers has been that there hasunfortunately been but scant debateon the high ecological and social risksthe NWB poses to riverine bio-diver-sity and local resource users through

such irreversible engineering controlson our rivers. There is no discussionamong politicians and administrators.Importantly, this issue appears tohave barely received adequate atten-tion even in environment and conser-vation circles. Problematicallyenough, the NWB thus emerges as athreat that may go unnoticed by con-servationists and get passed withoutdebate, deliberation or emphasis onenvironmental clearances to the ex-tent required. In this article I will dis-cuss the potentially damaging conse-quences of the NWB on river ecology,human life and hydrological dynam-ics of India’s riverscapes. My earlierarticle on the SANDRP blog ‘Fourboats at a river crossing along Ganga’(dated 28th December, 2015) had de-scribed https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/four-boats-at-a-river-crossing/) ground experiences relatedto the impacts of large-scale inlandwater transport (IWT). Continuingthere I attempt to provide a point-wisediscussion and critique of the NWB.

Policy document sources: Thisdocument discusses various points ofcontention as identified in 1) the draftof the National Waterways Bill (2015),and 2) the Standing Committee (SC,comprised of select members of theRajya Sabha)’s initial appraisal of theimplications of the said bill providedin its review and recommendations(Report 223, Rajya Sabha Secretariat2015).

Observations on the National Water-ways Bill draft, 2015 and Report 223of the Standing Committee, RajyaSabha on the Bill

Digging Our Rivers’ Graves? 1

Large Dams in KonkanWestern Ghats: Costs,Benefits and Impacts 7

Unabated RiverbedMining in Saharanpur,UP, Puts Delhi’s WaterSupply under Threat 15

River Sand Mining inIndia in 2015 17

River Sand Mining inIndia in 2015 – II –Government acts ofomissions and commissions 20

River Sand Mining in Indiain 2015 – III – Judicialactions 23

Jhulelal or Zindapir:River Saints, fish andflows of the Indus 25

Farmers, Rivers and theEnvironment in UnionBudget 2016-17 29

2

Dams, Rivers & People February-March, 2016

1. NWB as a river-control ploy: the Bill, at its core,appears to treat rivers as mere canals for waterwaysthat can be commoditized for just this singular pur-pose. In fact, it appears that inland water transport,at the scale conceived by the bill, involves the central-ized, unitary control of rivers by the Government ofIndia. This will involve the construction of locking bar-rages to hold water for vessel movement, concretiza-tion and building of embankments to create port ter-minals, and regular (high-intensity) capital dredgingof river sediment deposition along channel bottoms andmargins. Worldwide, such interventions are known tohave seriously damaging impacts on fish fauna, aquaticbiodiversity, and people dependent on them. Althoughpurportedly eco-friendly, there is not a single mentionof “ecological” or “conservation” needs or concerns forrivers in the Bill draft.

2. Rivers as nothing but water channels: The billshows a poor understanding of the hydrological, geo-morphological and socio-ecological complexities ofIndia’s rivers. In this sense, it is a blind copy-and-pasteproposal inspired from other waterways across theworld that also conveniently ignores the failings of eventhese examples (e.g. ECMT 2006). Most river coursesin the Ganga and Brahmaputra floodplains are highlydynamic and migratory. They show flooding pulses inthe monsoons, but have little water in the dry-season.The resulting sediment deposition and erosion patternsin the river channels have historically made river navi-gation highly risk-prone. By treating rivers as mere“water-carriers” the bill dishonours the naturally dy-namic flow regimes that involve ‘essential floods’, criti-cal to sustaining river productivity and life-history oforganisms like fishes. There is not a single mention of“ecology” or “conservation” needs of rivers in the Billstatement.

3. Competing rights to and pressures on water: TheBill does not recognize natural limits on the proposedexpansion of water use for transport in India, wheremultiple competing pressures already exist on waterresources. Given the current and projected scale ofwater demands for irrigated agriculture, industry, ther-mal power plants, etc. (Pt. 18) of the Bill seems an en-tirely unfeasible idea entirely because of the basic re-quirement of adequate water availability. As a resultthe bill seems either unconcerned or naïve about con-sidering rights to use water for diverse social and eco-logical needs. There is a cursory mention of “continu-ity of state rights to river water” (page 19, pt. 6 of NWB)yet there is no clear mechanism identified on how wa-terways development and already ongoing activitieswill be reconciled. The Rajya Sabha SC Report 223rightly expresses concern about the conflicts that couldbe potentially generated at multiple levels: betweenstate and central governments, between local humanusers and ecological needs of rivers, and between wa-ter allocations for transportation vis-a-vie irrigation

and drinking water demands. Point No. 9 of the Re-port states land acquisition as a minor concern of thewaterways development plan. However, there is abso-lutely no discussion on addressing issues of rights towater for direct needs such as fisheries-based liveli-hoods, pilgrimage, or rights for local navigation, whichare unresolved in most cases even today. The Reportmentions concern about rights to sediment and siltdredged from rivers (point 15.1) but deeper securityfor more fundamental water rights have been paidrather scant attention.

4. Hazardous goods: The Bill contradicts its own claimthat waterways are environmentally friendly meansof transport because in the same breath, the statementof object (page 18, pt. 2) says that “hazardous goods”will also be transported by waterways. Accidental spill-age could directly affect the health of millions of peoplein India that still depend on rivers for drinking, do-mestic uses, commerce, and livelihoods, and presentlife-threatening risks to aquatic species.

5. Feasibility of Implementation: The Rajya SabhaStanding Committee’s Report 223 recognizes multiplelacunae and potentially serious gaps in the implemen-tation of the proposed project. It details multiple eco-logical, social, commercial viability, and political-eco-nomic feasibility considerations and consequences forthe 101 proposed national waterway developmentprojects. Point 14 of the Report highlights that the Bill’simplementation will be conditional on Techno-Eco-nomic Feasibility, Environmental Clearances, and De-tailed Project Reports, which is a welcome reminder tothe Bill itself, of its potentially disastrous impacts onnatural flowing water bodies. Point 22 of the Bill alsohighlights the opinion of the Indian Chamber of Com-merce about how the lofty ambitions of the waterwaysproject show strong disconnect with ground realities –and suggest first focussing on improving the effective-ness of the 5 existing waterways (Nos. 1 to 5 in bill) ina sustainable manner, before taking up 101 more river/coastal projects. Strong suspicion about the feasibilityof the projects is also evident in the risk-averseand reluctant responses of companies towards takingup government tenders and contracts for port construc-tion and dredging-related work (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/no-takers-for-ntpc-river-transport-deal/article7642357.ece). A case inpoint is the navigation lock of the Farakka Barrage onthe Ganga, where navigation is hugely impaired dueto high sediment loads, need for continuous and costlydredging and maintenance.

6. Where is the Water? At present, owing to numerousexisting large and small dams, barrages, channel di-versions, irrigation canals, thermal plants’ demand onriver water, most rivers in India have extremely lowor even NO water availability, especially in the dry sea-son. It is indicative of the Bill’s ignorance of these re-alities because many such rivers are proposed for in-

3


clusion in national waterways (Pt. 15.4). The author isaware of the following rivers (enlisted with waterwaynumbers) that either have no water for nearly all year,or run as sewers carrying urban solid waste – but areincluded for development as National waterways: Ajoy(7), Aran (9), Betwa (17), Bheema (20), Budhabalanga(22), Damodar (28), Gomti (40), Indira Gandhi Canal(42), Jalangi (44), Manjara (67), Nag (71), Wardha (77),Punpun (79), Sone (88), Tapi (94), Tons (97), Vaigai(100), Wainganga/Pranahita (103) [this list is by nomeans an exhaustive one].

7. Ecological impacts and effects of capital dredging onriver sediment, biodiversity, fisheries productivity (Pt.20.1), and concerns regarding environmental clear-ances (Pts. 17, 19.1):

a. Barrages have been planned in the Ganga River atevery 100 km, to artificially raise water levels for11 proposed terminal ports. The impacts of barrageson fish movements, flow (water, sediments and nu-trients) regimes at daily, seasonal and annual scales,and other river-dependent biota and people – giventhe fateful experiences in India over the last 5 de-cades – are anybody’s guess (again, the Farakkabarrage stands testimony to the magnitude andgravity of the problem: https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/lessons-from-farakka-as-we-plan-more-barrages-on-ganga/).

b. Capital dredging proposed to deepen, widen, andmaintain existing waterways (5 of which are sup-posed to be operational today, though all of themare operating at sub-optimal levels), has highlynegative environmental impacts. Such dredgingdislodges river sediment, thereby destroying fishbreeding grounds, habitats for endangered fresh-water turtles, fishes, sensitive aquatic inverte-brates, and other organisms. In particular, sub-strate-breeding fish species are negatively affectedby dredging and might even become locally extinctfollowing failed breeding. As a bulk of fisheries de-pends on benthic (bottom-dwelling) fishes in mostof India’s larger rivers, this will mean importantthreat to the sustainable production of fish in thesesystems as well. These impacts are well known andpose serious environmental concerns to many wa-terways across the world (e.g. Dolah et al. 1984,Travassos et al. 2012, Freedman et al. 2013).

c. Invasive species: One of the most common modes ofspread and establishment of invasive species popu-lations (mainly plants and fishes) is by waterways.Aquatic invasions in India threaten native aquaticbiodiversity seriously, and aggravation of thesethreats might be disastrous for fisheries as well asnavigation systems in turn (e.g. Koehn 2004,Arbaciauskas et al. 2008).

d. The noise and disturbance caused by intensivedredging activities is known to have deleterious

impacts on aquatic biodiversity, especially the Na-tional Aquatic Animal of India, the Ganges RiverDolphin Platanista gangetica gangetica. The endan-gered Gangetic dolphin is a unique, blind mammalthat relies entirely on the use of ultrasonic soundproduction to forage and navigate in murky riverwaters of the Ganga-Brahmaputra river systemwith the use of echolocation, i.e. production andhearing of echoes from ultrasonic-frequency sounds.Our research predicts that dredging for waterwaysat the scale envisaged by the Bill will further en-danger this emblematic species that is endemic tothe Indian Subcontinent, owing to the followingreasons: i) Range-level declines (local extinction) ofGanges river dolphins has been reported from manyrivers due to the complete lack of river water avail-ability (e.g. Sone), ii) river dolphin echolocation fre-quency might be masked by dredging and vesselengine sounds, which might seriously limit theirability to find food and navigate; iii) The physicalupheaval of river sediment caused by dredging ap-pears to be disturbing to river dolphins.

e. Our field observations in the Ganga River atBhagalpur identify the negative impacts of heavydredging on dolphins. River dolphins, in May 2014,moved about 2 km downstream from a regularlyused hotspot areas near Barari, Bhagalpur townand stayed there for nearly one full week over whichintensive dredging operations by the Inland Water-ways Authority of India were conducted near theVikramshila Setu. The authors noted that the sur-facing frequency of river dolphins (breathing timebetween dives) reduced approximately 3 times ascompared to a natural dive-rate of approx. 1.5-2.5minutes during feeding peaks. In dolphins, this isa clear indication of stressful physiological and bodyconditions. Further, Ganges river dolphins arehighly vocal in normal circumstances but theiracoustic activity was noted to be much lower thanon an average non-dredging day. Further, river dol-phin mortality due to boat-propeller hits have beenrecorded on a couple of occasions from the samearea. During the movement of tourist cruise ships,we observed that the impact of loud sounds pro-duced by the engines lasted for over 2 minutes – inwhich river dolphin diving behaviour showed signsof suppression.

f. Approximately 90% of the viable Ganges River dol-phin population in India overlaps with the extentof the proposed waterways in the Gangetic andBrahmaputra basins. The same is true for protectedareas especially designated for river dolphins, suchas the Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary isa river stretch of 67 km length between Sultanganjand Kahalgaon towns in Bhagalpur district. Atpresent, IWAI vessels have been regularly movingthrough, and conducting dredging operationsthroughout the sanctuary stretch – without any

4


environmental or wildlife clearances. Appropriatemeasures are a must to mitigate the impacts ofdredging on river dolphins as well as other riverinebiodiversity. Other flagship protected areas includedin the waterways declaration include the NationalChambal Sanctuary (600 km, proposed waterwayno. 24), the turtle sanctuary from Ramnagar Fortto Assi Ghat at Varanasi (6 km, Ganga nationalwaterway no. 1), and others along the BrahmaputraRiver and its tributaries (nos. 2,6,16,29, 31, 53, 80),Harike Bird Sanctuary in Punjab (which has IndusRiver dolphins; proposed waterway no. 15), and sev-eral stretches in the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve (no.91). In some of these stretches, vessels are alreadyplying large distances for transporting cargo, heavygoods and for tourism packages and their ecologi-cal impacts on riverine fauna and fisheries need tobe assessed urgently. The recent oil spill in theSundarbans of Bangladesh highlights the problemsof inland transport in highly biodiverse and pro-ductive estuarine ecosystems.

g. Ganges River dolphins have the highest abundancefor any single Indian state in Bihar, with at least800 animals in the Ganga River, and about 270-300in the Gandak River. Similar estimates have beenreported by researchers from Patna University andWildlife Trust of India. The Kosi River is yet to besurveyed properly, but 75 km river stretch surveyedin May 2014 (Kursela to Osraha Thana) was foundto have almost 173 animals (unpublished data fromfield surveys). The proposed intensive developmentof waterways in these rivers is of serious concernfor a very important, high-density population ofapprox. 1500 Ganges river dolphins occurring inBihar (estimate subject to negative bias).

h. In this context in particular, the widespread notionthat this Bill has not gone through environmentalscrutiny and navigation projects not requiring en-vironmental clearances is also a serious flaw. Along-side protected areas for the conservation of endan-gered river dolphins, gharials, otters, turtles, andfishes, similarly diverse faunal assemblages con-tinue to persist even in rivers not covered underprotected areas. This further emphasizes the needfor detailed studies to assess the environmentalimpact of waterways.

i. Impacts of pollution (noise, solid wastes, fuel leak-age etc.) on river biota need to be assessed urgentlyfor the 5 existing operational waterways in the spe-cific context of inland waterways development andupgradation.

8. Social concerns: Millions of India’s people dependregularly on the rivers for drinking, domestic uses,agriculture, fishing, dairy, pilgrimage, local navigationand other livelihoods. The proposed national water-way development plans show scant regard for a sensi-

tive consideration of how these livelihood and com-merce-sustaining activities may be affected by water-ways. Some examples are listed below.

a. Fish breeding habitats are seriously affected bycapital dredging operations in the river substrate.Many fishes of high market value require intactsubstrates to spawn in the main channel of the river,which in turn determines their catch availabilityto fisher folk. The impact of capital and maintenancedredging on both short- and long-term fish catchneeds to be monitored from the point of view of fish-eries subsistence economy. Our observations sug-gest that fish catches fluctuate towards the nega-tive side during and after bouts of capital dredging.

b. Threats to life: There have been recent reports ofpilgrims dying by drowning due to swimming indepths and sediment flows created post-dredgingactivities by the IWAI in the Ganga River.

c. Local boat navigation will get impaired by frequentand constant movement of large ships and vesselsand needs adequate consideration.

d. The construction of ports, harbours, barge construc-tion zones and embankments on the river bankscan have dire consequences by increasing river ero-sion rates. River erosion and gradual land reduc-tion have been historically high-strung and perni-cious problems in India’s floodplain rivers. The ef-fects of heavy infrastructure might interfere withsediment dynamics and reduce economic outcomesfrom resource use substantially.

9. Multi-sectoral responses to the Bill:

a. A noteworthy component of Report 223 is the re-sponse of the state governments of 18 states to theproposed bill. While most states agree to the Bill inprinciple, multiple conditions are discussed withrespect to state-specific details of river conditions(e.g. in the response by Jharkhand). The responsesof Kerala and Madhya Pradesh, two large stateswhich oppose the bill by providing well-groundedand ecologically sensitive responses, are importantto consider in discussions on balancing waterwaysdevelopment with social and ecological needs ofwater. Extremely important issues are raised byboth state responses, backed by detailed apprais-als, and these pertain to 1) existing structures toharness water for various basic needs, 2) threats ofpollution and saline ingression into waterways, 3)impacts of dredging and solid wastes, 4) impacts onsanctuaries for wild species, fish breeding habitatsand biodiversity such as crocodiles and river dol-phins (with particular reference to the NationalChambal Sanctuary), 5) poor water availability inrivers both from natural seasonal fluctuations, andmore importantly, dams and barrages that alreadyexist. The response of the Bihar government is cru-

5


cially important in the context of this document.Bihar has given a conditional agreement to theNational Waterways Bill (Pt. 26.3). Bihar’s responseis important to consider as it brings up multiplerelevant issues. The conditions include: 1) water-ways should not alter or affect flood levels, naturalsurface levels, and submergence area, 2) a clearnegative response to construction of new barragesbased on the highly destructive experience of theFarakka barrages constructed downstream ofBihar’s Ganga River in 1975, 3) the correct recog-nition that large-scale dredging will alter the near-natural sediment transport loads in rivers such asthe Gandak, Kosi and Mahananda, leading to addi-tional load on the Ganga River, 4) potential inter-ferences with irrigation and drinking water needs,and 5) a detailed silt conservation and managementpolicy and 5) ensuring that no impacts are felt onstate entitlements to water within and across thestate as per existing water-sharing agreements.

b. The statement by NTPC representatives (Report223, Pt. 19.3) that current one-way water-basedcargo transport is only marginally cheaper thanrailways is a significant one. We believe that envi-ronmental regulations on ship design and move-ment rates will necessitate a cap on the proposedupscaling of waterways transport by making it both-ways (e.g. by carrying fly-ash wastes to dumpingsites, Pt. 20.2 of Report 223). We believe that thisproposed measure might be especially hazardousto river water quality and natural sediment load.

c. Doubts on the feasibility of the project at the scalein which it is conceived have been raised, notably,from multiple industrial quarters and by the In-dian Chamber of Commerce (these responses arebriefly summarized above in Pt. 5).

d. Concerns about the impacts of waterways develop-ment have also been raised by pilgrimage authori-ties and temple management boards across theGanga River. http://www.thehindu.com/news/na-tional/inland-waterways-project-will-kill-ganga/article6289042.ece

e. Mishra and Hussain (2012) extend this argumentto considerations for transboundary water-sharing,of specific importance for existing water treatieswith Bangladesh and Nepal.

10. Conflict with other objectives of the IndianGovernment: The earlier points have expressed con-cerns about the pollution impacts of national water-ways. If zero-pollution shipping models are not ush-ered in, the waterways bill proves directly antitheti-cal and in conflict with the Clean Ganga Mission ofthe Central Government, as also for other river clean-ups planned in the future. Further, its proposed con-sonance with other potentially disastrous projectssuch as river interlinking, can add to cumulative im-

pacts on river ecology, there is no attempt to acknowl-edge, understand or assess such impacts. The cost-effectiveness argument for inland waterways ad-vanced by the Ministry is based on its low infrastruc-ture investments. However, IWT projects appear cost-effective because India’s riverine environments andecology are systematically undervalued by the Min-istry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,similar to other arms of the Government. Moreover,the costs have to be seen along with the high costs ofcontinuous dredging, loading and unloading at bothends of waterways and trasportation to and from suchpoints from the origin and destinations.

11. Possibilities for regulation and downscaling ofimpacts: Forms of adaptive management and regu-lation of vessel traffic, dependent on dry-season riverhydrological observations, should form the bench-mark for environmental management guidelines andmitigation strategies for inland waterways. The pri-ority to ensure adequate water availability acrossIndia both for snowmelt-fed or dryland rivers as pertheir seasonal fluctuations (dry to wet season) is fore-most in this regard. Even if flows are maintained atlevels that resemble ecological dynamics and navi-gation operations planned accordingly, navigationschedules will need to be adapted seasonally as pervariations in flooding extent, dry-season ecologicalflows, and rising and falling discharge volumes. TheBill focusses on maximizing water transport infra-structure but does not suggest any regulatory mecha-nisms for sustainable management. The Governmentof India’s Ministry of Transport, Inland WaterwaysAuthority of India (IWAI), National Mission for CleanGanga, National Ganga River Basin Authority, theMinistry for Water Resources, River Developmentand Ganga Rejuvenation and the Union Ministry ofEnvironment, Forests and Climate Change, alongwith state governments need to seriously considerstrict regulation and downscaling for managing in-land water transport (IWT) with necessary environ-mental safeguards and guidelines. In fact, a detailed‘Waterways Classification’ exercise has been de-manded (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/inland-waterways-policy-dredging-through-the-silt/) for efficient management of IWT by the headof the IWAI already. Cumulative Environmental Im-pact Assessments (phase to phase) for IWT develop-ment are critically needed to identify the scope forcase-by-case regulations, environmental prescrip-tions and guidelines, monitoring, compliance and en-forcement of caps on ship traffic as per seasonal varia-tions. Regulatory and adaptive management ap-proaches will need to include: a) restricting allowedupper limits of bulk cargo only (but not hazardousgoods), season-wise; with dry-season movement tobe completely restricted if water availability natu-rally does not allow navigation securely; b) ship sizesfor horizontal and vertical clearances (Pt. 15.2 (i,ii,iii)

6


of Report 223) must be specified only in tune withnatural availability of water, and NOT by augmentedavailability through interlinking, inter-basin or ca-nal transfers, dams/barrages, or repeated dredging;c) considerations for ship design to make them zero-pollution/discharge and ecologically benign (e.g. withengine noise reduction devices), and d) cap on simul-taneous plying of both cargo and tourist ship traffic,e) tourist and cargo vessels must be mandated to paysubstantially for the estimated costs from ecologicalimpacts on the river. Further, mechanisms need tobe instituted towards restoration of river-floodplainhabitats such as islands, point bars etc. (importantfor seasonal farmers, as well as nesting birds, turtles,otters, and crocodilians) through effective silt pro-tection and conservation mechanisms. The high fre-quency of even ongoing dredging operations by theIWAI points to natural constraints imposed on navi-gation by river sediment and silt, which are bothhighly essential for agricultural and fisheries pro-ductivity. Dredging operations alter depositional anderosional processes and affect these systems. Hencea comprehensive and ecologically sensitive river siltprotection, restoration and management policy isessential. As past interventions have amply indicated(e.g. embankments) capital dredging impacts needto be mitigated with strict policies to ensure the same.

12. Despite these important insights and discussionpoints proposed in the Report 223, it falls short of acritical revisiting of the scale and scope of the con-ceived national waterways bill. Problematically, theReport seems to uphold the suggestion that the wa-terways should be in consonance with the RiverInterlinking Plan (though this plan has no sanctionsfrom any of the states, those neighbours sharing riverbasins concerned or the statutory authorities) (Pt.18 (iii)) sharply contrasts with the concerns expressedin the same report about water scarcity, ecology, anddry bed conditions for most rivers included in theSchedule (ref. Section 2) of the National WaterwaysBill. This appears as a latent and somewhat uncriti-cal acceptance of both the river interlinking and wa-terways bills and the Report’s tone remains in broadagreement with the intent of the Bill, in an unques-tioning manner, of the status quo (e.g., the impactsof the River Interlinking Plan; Lal et al., 2015).

Conclusion: The management of existing waterways re-mains wanting on several counts. The aforementioneddiscussion highlight that the current ecological impactsof dredging in waterways are already significant. Giventhis background, the scarcity of water available in our riv-ers, scenarios of extreme climate-induced drought andflood events, river erosion, and declining agriculture andfisheries productivity, we believe that the proposed scaleof upgradation of inland waterways in India is not onlyunsustainable but also highly destructive. In conclusion,efforts are needed to strike balances between IWT andnumerous other more pressing water needs for people and

ecology. The National Waterways Bill thus represents aformidable challenge to our planning as well as our ethic.After a long history of damaging hydrological alterations,riverine control, and social injustices and disasters, theNational Waterways Bill’s implementation does not showthat something has been learned from a troubled past. Inthe current circumstances, achieving potential utilizationof waterways without impairing ecological and hydrologi-cal dynamics, productivity, biodiversity, and social depen-dencies, environmental regulations and safeguards arecritical for sustaining the life of the river basins of Indiadoes not seem likely. The bill in present form is not likelyto be accepted at least by some concerned states and theproposed waterways are not likely to be viable.

References

Arbaciauskas, K., Semenchenko, V., Grabowski, M.,Leuven, R.S., Paunovic, M., Son, M.O., Csenyi, B.,Gumuliauskaite, S., Konopacka, A., Nehring, S., van derVelde, G., Vezhnovetz, V., Panov, V.E. (2008) Assessmentof bio-contamination of benthic macroinvertebrate com-munities in European inland waterways. Aquatic Inva-sions, 3, 211–230.

Dolah, R.F.V., Calder, D.R., Knott, D.M. (1984) Effects ofdredging and open water disposal on benthic macro-in-vertebrates in a South Carolina estuary, USA. Estuaries,7, 28–37.

European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT).(2006) Inland Waterways & Environmental Protection.OECD, ISBN 92-81-1346-9, pp. 104.

Freedman, J.A., Carline, R.F., Stauffer, J.R. (2013) Graveldredging alters diversity and structure of riverine fishassemblages. Freshwater Biology, 58: 261–274.

Koehn, J.D. (2004) Carp (Cyprinus carpio) as a powerfulinvader in Australian waterways. Freshwater Biology, 49,882–894.

Lal, N. (2015) India plans to overhaul rivers for shipping.http://www.thethirdpole.net/2015/07/24/india-plans-to-overhaul-rivers-for-shipping/ (accessed 01.02.16).

Mishra, D.K., Hussain, S.M. (2012) Situation Analysis onInland Navigation. IUCN Ecosystems for Life: ABangladesh-India Initiative, IUCN, International Unionfor Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

National Waterways Bill (NWB). (2015) Government ofIndia, April 29, 2015. New Delhi, pp. 22.

Rajya Sabha Secretariat (2015) Report No. 223 of Depart-ment-related Parliamentary Standing Committee onTransport, Tourism and Culture. Parliament of India, NewDelhi, August 12, 2015, pp. 44.

Travassos, M., Vianna, M. (2012) Impact on a fish assem-blage of the maintenance dredging of a navigation chan-nel in a tropical coastal ecosystem. Brazilian Journal ofOceanography, 60, 25–32.

~

7


Large Dams in Konkan Western Ghats: Costs, Benefits and ImpactsIntroduction

Konkan is that narrow and spectacular strip of land en-compassing coastlines, estuaries, lateritic plateaus, foot-hills of Western Ghats and dense forests, which runsfrom Maharashtra to Goa. Bound by the Arabian Sea toits west and the mighty Sahyadri ranges (WesternGhats) to its east, the region has a distinct and rich cul-ture of folklore, performing arts, music, literature, culi-nary art. Konkan, its temples, rivers and forests havean entire Sahyadrikand of the SkandPurana dedicatedto it. Several poems and songs have been penned aboutthe beauty, the mystery and the people of this region.Many of our celebrated singers, poets and authors comefrom Konkan. Community conservation practices thatthrive here include some of the most pristine SacredGroves, Temple Tanks, Fish Sanctuaries and sacred

trees.

Konkan of Maharashtra, thesubject matter of this report,consists of Greater Mumbai,Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri andSindhudurg Districts, cover-ing an area of 30,394 sq kmsand running for about 720kms. Of the 17,000 square ki-lometers area of MaharashtraWestern Ghats, identified as‘Eco Sensitive’ according toHigh Level Working GroupReport on Western Ghats,majority falls in Konkan Di-vision.

Konkan has a unique physi-ography with an undulatingterrain and narrow coastalplains. It receives heavy rain-fall from South West mon-soons averaging to about 3000mm. Elevation difference fora small width of about 50-60

kms ranges from mean sea level to over 1000 meters.Due to severe slopes, the drainage pattern is dense anddendritic, leading to poor groundwater recharge onslopes but good recharge in plains and valleys. Geologi-cal strata is composed of rocky basalt, lateritic plateaus,sandy coasts and small alluvial river mouths and val-leys.

Konkan holds 22 river basins. All rivers that flow hereoriginate in the Western Ghats and are swift and westflowing, with narrow, rocky basins, smaller catchments,shorter lengths and smaller estuaries as compared totheir east flowing counterparts also originating from

Sahaydris like Krishna and Godavari. Damanganga,Ulhas, Vaitarna, Savitri, Shastri, Gad, Karli, Terekholetc., are some of the important rivers of Konkan. Theyare marked by rich biodiversity, dense forests and pro-ductive estuaries and they play an integral part in thesocial and cultural lives of the Konkanis.

Traditional water systems here revolve around ground-water from lateritic plateaus, hills streams and rivers.Due to quick runoff, swift, overflowing rivers of the mon-soon dry up in the summer; range of groundwater fluc-tuation is also high. The region has several evolved tra-ditional practices to utilize rainwater for irrigation anddomestic use. The system of making “Paats” or irriga-tion channels off-taking from rivers, hills streams andgroundwater zones exists till date.

As a result of its singular soil-rainfall-topography, agri-culture in Konkan is different from the rest ofMaharashtra. Traditional crops include paddy cultivatedon terraces and millets like Ragi cultivated on slopes.Mainstay of agricultural economy is horticulture ofMango, Cashewnuts and kokam (Garcinia fruit). Thesehave no specific irrigation needs and grow on slopes.Coconut and Arecanut plantations on the precious stripsof plain land require water. In Rabi, region-specificpulses are grown on soil moisture and dew. Due to poorsoils and hot weather, the region is not a leader in spices,coffee, tea or rubber. Migration from Konkan to Mumbaiand other parts of the state has always been high andfarm labour is difficult to find.

Due to several factors like a rugged undulating terrain,lateritic porous strata, poor soil, traditional crops whichdo not need irrigation, etc., major Irrigation Projects anddams are rare in Konkan. This is despite the fact thatKonkan gets 45% of the average annual yield of all riv-ers in the state! It is here that you find one of the oldestearthen dams in the state: the Dhamapur Dam inSindhudurg, which still stands proud, not only irrigat-ing plantations but providing drinking water to the en-tire Malvan city. Temple Tanks in Sindhudurg providedrinking water, irrigation and recharge groundwater.

Following the surge of dams in Maharashtra, severalmajor and medium irrigation projects, drinking water

Index Map of KonkanFrom: KonkanTrips

Konkan is the spectacular piece of land encom-passing coastlines, estuaries and foothills ofWestern Ghats. It has unique biodiversity, ge-ology, topography and soils and has region spe-cific water harvesting methods. How are largedams faring here?

8


supply and hydropower projects were proposed and de-veloped in Konkan.

A reconnaissance of the current situation is disturbing.It indicates that despite spending more than Rs 6,000Crores in building these dams for decades, not a singleMajor or Medium irriga-tion project has beencompleted in Konkan tilldate by Konkan Irriga-tion Development Cor-poration (KIDC). ActualIrrigation Potential cre-ated is less than 25%, ofwhich less than one per-cent is actually used bypeople for irrigation, forprojects tested byCAG[i]. Hydropowergeneration from projectsis shockingly low.

But for building these non-performing dams, not only havewe spent thousands of crores of tax-payers money, wehave displaced thousands of people, affected ways of life,desecrated sacred conservation areas, deforested thou-sands of hectares of forests in Western Ghats, destroyedhabitats of wildlife, affected migration routes of El-ephants, Tigers and Fish. The sum of these impacts maybemore tragic as compared to monetary corruption alone.

Currently, 12 irrigation projects of KIDC[ii] in Thane,Raigad and Ratnagiri Districts of Kokan, undertakenby FA Constructions and FA Enterprises are facing en-quiry by the Anti-Corruption Bureau[iii] for severe cor-ruption charges. Water Resource Minister GirishMahajan has indicated that a charge-sheet will be filedshortly in which former Deputy CM Ajit Pawar andFormer Water Resource Minister Sunil Tatkare may alsobe named [iv]. Stories of corruption in KIDC are variedand amusing. According to some, when Talamba MajorIrrigation Project was being sanctioned, a Sumo full ofcash was given as a bribe to one of the leading politi-cians of Konkan, who kept the money…and the Sumo aswell.

Several of KIDC Irrigation projects have violated Envi-ronmental Laws and Project Affected People of almostall projects are protesting due to insufficient compensa-tion and shoddy rehabilitation. Man-Animal Conflictsare not rare in regions where dams blocked migrationroutes.

This state of things requires a fundamental rethink.

When I asked a farmer in Ratnagiri about Major andMedium Irrigation Projects in Konkan and if they havehelped, he says “Whom have these projects helped? Notus!”. A Geologist says, “Large dams in Konkan are not

viable on multiple scales” . An Agricultural Scientistsays, “Engineers from Western Maharashtra posted inKonkan have their own ideas for irrigation which suitWestern Maharashtra, not Konkan. They have notworked and will not work here.” Former Head of Walmi

who has also worked inKonkan as an Engineersays, “Large dams inKonkan are a reflectionof Intellectual Corrup-tion in WRD and a reso-lute denial to learn les-sons from past mis-takes. I think the areairrigated by Major andMedium Projects may beless than the land sub-merged behind them”.However, when I ask thesame question to a se-nior official of the

Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) hesays despondently: “It is Government Policy.”

This blind push for large dams has resulted in social,economic and ecological losses, without any substantialgains

Farmers in Konkan need protective irrigation, but theirneeds are very different from the Plateau. There is anurgent need to take an objective look at the approach ofpushing large projects as a matter for policy for a regionthat does not need or want them. A thorough audit ofIrrigation Projects in Konkan needs to be undertakenwith a scope that is wider than regular CAG Reports.Projects like Talamba Major Irrigation Project, whichhave been lying idle for several years, have been rejectedpermissions, face strong local opposition, are unviableand would need massive amounts of additional fund-ing, need to be scrapped to stem the flow of tax payersmoney down a blackhole.

Rather than spending further crores, benefiting the con-tractors and continuing questionable projects, perhapsthere is need to acknowledge that past experience ofpushing large dams in Konkan is a lost cause.

While this may sound difficult to achieve, we hope thatthe following sections make its need self evident. Thebalance cost of main projects now stands at about 11,000Crores and will only increase with time. In this context,schemes like current government’s flagship JalyuktaShivar are ideally suited for Konkan and

Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and thedamming of Western Ghats

White Paper on Irrigation Projects published by Gov-ernment of Maharashtra in 2012 lists 4 major projects,

Despite spending more than Rs 6,000 Crores in build-ing these dams for decades, not a single Major orMedium irrigation project has been completed inKonkan till date by Konkan Irrigation DevelopmentCorporation (KIDC). Actual Irrigation Potential cre-ated is less than 25%, of which less than one percentis actually used by people for irrigation, for projectstested by CAG. Hydropower generation from projectsis shockingly low.

9


11 medium projects and 4 projects under BOT (Build-Own-Transfer) by KIDC (which are all Drinking WaterDams for Mumbai). It has avoided mentioning severalof the more problematic projects. However, NONE of theirrigation projects mentioned in the White Paper havebeen completed till date, even after 33 years of startingwork for some. In some cases, the scope has been changedfrom Irrigation to Drinking Water and the irrigationcomponent has been put on a back burner. (Details ofsome projects in Annex 1)

Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC)was formed in 1998 under KIDC Act 1997 to expediteirrigation projects in Konkan administrative divisionand also independently raise capital from the marketfor this purpose. Of the cultivable command of 15.68Lakh ha in the region, estimated irrigation potentialthat can be developed is about 3.67 L ha. But accordingto CAG Report 2010[v], of the 90 projects handed toKIDC in 1998, only 13 were “partially complete” in 2010.Although KIDC is supposedly autonomous, “All plan-ning, approval, tendering, allocation of funds was doneby the government and not KIDC”.

From the CAG Report, 2010

After spending Rs 4363 crores on 90 projects since 1990,only 13 could be partially completed till 2010. Recom-mendation of HPC (High Powered Committee) aboutprioritizing projects where over 75% work has been com-pleted was ignored by KIDC leading to too many incom-plete projects, no budgetand no rise in IrrigationPotential. KIDC vio-lated laid down norms ofnot taking up projectsunless all land requiredhas been acquired, For-est Clearance has beengranted and PAPs(Project Affected Per-sons) have been rehabili-tated. Starting projects in the absence of these statu-tory requirements has led to a situation where projectsare stalled, land acquisition could not be completed,there was no money to resettle the PAPs, and contrac-tors had to be paid idle charges. For 16 projects checkedby CAG in 2010, work orders were issued by KIDC be-fore acquiring lands and all of these 16 were stalled byPAPs. KIDC did not even let the Special Land Acquisi-tion Officer (SLAO) know of the complete land require-ment for these projects.

In case of Nardave Medium Project in Sindhudurg, forwhich the KIDC still does not have Forest Clearance,KIDC paid Rs 7.4 Crores to contractor as idle charges,but did not pay Rs 3.1 Crores to Forest Department asNPV (Net Present Value of the forestland). There are

several examples where the KIDC did not pay the fullcompensation amount to the PAPs, neither did it de-posit the full amount with the SLAO. The CAG reportseethingly notes that while KIDC was short of money topay the PAPs who were losing their homes and fields, itpaid advances to contractors even when it was prohib-ited by the Maharashtra Public Works Manual. In caseof Deharji Medium Project, Rs 10 Crores were paid asadvance in 2007 to an influential contractor, but the damwork did not start in the absence of FC till 2010. Forthese 3 years, no substantial recovery of advance wasmade when there was no work done!

Of 30 projects test checked by CAG, 10 were under re-pairs for more than 5 years, necessitating no irrigation.

Damningly, CAG says that although heights of damswas increased, none are complete, nor did increase inheight lead to increased storage. The Executive Direc-tor of KIDC justified this by stating that heights wereraised to store more water and irrigate more area. Thehollowness of this claim is clear we consider Land ac-quisition problems, lack of clearances and of funds. For38 projects on which Rs 800 Crores have been spent andwhich have been going on for upto 20 years, no storagehas been created.

CAG Report 2013-14 [vi]

The Report states that of the 64 ongoing projects of KIDCas of 2013, total expenditure has been Rs 6020 Corersand the updated cost of ongoing projects is more than

Rs 11,000 Crores.

Of the 64 ongoingprojects, 54 projectshave seen massive costescalations. When Ad-ministrative Approvalwas given for Rs 783Crores, expense hasbeen Rs 6020 Crores. In2013, 25 of KIDC

projects needed a whopping 6303 ha of Western GhatsForest lands and many had proceeded without securingstatutory Forest Clearance, a punishable offence.

This CAG report was played down by the governmentwhen a PIL against multiple irregularities in KIDC wasfiled in the Bombay High Court in 2013. However, CAGthrough an affidavit stood firm by its report.[vii]

Snapshot of some KIDC dams in Western Ghats

SANDRP has visited several projects undertaken byKIDC, has talked with the Project affected people, aswell as Engineers and officials. The picture whichemerges is sordid. Some of the notable projects are men-tioned below:

CAG Report of 201o as well as 2013-14 have high-lighted several serious problems with IrrigationProjects in Konkan which range from Irrigation Po-tential Created, technical soundness to Environmen-tal Clearances, Rehabilitation of PAPs etc. On mostof these counts, KIDC fares badly.

10


a. Talamba Major Irrigation Project, Kudal,Sindhudurg

Talamba Major Irrigation project was planned acrossRiver Karli in KudalTaluka of Sindhudurg 34years ago. For a Projectwhich received Adminis-trative Clearance andfunds in 1981 and forwhich Rs 142 Croreshave been spent tilldate, it is not even 20%complete. The projectaims to irrigate 28,900ha and has a submer-gence area of 2618 ha,including 626 ha of For-est Land in Eco Sensi-tive Area. Work onTalamba Major Projectstarted without Forest Clearance (FC) and it still doesnot have final Forest Clearance! In fact, the State For-est Division has rejected its FC application in 2015.Government continues with the project doggedly whichnow costs an estimated Rs 1,772 Crores.

Bal Sawant, who has been leading the struggle on thisdam in the region tells me that the government “betterscrap” the project urgently, which will displace over 5000people in 7 villages. “The dam officials are raking sala-ries for doing no work for decades. The command of theproject actually includes about 5000 ha of Forest Land.The command also overlaps with other irrigation projectslike Sarambala. What irrigation are we then talkingabout? Large parts of the command[viii] is alreadyserved better functioning by Minor Irrigation Projectsand tanks. There are several sites where smaller projectscan be built, without displacing people. We will continueto fight. You see, even after 34 years of starting a projectthe government could not rehabilitate affected peopleor compensate all of the affected population. How canwe trust them?”

When I visited the dam site in January 2016, all thatcould be seen of the dam was a partly made stone-pitcheddam wall. Forests in the submergence area are some ofthe most luxuriant forest I’ve seen in Western Ghats ofMaharashtra. According to Sawant, when the projectreceived Environmental Clearance in 2001, villagers didnot receive a notice of Public Hearing in Marathi, nei-ther was the EIA translated in Marathi and given topeople. PAPs have stalled dam work more than 4 timesin the past, but still rehabilitation and compensation isincomplete.

Talamba Major Irrigation Project has been in limbo formore than 34 years due to inefficiency, lack of will to

solve PAP issues, absence of Forest Clearance and vio-lations. It does not have an Investment Clearance fromthe CWC (Central Water Commission). The submergencearea lies in the Eco-sensitive Area of the Western Ghats

as per the High LevelWorking Group on West-ern Ghats Report(HLWG Report).

Action needs to be takenagainst responsible offi-cials for starting workwithout Forest Clear-ance and rehabilitationof PAPs. The affectedpeople themselves havedrawn out plans whereKT weirs on Karli Rivercan provide effective andcheaper irrigation forpart of the command

than spending 11,000 Crores or more. When I discussedthe project with senior official in KIDC, he simply said,“Forest Department should give clearance and projectaffected should take back their struggle.”

b. Virdi Large Minor Project, Sindhudurg

When I visited the strangely-named Virdi “Large Mi-nor” Project in Jan 2016, several Trucks, JCBs and ma-chines were languishing at the dam site. The Dam it-self, a huge structure, seemed almost complete, with-out the main river plugging. Hills in the upstream weredeforested and made into pineapple and rubber planta-tions by, I was told, rich lobbies from Kerala who areeyeing backwater irrigation once the dam is complete.This project, which is at the head stream (Walvanti) ofthe Mhadei River, has been asked to stop work by theMhadei Water Dsiputes Tribunal in 2015. Mhadei is ashared basin between Goa, Maharashtra and Karnatakaand the river is the lifeline of Goa. Maharashtra hasagreed to maintain status quo on the work through anaffidavit[ix]

The project does not have an Environmental Clearance,nor does it have Wildlife Clearance, although it is barely3 kilometers from Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa. InAugust 2015, Union Water Resources Minister UmaBharti stated before the Parliament that “Maharashtragovernment did not secure environmental clearances forthe Virdi dam on the pretext that the culturable com-mand area (CCA) of the project is less than 2000 ha,requiring no environmental clearances.” However, ac-cording to government WRD Website itself, the projecthas a command of 2937 ha[x].

When I discussed this project with the officials, I wastold that it was important to boost storages in

Bal Sawant, who has been leading the struggle onTalamba dam in the region tells me that the govern-ment “better scrap” the project urgently, which willdisplace over 5000 people in 7 villages. “The damofficials are raking salaries for doing no workfor decades. The command of the project actu-ally includes about 5000 ha of Forest Land. Thecommand also overlaps with other irrigationprojects like Sarambala. What irrigation are wethen talking about?”

11


Maharashtra and Virdi Dam water will augment TillariMajor Irrigation Project’s irrigated area, which is adja-cent to Virdi Dam. Looking at the pathetic state ofcompletion of projects in Konkan and dismal perfor-mance of Tillari’s distribution network, this sort of un-dertaking violating multiple laws should be unaccept-able. We have spent Rs 58 Crores of this project whosecosts stands at Rs 182 Crores as of March 2015.

c. Sarambala Medium Irrigation Project,Sindhudurg

When I visited Sarambala Dam site in the heart of West-ern Ghat forests, I was taken to the Durga Devi Templeand sacred grove inDabhil, which will sub-merge under the dam.The villagers asked theGoddess to protect theirvillage from drowning.And the Goddess herself,I thought.

Sarambala Medium Irri-gation Project falls inSindhudurg in a regionthat is extremely rich inbiodiversity. A voluntaryo r g a n i s a t i o n ,Vanashakti, found out under the RTI Act that the vil-lagers in the supposed command of Sarambala had neverdemanded for irrigation! While WRD claims that 22 vil-lages will benefit from the dam, there are only 15 vil-lages in the command, of which seven are already shownin the command area of the Tillari and Talamba irriga-tion projects!

The region is a part of the 35 km-long and 10 km-wideSawantwadi-Dodamarg wildlife corridor, connecting theKoyna, Radhanagri and Chandoli Protected Areas inMaharashtra with Mhadei, Bondla, Bhagwan Mahavir,Netravali, Cotigao andMolem in Goa, andAnshi and Dandeli inKarnataka. This strip ofland has over 303 spe-cies of plants, severalwith crucial medicinalvalues and 18 species ofmammals, including ti-gers, leopards, bears and several species of birds. It isalso an elephant corridor. Nevertheless, KIDC claimsthis region has no wildlife while the Forest Departmentclaims that there are no religious, cultural or archaeo-logical sites here. The EIA of the project has not beenmade public.

Though the project is yet to receive environmental clear-

ance and a final forest clearance, KIDC issued a workorder in 2005. Neither community and individual forestrights as per the Forest Rights Act, 2006 have beensettled nor have rehabilitation proposals been prepared.The White Paper has pushed the project claiming thatit has spent over 25 per cent of its budget and 35 percent work has been completed.

Similar is case of Nardave Medium Project where workwas started without Forest or Environmental Clearanceas well as Shirshinge and Deharji Medium Projects.

d. Kal-Kumbhe Hydropower project, Mahad,Raigad

Kal Kumbhe Hydro-power Project is an ex-ample of an entirelyunviable project. ThisSmall 15 MW +10 MWhydropower project in-cludes two dams inWestern Ghats, one ofthem over 55 metershigh and two massivetunnels, submerging 6villages and displacingmore than 1500 people.The total expense now is

more than Rs 300 Crores, and the expenditure lies lockedfor 4 years as the work has stopped due to protests frompeople who were not rehabilitated and absence of For-est Clearance.

When the average per MW cost for small hydropowerproject is about 8-9 Crores as per the Union Ministry ofNew and Renewable Energy (MNRE), the cost for KalKumbhe project will be a minimum of Rs 25 Crores /MW, mostly more than that. This is discounting the costof rehabilitation, impact on biodiversity and Forests. Allsubmergence area lies in Eco Sensitive Area of the

HLWG. I had stumbledupon the dam site acci-dentally, when I was vis-iting a community con-served fish sanctuaryjust downstream thedam site. The sanctuary,protecting endangeredMahseer fish, will be

rendered dry and lifeless if the dam materializes.

Similarly, Government of Maharashtra is claiming thatthere is insufficient water for 60 MW Tillari Main Damin Sindhudurg to generate power and is pushing forTillari Stage II Project[xi] which includes 3 more damsin the upstream which will require 642 ha additionalland, including about 550 ha of Forest Land in Eco Sen-

While showing a percolation tank built by the villag-ers, leader of the dam resistance Balkrishna Gawasasks me, “This region receives 4,000 mm rainfall. Ifwe villagers can build water harvesting structuresfor our water security at a fraction of the dam’s costand with so little ecological impacts, can’t the WaterResources Department do so? Is drowning forests andour villages the only way forward they know?”

When the average per MW cost for small hydropowerproject is about 8-9 Crores as per the Union Ministryof New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), the cost forKal Kumbhe project will be a minimum of Rs 25Crores /MW, mostly more than that.

12


sitive Area and an Elephant Corridor. Effectively, thismeans much more than 700 ha of land to generate only60 MW of power and 11.66 ha of forest for 1 MW of power!For 1 MW power generated by Solar, only about 2 haland is needed. Even ifwe do not include thevalue of forests, thisproject is entirelyunviable.

Apart from Environ-mental Impacts and vio-lations, none of the largedam projects in Konkancan claim satisfactoryrehabilitation of ProjectAffected People beforestarting dam work, as ismandatory. Riversidelands which are richlyirrigated and covered with plantations are being sub-merged under these projects, which remain incompleteand do not deliver a fraction of benefits promised. Thecase of Jamada Medium Irrigation Project in RajapurTaluka of Ratnagiri is stark in this regard. No Irriga-tion potential has been created for Jamada Dam in 10years since the work started. More than 3000 peoplehave been affected. Even joint surveys of their landshave not been completed till dated. Of the 733 ha re-quired for the project, only 44 ha have been acquired sofar[xii] but expenditure is already more than Rs 300Crores! Same is the case with Arjuna, Devghar andGadnadi Medium Projects (Refer to Annex 1).

What Experts and Stakeholders Say

When I discussed Large Dams in Konkan with waterexperts and people working in the region, their verdictseems clear.

Satish Bhingare, Former Director General WALMIAurangabad, Government of Maharashtra states thatlarge dams in Konkan;constructed for irriga-tion; are a big mess anda symbol of not onlymonetary, but Intellec-tual Corruption.

He says, “Irrigation inKonkan is different fromthe rest of the state. Horticultural crops, the mainstayof Konkan agro-economy do not grow on extensive plains,but on hills where the exercise of irrigation through ex-tensive canal network has been a catastrophe. They areirrigated by groundwater and hill streams (Parhye orPat in Marathi). Resultantly, the region does not havean irrigation culture like say Western Maharashtra. Lat-

eritic, light soil cannot provide an ambiance conduciveto operating typical open canal network on the otherhand; water logging causes massive crop losses like KalAmba Irrigation Project in Mangaon. I doubt if Large

dams in Konkan are pro-viding even as much ir-rigation as the area theysubmerge. Smallprojects built at 100%dependability backed bya closed conduit distri-bution network suits theregion the best. KIDCneeds to look back andthink about the LessonsLearned from the past.Unfortunately, such re-connaissance rarelyhappens.”

Surendra Thakurdesai is a Professor of Geology inGogate Jogalekar College of Ratnagiri and is also ahands-on farmer. He has spearheaded a river rejuvena-tion program for Golap River in Ratnagiri. ProfThakurdesai says: “The topography and geology ofKonkan makes large dams unviable. Canals networksare very costly due to undulating terrain and porousbasalt. We need to accept the productivity limitations ofthe lateritic, light soil of Konkan. There is no logic be-hind costly projects in such a situation. On the otherhand, whatever limited fertile land that Konkan has inits narrow valleys, is being submerged under the dams.There is not a single Large Project, or even a Mediumproject, that is serving the people of Konkan to a signifi-cant extent.”

“Unlike rest of Maharashtra, agriculture in Konkan isdispersed and on hills. This region cannot be servicedby large dams and canal network. Groundwater, hillsstreams and rivulets are the lifelines of farmers hereand they need to be rejuvenated.”

“The large dams ongoingin Konkan are not for us.They are for the contrac-tors and engineers andlobbies who can afford tobuy thousands of acresof land in backwaters ofdams like Tillari.”

Dr. Prasad Deodhar who leads an Organisation calledBhagirath in Sindhudurg, amidst all the dam develop-ment is also clear, “Konkan needs irrigation no doubtbut large projects are not viable for this region. Minorirrigation tanks, small scale structures and groundwa-ter hold a great promise in irrigating hinterlands andare already doing so.”

“I doubt if Large dams in Konkan are providing evenas much irrigation as the area they submerge. Smallprojects built at 100% dependability backed by aclosed conduit distribution network suits the regionthe best. KIDC needs to look back and think aboutthe Lessons Learned from the past. Unfortunately,such reconnaissance rarely happens.”

- Satish Bhingare, Former Director General WALMIAurangabad, Government of Maharashtra

“The large dams ongoing in Konkan are not for us.They are for the contractors and engineers and lob-bies who can afford to buy thousands of acres of landin backwaters of dams like Tillari.”

13


Dr. Shrirang Kardekar, Balasaheb Sawant KonkanKrishi Vidyapeeth, an agricultural scientist who has alsoworked extensively on Konkan’s crops as well as waterproblems states that large projects are simply not meantfor Konkan. He has been trying to get this across to thegovernment for many years. “The undulating geogra-phy, small plains whichimmediately run intoWestern Ghat foothillranges mean that damsin Konkan have to bevery tall and hence verycostly. This also makescanals difficult to con-struct. The few canalnetworks we have arebroken and leaking. Inrainy season due to veryheavy rainfall, they getclogged with sand. Horticulture in Konkan is practicedon hill slopes and there is no way a canal can reach amango or cashewnut tree on a hill. What can help aredispersed tanks built on plateaus which can give waterto plantations through drip. KT weirs across rivers andsmaller dams can help riverside cultivation.”

“See, the problem is Engineers trained in WesternMaharashtra come to Konkan and want to implementprojects which worked on a flat plateau here in our hillsand narrow valleys. This one-size fits-all attitude is abig problem. They put forth impractical solutions andthen blame farmers for notlifting water.”

Sanjeev Anerao, an envi-ronmentalist and planta-tion owner says that thereare hardly any damswhich have canal net-works. “Engineers builddams, but do not even ac-quire land for canals. Wehave several dams withoutdistribution systems andonly irrigation is somebackwater lifting. How can tax payer money be spentfor this? The river was irrigating much more land thanthis! On the other hand, minor projects which are actu-ally helping farmers are in a state of disrepair. We needto rejuvenate these than go after huge projects likeGadNadi which go on and on.”

Executive Director, Konkan Irrigation Develop-ment Corporation

When I discussed the impasse of non-performing damswith KIDC Executive Director, his approach was posi-tive but he did not have substantial answers to the is-

sues plaguing the region. He talked about the inclusionof private forests in “Forest Lands” requiring clearanceand adding to delay, paucity of funds, protests by PAPsas some of the hurdles behind slow development of damsin the region. This does not answer why the projectswere started before mandatory Clearances and Reha-

bilitation in the firstplace.

He noted “Dams inKonkan are very costly.In the amount it takes tobuild a medium projecton the plateau, we canhardly build a minorproject in Konkan.” Heagreed that thin spread-ing of meager funds wasone of the reasons be-

hind incomplete projects and asserted that, “This yearfunds will only be spent on completing canal and distri-bution networks of projects like Korle Satandi, Devgharand Arjuna.” This is a welcome step.

When I enquired about the best performing Irrigationproject in KIDC, he said that there are several projectsnear Mumbai (Surya, Bhatsa, etc) which were meant tobe Irrigation Projects, but are now mostly supplyingdrinking water to Mumbai, which perform very well.“But what about Irrigation Projects?” I ask. There is noanswer.

When asked aboutnon performance ofhydropower projectslike Kal Kumbhe, theED agreed that theyare extremely costly,but that “Scrappingthem now would be agreat loss to the na-tion”. This is a reflec-tion of the ideologicalsupport to large damsand has been causing

immense harm to overall development.

Way Ahead

Dhamapur Dam, a small earthen dam in Sindhudurg,was built in the 1600’s. It still irrigates over 100 ha ofland, while fulfilling drinking water supply needs of theentire Malvan city. There are several temple tanks inKonkan which store rain water in the monsoon and pro-vide irrigation and drinking water in summer. InRatnagiri, small mountain streams are channelized tovarious plantations and irrigate the region throughoutthe year, while helping groundwater recharge.

“See, the problem is Engineers trained in WesternMaharashtra come to Konkan and want to imple-ment projects which worked on a flat plateau here inour hills and narrow valleys. This one-size fits-allattitude is a big problem. They put forth impracticalsolutions and then blame farmers for not lifting wa-ter.”

When I enquired about the best performing Irriga-tion project in KIDC, he said that there are severalprojects near Mumbai (Surya, Bhatsa, etc) which weremeant to be Irrigation Projects, but are now mostlysupplying drinking water to Mumbai, which performvery well. “But what about Irrigation Projects?” I ask.There is no answer.

14


The experts and stakeholders I talked with were unani-mous in their opinion that Minor projects and ground-water have fared better in meeting irrigation needs ofthe farmers. They suggest a more nuanced understand-ing of irrigation needs of Konkan before launching bigbudget projects.

Suggestions include:• Assessment of irrigation needs of farming specific to

Konkan, based on the existing cropping pattern andactual needs of farmers.

• Regular maintenance of Minor Irrigation Projects andtheir distribution systems

• Rejuvenation of Temple Tanks as a source of drink-ing water and irrigation

• Desilting rivers, temple tanks and MI Tanks regu-larly. Desilting has played an important role in GolapRiver rejuvenation and has helped irrigation.[xiii]

• Protection of Forestsin catchments andhillsides to maintainwater levels instreams and wells

• Recharging dug wellsby rainwater

• Creating small stor-ages on plateaus(Sadaa in Marathi) toirrigate plantationsand fields by drip and gravity, where needed

• Small ferro-cement rainwater harvesting tanks onplateaus and[xiv] villages (Jalvardhini inSindhudurg) which help significantly in times of need

• Building KT Weirs on large rivers which can storewater for a short duration and it can be lifted forirrigation

• Converting open canals into closed conduits/under-

ground pipelines. This was tried in a project inRatnagiri in 1985-86 and has been successful to alarge extent.

• Not allowing Thermal Power Plants/ Chemical in-dustries/ Mining industry to exploit rivers andgroundwater or pollute these sources.

• Maharashtra Government’s Flagship ProgramJalyukta Shivar holds great promise for this region.

• Konkan holds answers to most of its water questions.In such a scenario, large dams are being pushedthrough by ideological/policy bias, following a uni-form development model which does not respect re-gional difference and strengths, disregarding the ecol-ogy and people of the region.

• Rampant corruption surrounding dams in Konkanraises big questions about the rationale behind theirplanning in the first place.

Due to their scope, reports from agencies like CAG orAnti Corruption Bureau cannot conclude about desir-ability, optimality, necessity or viability for large damsin a particular region. (In fact there is no official agencytaking an objective view of these questions!) More im-portant is to look at the holistic viability of projects inKonkan, draw lessons from past mistakes, make neces-sary course correction, which includes scrappingunviable dam projects like Talamba, Jamada, Virdi, KalKumbhe etc.

Like Prof. Thakurdesai says, large dams in Konkan seemto planned more for the welfare of contractors, politi-cians, engineers, bureaucrats, consultants and planta-tion mafia than the Konkani people.

Is it not time to look beyond financial corruption and raisequestions about basic viability of large dams in biodiversity

rich Konkan? Is it notwise to scrap the projectswhich are stuck once andfor all, rather than limp-ing on with them andspending additionalcrores? Due to invest-ment and resourceslocked up in large dams,appropriate solutions arebeing neglected. A regionwhich gets more than

3000 mm rainfall has several small and beautiful solu-tions up its sleeves, if only we are ready to see.

Parineeta Dandekar, SANDRP,[email protected]

NOTE: For full PDF file containing this analysis, see:ht tps : / / sandrp . f i l es .wordpress . com/2015 /01 /dams_kidc_westernghats_pd-0216.pdf

~

Like Prof. Thakurdesai says, large dams in Konkanseem to planned more for the welfare of contractors,politicians, engineers, bureaucrats, consultants andplantation mafia than the Konkani people.

Is it not time to look beyond financial corruption andraise questions about basic viability of large dams inbiodiversity rich Konkan?

Incomplete Kal Kumbhe Hydropower Project, staled for morethan two years due to lack of funds, Forest Clearance and

rehabilitation issues. Photo by author

15


Unabated Riverbed Mining in Saharanpur,UP, Puts Delhi’s Water Supply under Threat

Delhi water supply from Yamuna River throughMunak canal has been severely impacted by Jatquota stir as the violent mob has damaged the Munakcanal. As a result thousands of Delhiites are facinggreat difficulty in securing supply of potable water.The repairing of the canal may take about a monthto restore the water supply. Adding to Delhiites mis-ery, effluents discharged in Yamuna by industries up-stream in Haryana has forced shutting down of twowater treatment plants.

Delhi water supply has become so vulnerable to cau-salities that experts have been rightly suggesting de-velopment of own water resources in terms of wetlandprotection, rain water harvesting etc. to deal with suchcrisis.

Apart from these two reasons there a third bigger andstill not known reason ignoring which may cause sever-est of water crisis in national capital and that is ram-pant mining of riverbed material around Hathini KundBarrage (HKB). SANDRP in this blog try to highlighthow the uncontrolled mining around HKB is endanger-ing the structure which in turn will surely lead to sus-pense of Delhi water supply for many months.

Hathini Kund Barrage (HKB) located in Yamuna Nagar,Haryana (HR) on River Yamuna is primary source ofDelhi’s potable water. The barrage also serves as Stateboundary between HR and Uttar Pradesh (UP) withRiver Yamuna continue separating the two States fornext 200 KM before reaching the capital city.

The adjoining districts to HKB namely Yamuna Nagarin HR and Saharanpur in UP are still infested with un-authorized removal of minerals despite National GreenTribunal ban on such mining. Local people have beenreporting of non-stop riverbed material (sand and stone)excavation in the region which is further confirmed bya news reports (e.g. The Times of India, 10 of Feb. 2016).According to the news report a local politician has formed111 fake companies and carries mining illegally worthRs 6-7 crores on a daily basis. Around 50 villages havebeen reported to be adversely affected by widespreadmining and stone crushing activity in the area.

In previous decade, Yamuna Nagar district had turnedinto a massive stone crusher zone. Miners have dug deeplarge chunk of farmlands adjoining to River Yamuna inthe district. The huge abandoned mine pits now filledwith ground water are still visible there (See Google Im-ages) without any post mining restoration. Local ecologyand ground water table was hit severely by unsustain-able quarrying before Supreme Court on India in Feb.2012 put a ban on mining in country without environ-ment clearances. Nevertheless local people still find nolet up in mining activities and report that operators weretaking advantage of the fact that the river area was be-ing shared by two districts belonging to different stateswhich was difficult to demarcate due to annual flood.

Taking cognizance of the issue the National Green Tri-bunal (NGT) on 18 Feb.2016 has imposed ban on illegalsand mining and extraction of minor minerals fromYamuna River in Yamuna Nagar and Saharanpur dis-tricts for next 45 days. On Saharanpur side the greencourt has put a fine of 50 crore on five lease holders forcarrying out excessive unauthorised mining resultingin damage and degradation of riverbed whereas inYamuna Nagar 69 stone crusher operators have in affi-davit accepted not to be in operation during the banperiod. Constituting a high powered committee underUnion Environment Ministry the tribunal has asked dboth State Govt (HR & UP) to submit a complete andcomprehensive mining plan to it. The court has alsomade it clear that violators of the ban would be liable topay Rs 5 lakhs as environmental compensation.

The decision was taken on a plea filed by activistsGurpreet Singh Bagga and Jai Singh who had movedthe NGT against rampant illegal mining of minor min-erals in Saharanpur and Yamuna riverbed. However itseems that neither petitioner nor the NGT have showedconcerns towards the safety of HKB in the case. Sec-ondly, ban on sand mining in past by respective Courtshave also proved ineffective as States of HR & UP havefailed to implement it in right spirit.

Indiscriminate Yamuna riverbed quarrying fromSaharanpur side also reportedly led to collapse of fa-mous Tajewala barrage during 2010 flood. The British

16


era barrage was located about 5 km downstream HKB,as can be seen in the google image. It was seen as aheritage site even after becoming non-functioning in2000 when its function of diverting water to Westernand Eastern Yamuna canals were taken over by HKB.Now only ruin of the celebrated structure is standing,also as testimony to the indiscriminate and destructivemining (See Google Images).

As obvious from above report unauthorised stone andsand extraction from Yamuna riverbed is going on inSaharanpur district. The following Google images pre-cisely post 2010 also shows large scale riverbed miningactivities happening barely 200 meters downstreamHKB which may lead to weakening of the foundation ofthe HKB. Such is the gravity of the issue that manylocals have started fearing for HKB safety and guessingthat the barrage too is destined to meet Tajewala likefate if mining goes on unabated.

Under the circumstances the collapse of HKB could hap-pen in the event of big floods in future which periodi-cally happen in Yamuna. In case the barrage is dam-aged, not only there will be massive destruction in theimmediate downstream, here would be severe water cri-sis in Delhi as the capital procures large part of its totalwater demand from the barrage via Western YamunaCanal. In addition, the areas of Haryana and UttarPradesh served by the Western and Eastern Yamunacanals respectively will also be badly hit.

It is urgent and imperative for the HR, UP, Delhi StateGovernments as well Union Ministry of Environment,Forests and Climate Change, Union Ministry of WaterResources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation,Central Water Commission and Upper Yamuna RiverBoard to take urgent and immediate cognizance of theissue and check unauthorized riverbed mining in thevicinity of HKB. The sooner this is done, the better.

Bhim Singh Rawat ([email protected]) SANDRP~

17


Unsustainable sand mining from riverbeds can havehuge social, environmental, geomorphic and disastrousimpacts for rivers. In this three part report, SANDRP istrying to provide a picture of what happened on thisissue in 2015 in India. This first part looks into 2015putting together instances of illegal sand mining thatoccurred throughout the year different Indian States.The successive blogs would make an attempt to coverall governmental measures and judicial interventionstaken in 2015 to reign in uncontrolled extraction of thispossibly most consumed natural resource after air andwater.

Illegal mining of sand is profoundly linked to growth inconstruction industry that have accelerated in recentdecades. Since then demand for this mineral is only go-ing up. Today possibly there is not a single river in thecountry that is not ruined by sand mining. As a result,while the state of rivers has gone worse, the number ofviolent instances around illegal sand mining is on theincrease.

Like the previous year, 2015 only saw an escalation innumbers of violent clashes between mining operatorsand law enforcing agencies. A State wise description ofsome of the illegal sand mining happenings that tookplace in 2015 is given here.

Madhya Pradesh The State has become known for itsmining-related incidents, which include the murder ofhonest police officials in recent times. One of the firstsuch incident this year was registered in April 2015 whena truck carrying illegally mined sand mowed downDharmendra Chouhan a 40 years old police constableposted at Noorabad police station in Morena district.Earlier in March 2012 an IPS Officer Narendra Kumarwas also crushed to death by sand mafia in same dis-trict while he was conducting a raid on illegal sand min-ing. On 4 June, 2015, a woman inspector Reena Pathakincluding 8 home guard jawans were attacked by sandmafia when they were inspecting illegal excavation ofsand from Nevaj river near Banka Khedi village

River Sand Mining in India in 2015

in Shajapur and Ratlam districts. Sand smugglers hadreportedly also attacked three ‘patwaris’ (revenue offi-cials) a night before near village Nerukhedi. The offi-cials were trying to stop illegal mining of sand fromChambal River. In the same month, in most tragic inci-dent body of Sandeep Kothari, a Madhya Pradesh basedjournalist was found burnt to death in NagpurMaharashtra (MH). The journalist used to write againstillegal sand mining activities frequently and ultimatehad to pay the price with his life. In August 2015, wild-life experts opposed MP Govt. move to allow sand inChambal Ghariyal sanctuaries. Rampant Sand miningin Chambal sanctuary had adversely affected the habi-tat of gharials. Experts say that miners ran mining ve-hicles over the unhatched eggs of Ghariyal and Turtleslaid in sandy banks.

The case of Narmada valley was even more tragic whereState Govt. in open violation of norms was illegally al-lowing mining in Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) affectedarea which was under Narmada Valley DevelopmentAuthority a State agency. According news reports cre-ation of dams on River Narmada was actually facilitat-ing the illegal sand mining activity. The situation wasso bad that villagers were unable in accessing the riverarea. Even authorized miners were found breaking stipu-lated norms in Badgaon and Saatdev villages in Sehoredistrict, the native place of Chief Minister (CM) ShivrajSingh Chouhan. Remarkably in 2013 Pahanbarri a vil-lage in Hoshangabad was totally destroyed by flood dueto excessive illegal sand mining. In December 2015,Namarda Bachao Andolan (NBA) activists alleged thatGovt. has allowed mining in 5 lakh hectares which itwas supposed to protect. They alleged that mining isalso allowed in Narmada catchment area which needsto be protected for longer life of the reservoirs.

18


Uttarakhand (UK) Mining operators have shown ut-ter disregard even to Ganga the national river of Indiain the State. In April 2015 there were reports of illegalsand mining activities going on unabated at Haridwarin violation of National Green Tribunal (NGT) orders.Earlier Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Cli-mate Change (MoEFCC) has also found illegal miningof sand, quaterz boulders going on at massive level inHaridwar district. NDTV, a leading media house claimedthat corruption of crores of rupees was taking place inmining of river. Matri Sadan’s questions under the Rightto Information (RTI) Act also revealed that there wereno document to show that who were given mining con-tract worth Rs. 200 crore and where all the mineral hadgone. In May 2015, Jai Prakash Badoni, an activist ap-proached High Court (HC) UK alleging that behind thepretext of Disaster Management Act 2005 which allowsremoval of accumulated river bed material to preventflooding, sand mining is rampant at different sites inHaridwar. The Central Govt. in September 2015 gavein-principle nod to quarrying in Ganga and eight of itstributaries in the state after repeated request from UKGovt.

Earlier in 2011, the UK Govt. had enforced a ban onsand mining in Haridwar, calling it a sacred region.Environmentalists have also raised concerns over un-abated quarrying leading to extinction of aquatic eco-system. According reports there were at least 60 hugestone crushers active in the area which procured a con-stant supply of stones from Ganga River. In 2015 SwamiShivanand initiated fast unto death twice against theillegal mining in Ganga. Remarkably in June 2011,Swami Nigmanand on fast for 72 days to highlight ille-gal mining was allegedly poisoned to death in the samedistrict.

Uttar Pradesh (UP) The illegal mining became worseonce River Ganga entered Bijnor in UP. In July 2015 adozen villages held Panchayat to stop sand mining inthe districts. Villagers complained that due to miningRiver Ganga was changing its course and moving to-wards the inhabited areas. Surprisingly police lodgedFIR against eight villagers for pelting stones at thecontractor’s machines. Later a farmers’ body also allegedthat cops were arresting innocent farmers instead ofsand mafia. In October 2015 there were many reportsof rampant illegal sand extraction at Narora, Ahar, Ramand Karanvas Ghat in Bijnor district now being carriedout through nights. Illegal sand mining was happeningat such a big scale that a delegation led by Bijnor LokSabha member requested Union Minister of Water Re-sources, Ganga Rejuvenation and River DevelopmentUma Bharti for immediate intervention in the matter.Following this the minister wrote to MoEF&CC pitch-ing for a joint probe to inquire into unauthorized min-ing leading to change in river hydrology. In August 2015

a Comptroller & Auditro General (CAG) report alsofound illegal mining of minerals including sand to begoing on in UP in violation of mining plan and Environ-ment Act.

National Capital Regions (NCR) Sand mining alsohappened on massive scale in Greater Noida, Noida (UP)and Faridabad, Palwal in Haryana (HR). In October2015 the operators even built a bridge on River Yamunaas a link between Noida and Faridabad to facilitate sandmining. Reportedly it was the third bridge being builtin the area to mine sand from the Noida floodplains andtransport it to HR. In September 2015 on a brief visit toarea SANDRP team found several patches of Yamunariverbed ravaged by sand extraction carried out duringnights. Villagers also reported that the operators werepowerful and enjoyed full political support. Remarkablyin July 2013 Durga Shakti Nagpal an Indian Adminis-trative Service (IAS) official had conducted several raidson such operators. The officer was ultimately suspendedand transferred. Barely three days after her transfer,52 year old Pale Ram Chauhan, a vocal activist workingagainst illegal mining was allegedly shot dead in Raipurvillage in Noida by the sand mafia. In another case, a60 year old farmer Vijay Pal Nagar of Noida was at-tacked twice by the mafia for lodging complains againstit. In the same year, a MoEF& CC team having visitedthe area, reported that illegal mining continued dis-cretely in Greater Noida. The report also mentioned thatthe mafia had even created deep pools in riverbed anddiverted Yamuna River for the smooth extraction of sand.

The operators grew so fearless that it even did not re-frain from attacking Govt. officials. In one such inci-dent sand mafia went on to attack a police team nearRajpur Phulera village in Faridabad (HR) last year. Theincident took place while the police team was on carry-ing out inspection against illegal sand mining in the area.Five police men including one woman were injured inthe attack.

Mining ravaged river bed in NCR

19


Haryana Despite a ban illegal sand mining was wide-spread in Yamuna river through Yamuna Nagar, Karnal,Panipat and Sonipat districts HR. Similarly adjoiningdistricts of UP like Saharanpur, Muzzafar Nagar, Shamliand Baghpat were also found involved in mining sandillegally. Deeply affected Karnal villagers formed a vigi-lant team to protect 52 acres of Panchayat land fromillegal sand mining after they found local police to beineffective.

Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) Even the hilly states werefound affected by illegal sand mining. Illegal sand min-ing in Tawi River had caused looses of crores of rupeesto State Govt. The report further mention that the min-ing was happening right under the nose of the Govt.and concerned agency was taking no action against it.

Punjab The mafia was so restless in the State that itstarted digging common village ponds when Sutlej wasin flood in monsoon. They even beganpersuading farmers to allow them todig sand from their lands way beyondthe permissible limit of 4 ft.

Rajasthan In December 2015 Policeteam from Alwar found illegal miningtaking place in Kundali River. The po-lice could arrest only a few while manyother involved in the activity managedto flee the spot.

Chhattisgarh In March 2015 a newsreport mentioned of rampant illegalmining on Panchayat land inGariyaband district in Chhattisgarh.Rajim Nagar villagers reported thatmafia was active during nights for thelast six months and administrationtook no action despite several com-plains.

Maharashtra (MH) The situationwas no better in Maharashtra where sand mafia blewaway reservoir weir of the Nira river using explosivesin May 2015. The incident occurred during wee hours inBaramati taluka’s Kambleshwar. Locals reported of simi-lar attempt made by mafia about eight days before theincident. In another incident the mafia tries to mowdown revenue officials by running over a tractor on themwhen they attempted to intercept it at Mankeshwar vil-lage in the east MH district during night.

Karnataka The death of DK Ravi, an IAS officer onMarch 16, 2015 was allegedly linked to his efforts torestrict illegal sand mining in the state. The 2009 batchofficer was famous for his strong stand against the ille-gal sand and land mafia. A July 2015 report also high-lighted that the State mined 4 lakh tonnes of sand injust three months from March to June 2015 from river-

beds within the Coastal Regulation Zone in DakshinaKannada. The same amount of sand earlier was ex-tracted in 11 months. The report also mentioned thatthe sand was also being illegally transported to neigh-boring Kerala where sand extraction was banned.

Kerala Despite a ban by National Green Tribunal, ille-gal mining of sand was reportedly happening at hugescale in Kerala. The report further said that all the 44rivers were badly affected by mining menace in the State.Locals alleged that the police was letting the miners scotfree after taking bribes.

Andhra Pradesh D Vanjakshi, a lady Tehsildar ofMusunuru was assaulted by Prabhakara Rao, the areaMLA for objecting to illegal sand mining activity In July2015. One more report in August 2015 reported thatexcess excavation of sand was posing a threat to under-construction bridge on the Nagavali river.

Telangana T Harish Rao, mining minister in March2015 while replying to a question in State Assembly ac-cepted that large scale illegal sand mining in Godavari,Majeera and Maneru rivers was leading to continualdecline of ground water table in Telangana.

Tamil Nadu A report in July 2015 warned that sandmining had become a threat to fish species in WesternGhat.

Thus the Year 2015 saw no respite in the cases of illegalsand mining activity. The operators continued to bra-zenly rob the rivers of essential ingredient and attackedthe Govt. officials striking terror in the heart of com-mon man.

Bhim Singh Rawat,SANDRP ([email protected])

~

The official addressing media after the attack

20


In this second part SANDRP presents detail of some ofthe significant steps taken by Central and various StateGovernments (Govt.) to control and regulate unsustain-able excavation of riverbed sand mining.

Central Govt

Introduction of “sustainable sand mining policy” draftnotification by Ministry of Environment Forest & Cli-mate Change (MoEF&CC) was the most significant de-velopment pertaining to sand mining in 2015. The draftnotification was uploaded on MoEF&CC website in Sep-tember 2015 seeking comments from all concerned. Thedraft, shockingly envisioned self regulation of environ-mental norms by miners. It also acknowledged that sandmining was happening in unsustainable manner andrevealed that Govt. lacked reliable data on amount ofsand being mined in different rivers in the country. Ac-cepting that sand was essential for the health of Rivers,Prakash Javedkar, Minister, MoEF&CC stated “Sandis for river, what RBC is for blood”. According to minis-ter the objective of notification was to strike a balancebetween increasing demand of sand and sustainablesand mining practices which will help in achieving thegoal of sustainable development.

Earlier in January 2015 too, meeting on Mines and Min-erals (Development & Regulation) (MMDR) AmendmentOrdinance 2015 was held in New Delhi. The objective ofthe meeting was to simplify mining procedure. Theamendment envisaged self-certification of environmen-tal norms by the miners. It also proposed penal provi-

sions up to Rs 5 lakh rupees and imprisonment up to 5years for checking illegal mining. Earlier in the samemonth the Central Govt. planned to amend of MMDRAct to include provisions of allowing transfer of captivemines granted through procedures other than auction.In March 2015 MoEF&CC team conducted a field in-spection of Haridwar and reported of large scale illegalmining of sand and stones going on in Ganga River.

In July 2015 Central Govt. planned to conduct external

audit for all uninspected mines to check whether com-panies are adhering to government-approved miningplans or not. According to news report Govt. planned tocarry such third party audits at least once every yearfor each mine. Later in August 2015 MoEF&CC an-nounced to adopt a different sand mining policy to pre-vent flooding of forest areas. The Environment Minis-ter stated that due to no mining in forest areas, riverbed level had swollen leading to frequent flooding of for-est area.

In October 2015 taking a note of unauthorised sandmining in Ganga, Uma Bharati Ministry of Water Re-sources, Rivers Development & Ganga Rejuvenationwrote a letter to Prakash Javadekar asking him to senda joint team of her Ministry and Environment Ministryto inquire into the matter. One more report in samemonth stated that a fully prepared River RegulationZone draft which can effectively control illegal removalof sand was waiting clearances for the last 13 years.

In December 2015, replying to a question in Rajya SabhaPrakash Javedkar, Minister MoEF&CC informed thatsand as a minor mineral came under State Govts. juris-diction and regulation of grants to mining leases andabatement of illegal sand mining was largely vested withthem. He also informed that no data was maintainedseparately for sand mining. The Minister stated thatIndian Bureau of Mines reports on the incidents of ille-gal mining. The statement made by the minster includedyear-wise cases of illegal sand mining reported in last 4years in three States, see table below.

MoEF January 2016 order On January 21, 2016, aPIB press release titled “‘Decentralization of Environ-mental Clearance for Sustainable sand Mining and Min-ing of Minor Minerals Introduced’: Javadekar” an-nounced new regulations. This announcement is seri-ously probelmatic, some reasons are listed here:

• The decentralisation of clearance process to districtlevel is good idea, but the inclusion of three districtgovernment officers of the four members of Dist EIAAuthority is not good, they all are govt servants, likely

River Sand Mining in India in 2015 – II – Government actsof omissions and commissions

1. Uttar Pradesh 3266 6777 10402 2020 0 0 0 7151.75

2. Rajasthan 2861 2953 2945 687 2183 52 3631 3979.294

3. Jharkhand 663 901 1162 441 1656 177 1061 1962.37

S.No.

StatesIllegal mining cases Action taken by the State Governments

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016(upto June

2015)

No ofFIRs

lodged

No of Courtcase filed

No.ofVehcilesseized

Fine realizedby State Govt.

(Rs lakh)

21


to toe govt line with little independence. SimilarlyDEAC (Dist Expert Appraisal Committee) is packedwith govt servants, in all these committees at least50% members has to be from outside the govt, andpeople who have proven independent credentials.

• There are state govt regulations on sand mining, itis not clear which one will prevail. For example: see:http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/con-fusion-over-sandmining-norms-in-kerala-sparks-con-cern/article8148351.ece

• Statements like “Shri Prakash Javadekar, said thatthe Ministry has taken several policy initiatives andenacted environmental and pollution control legisla-tions to prevent indiscriminate exploitation of natu-ral resources and to promote integration of environ-mental concerns in developmental projects.” are base-less, the MoEF has been more anti environment thaneven water resource ministry recently. Its trackrecord on sand mining and rivers related environ-mental issues is very poor.

• There seems to be too much faith in technology andIT with very little in the people at the grass rootslevel. In issues like sand mining, there has to be muchgreater role of the local communities in decision mak-ing and also monitor-ing and compliance.

• There is any atten-tion to the impacts ofunsustainble miningand how to ensurecredible impact as-sessment and capac-ity to assess unsus-tainable mining and saying no in such cases.

• The excluded activities include some that certainlyrequire impact assessment. e.g. desilting of dams.

State Govt.

Kerala bans mining in rivers The State Govt. in June2015 decided to impose a total ban on sand mining fromsix rivers and to allow restricted sand extraction in fiveother rivers for the next three years. The government’sdecision was based on the report of river bank mappingand sand auditing conducted as per rules stipulated inthe Kerala River bank protection and regulation of re-moval of sand rules. This seems like a positive develop-ment for rivers, not seen in any other state in India.

Gujarat In March 2015 State Govt. announced amend-ment in sand mining rules to introduce measures forviolations. The govt. also planned for prohibiting sandmining below the water level in a riverbed, allowingmining only during day time, ensuring protection to rivercourse including crops on river banks, and compulsory

submission of environment management plan while bid-ding for the mining lease. The State imposed a ban oninter-state movement of sand and since the last twoyears the state has sold sand largely through onlineauctions. This happened in response to a PIL filed byZarpara (Kutch district) villagers protesting againstmining activity in a nearby riverbed.

Madhya Pradesh (MP) In March 2015, the State Govt.with an object to stabilise sand prices and bring trans-parency formed a new sand-mining policy. SuggestingState Mining Corporation to identify new areas for sandmining, it allowed Govt. to conduct sand mining in alltehsils of the 18 districts. It also scaled down the secu-rity money for bidders from 25% to 10% making miningmuch easier and lucrative. Activists alleged that thatthe new policy would spell disaster for the State’s envi-ronment and livelihoods of lakhs of people. Earlier in2013, the Govt. amended the Minor Minerals Rules,1996, facilitating formation of district-level environmen-tal committees for granting environmental clearancesto mining projects. This move rendered the State Envi-ronment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) formedunder MoEF&CC redudant as far as sand miningprojects are concerned in Madhya Pradesh. In June 2015,District Administration of Chhatarpur proposed fine of

Rs 9 cr against illegal re-moval of sand. The offi-cial website of MineralResources Department,MP Govt. revealed thattill 02 February 2016the State had filed 418(against illegal mining),9997 (llegal transporta-

tion) and 448 (illegal storage) related to minerals in MP.

Maharashtra (MH) In Jan 2015 State Govt scarpedriver regulation policy, pandering to industry at the costof rivers and people, as SANDRP wrote. The State Govt.felt that the policy was rigid and had led to stalling ofindustrial projects worth Rs 7000 crore. Sadly MH wasthe first state to enact comprehensive river regulationpolicy after prolonged research and consultation withleading experts.

In June 2015 the State Govt. brought illegal sand min-ing activity under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dan-gerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981 which enabled po-lice to make preventive arrests of repeat offenders anddetain culprits for up to a year. Earlier to this in May2015 Govt. lifted sand mining ban on coastal districts ofSindhudurg, Ratnagiri, Raigad and Thane after prom-ising National Green Tribunal (NGT) adherence to pre-cautions to maintain the ecological balance. NGT hadimposed the ban in 2014 on coastal regions of manystates, including MH noting that sand mining in coastalareas and of river and creek beds was harming the en-

The inclusion of 3 district govt officers of the 4 mem-bers of Dist EIA Authority is not good, being govt ser-vants, they are likely to toe govt line. Similarly DEACis packed with govt servants, in all these committeesat least 50% members has to be from outside the govt.

22


vironment. In 2010, 2011, 2014 too MH Govt. had re-voked ban on sand mining in State imposed by courts inabsence of comprehensive sand mining policy.Maharashtra has framed rules for auctioning of sandmined from river beds.

Uttarakhand (UK) The new mining policy of UK noti-fied in July 2015 has divided mining areas in Zone A, B& C (Hills, Middle Hills & Plain respectively). Underriverbed dredging strategy the policy states about ex-pert study under Geology and Mining Department forallowing dredging of riverbed to prevent flooding in resi-dential areas and farming land located close to rivers.The policy also states that the muck created by diggingof tanks, tunnel and water channels in Hydro Projectswould be used in construction of projects after approvalfor same is granted by District Administration in confi-dence with Geology and Mining Department. The policyspells ambiguity on several aspects and nowhere men-tions environmental precautions to be taken before,during and after mining, let alone the question of check-ing illegal mining. This shows the desperation of UKgovt. in facilitating mining activities.

In January 2015 Chief Minister UK Harish Rawatstrongly objected to the term “Mining Mafia” used byopposition and stated that mining is only anti-dote tocurb rising levels of rivers and save cities located onriver banks from flooding. Then in August 2015 the StateGovt. urged Central Govt. to permit dredging of Gangaciting flood threats to Haridwar. The Centre gave inprinciple approval to the plan next month. The forestdepartment of UK was learnt to have started Gangamining in November 2015.

Haryana (HR) A notification of the Department ofMines and Geology, HR Govt. dated 19 March 2015 al-lowed sand extraction from River Yamuna in Sonipatdistrict. The notification also prescribed several condi-tions to address environmental concerns and preventfurther degradation of the river. Interestingly it wasBhartiya Janta Party who had promised to lift the banon all forms of mining in the State during 2014 LokSabha elections. According to a news report in June 2015,MoEF&CC planned to approve environmental clearanceto mining of sand, boulders for 12 mines in Ambala,Karnal, Panipat, Sonipat, Faridabad, and Palwal.

Notably the Tajewala Barrage (It was not longer in useas it was replaced by Hathnikund barrage earlier) in2010 collapsed as a result of unrestricted mining inYamuna. Local people had warned, seeing the unre-stricted sand mining happening downstream of it, thatit could collapse and collapse it did. It was used as pic-nic spot and a bridge before it collapsed. Now there arelocal reports of Hathini Kund Barrage being underthreat from sand mining and could run down in futureif hit by big flood.

Other States

Other States were also learnt to be taking steps to curbillegal removal of sand, e.g. Punjab Govt. decided to applyreverse bidding policy for new mines in State to bring downprices and discourage black marketing of minor minerals.The State also allowed the Irrigation Department to minesand midstream from riverbeds of the Sutlej and Beas bydredging it at 45 places. The State of Karnataka lodgedmore than 30 police complains to combat illegal sand min-ing. While Andhra Pradesh formed women self-help groupsfor excavating sand on which it took a U-turn in Decem-ber 2015 and decided to go for open auctioning.

The Chhattisgarh govt. revised the basic rules for grant-ing permission of minor minerals. Himachal Pradeshgovt. constituted flying squads and made it mandatoryto secure prior approval for stocking of minor minerals.The Jharkhand govt. tried to revise royalty for river-bed sand to discourage its illegal exploitation. Meghalayaclassified sand as a minor mineral and put its protec-tion under its forest department.

We see that different State Govts. took some measuresto control illegal sand mining in 2015, but majority ofthese steps were forced by respective Courts. The for-mation of Sustainable Sand Mining Policy by MoEF&CCwas in fact an outcome of NGT decision about which wewill provide details in third and concluding part.

Summing up In 2015, we find unsustianble and unsci-entific removal of sand from rivers continues to remainwide spread in India. The operators of mining activitieshave grown stronger and have been assaulting anyonethat objects including Govt. agencies. Affected villagersallege politicians to be either directly involved or sup-porting the illegal mining indirectly, hence finds it diffi-cult to raise their voices.

Sand being Minor mineral comes under State Govts.jurisdiction and Central Govt. does not directly deal withthe mining leases, and abatement of illegal extraction,though enforcement of environment laws is certainlyunder the mandate of Union government. There is nomechanism developed either by State or Central Govt.which measures amount of sand being annually minedin the country, or what is sustainable level at any givenlocation. State Govts. have failed in restricting the ille-gal mining. In many cases their policies are found en-couraging it. Central Govt. also has not developed a re-liable mechanism resulting in unsustainable mining. Itis mainly the judicial interventions that are trying tomake the govts. correct its mistakes, but we have yet tosee effectiveness of judicial interventions.

The new notification from MoEF in January 2016 in thisregard is seriously problematic and seems like we havelong way to go before our rivers have better future.

Bhim Singh Rawat,SANDRP ([email protected])

~

23


SANDRP in this third and final part provides informa-tion on significant judicial decisions issued by differentCourts particularly National Green Tribunal (NGT) in2015.

Previous Important Judgements

In 2012 Honourable Supreme Court (SC) of India in itslandmark judgement on 27 February 2012 had directedall Union Territories and State Governments to seekEnvironmental Clearances (EC) from Ministry of Envi-ronment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) formining minor minerals even in less than 5 ha or renewthe same after prior ap-proval from theMoEF&CC. Before thisorder, mining areas ofless than 5 ha were ex-empted from EC enactedunder EnvironmentalImpact Assessment(EIA)-2006. The SC alsoobserved that quarryingexcessive in-streamsand causes the degra-dation of rivers as it low-ers the riverbed whichmay lead to bank erosion and result in destruction ofaquatic and riparian habitats as well.

In 2013, observing continuous violations of environmen-tal norms in riverbed quarrying, NGT on 05 August 2013ordered a ban on sand excavation across the countrywithout seeking prior approval for the same from StateEnvironment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) andMoEF&CC. The green court also directed all concerneddepartments in States to ensure compliance of its or-ders. Further in November 2013, bringing sand miningrule formation under MoEF&CC ambit, NGT stated thatenvironment is a subject of Central govt. and States can’tframe sand mining rules separately.

Year 2015 was full of Courts orders particularly by NGT,issued against unsustainable riverbed quarrying goingon in violations of EC. We give here glimpse of some ofthe key judgements.

High Court Orders

In January 2015, while hearing a PIL, Madhaya Pradesh(MP) HC directed State Govt. to explain steps to curbsand mining in Chambal River. This was in response toa PIL that alleged that on a daily basis 400-500 trolleysand dumpers were illegally excavating sand fromChambal River banks, severely impacting the aquaticlife in and around the river. In April 2015 the MP HC

River Sand Mining in India in 2015 – III – Judicial actions

gave State Govt three daysto file report on State spon-sored sand mining activi-ties on Narmada banksunder Sardar SarovarProject (SSP) catchmentarea. The court found thatsand was being extractedfrom the banks of Narmada River and its tributaries invarious villages of Barwani, Dhar, Khargone andAlirajpur districts in violation of norms. In May 2015the HC put a ban on illegal sand mining in SSP catch-

ment area commentingthat State Govt permis-sion to mining leases onlands under theNarmada Valley Devel-opment Authority was a“colourable exercise” ofpower. Extending theban on 12 May the courtdirected the MP Govt.,the State Pollution Con-trol Board and theMoEF&CC to file “de-tailed replies”.

In May 2015 Gujarat HC shut down 67 sand miningunits in Gir Sanctuary. The court observed that the unitswere operating without renewing their licences and pos-ing a threat to the lives of wild animals on the banks ofthe Shetrunji River.

In August 2015, finding that most of sand mining sitesacross the State were being run by sand mafia the Ma-dras HC Tamil Nadu (TN) asked the State Govt. whysand quarrying should not be banned from the Cauveryriverbed.

NGT Judgements

In April 2015 NGT slammed MP govt. for failing to stopillegal sand mining in Narmada & Ken Rivers. The greentribunal also directed the concerned agencies not to re-lease vehicles involved in mining without its permis-sion. In November 2015, NGT served notices to SEIAA,MP for allowing mining in SSP areas seeking explana-tion on what basis it issued 22 mining leases in allegedsubmergence area of SSP. The green court also askedMP pollution control board to examine complaints of il-legal mining and file prosecution proceedings. In De-cember 2015, taking note of Narmada Bachao Andolancomplaint regarding continuing of illegal sand miningin the submergence area of SSP, NGT appointed a com-missioner to verify the complain.

In 2012 Honourable Supreme Court of India in itslandmark judgement on 27 February 2012 had di-rected all Union Territories and State Governmentsto seek Environmental Clearances from Ministry ofEnvironment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC)for mining minor minerals even in less than 5 ha orrenew the same after prior approval from theMoEF&CC.

24


In July 2015, the green panel stayed sand mining inMP during monsoons finding it causing significant dam-age to river ecology. The court also ruled that miningpolicy or sand extraction permission of the State shouldnot be in contradiction to fisheries policy. Then in Sep-tember 2015 NGTbanned sand miningduring monsoon direct-ing the MoEF&CC notto grant environmentalclearance for sand min-ing in the rivers of northIndia during the rainyseason. The ban waslifted next month.

In October 2015 NGTCentral Bench, Bhopalfined two constructioncompanies VanshikaConstruction and Shiva Corporation finding them guiltyof being involved in illegal excavation of sand inNarmada River near Bhopal. The Bench also asked thecompanies to compensate the damages.

In February 2015, hearing a plea filed by Matri SadanHaridwar NGT ruled out complete ban on quarrying inGanga. The court stated that removal of riverbed mate-rials should be done scientifically and according estab-lished practices. Then in April 2015, putting a ban onillegal riverbed quarrying at Haridwar, NGT orderedthat no unauthorised sand mining should take place inGanga without taking environmental clearance. In De-cember 2015, while issuing judgment on Ganga Rejuve-nation Phase-I the green court banned mechanized min-ing of riverbed material.The court stated thatquarrying of riverbedmaterials should bedone in highly restrictedmanner and under strictsupervision.

In February 2015, NGTimposed a ban on allmining activities aroundSariska National Park,Alwar (Rajasthan). Thecourt observed that 85mining leases were operating in the area without ob-taining EC from SEIAA Rajasthan and rebuked theState Govt. for shutting its eyes on indiscriminate sandmining. In 2014 also NGT Central Bench had prohib-ited mining of stone and marbles in Rajasthan. Hearingthe petition further in March 2015, the Bench warnedHaryana & Rajasthan Govts of strict actions against non-compliance to its sand mining ban order. The green panelalso directed the States to file a comprehensive status

reports on the issue within two weeks.

In March 2015, NGT criticised MoEF&CC for failing tostop illegal sand mining on Yamuna riverbed in Noidaand Faridabad. In May 2015 NGT directed MoEF&CCto present expert committee report on the river regula-

tion zone while hearinga plea against encroach-ments on the floodplains of the Yamunaand Hindon. In Novem-ber 2015 the court im-posed a ban on all sortof sand mining legal orillegal in Yamuna River.

In September 2015,while hearing a petitionfiled by two villagescomplaining of rampant

sand extraction in the middle of Chapora River, Goa,NGT Pune Bench put a ban on illegal sand mining inGoa. The green panel also directed to Directorate ofMines and Geology to conduct strict vigilance to checksand miming during nights.

In October 2015 NGT halted riverbed mining in NeugalRiver near Palampur, Himachal Pradesh asking Stateforest and mining departments to submit their report.

In Conclusion Thus we see, Honorable Courts speciallyNGT issuing numbers of orders all through 2015, di-recting Central and States Govts. to check unsustain-able riverbed mining. It is sad to note that despite somany orders, MoEF&CC and State Govts failed to ef-fectively implement the court orders and arrest illegal

extraction of sand fromdifferent rivers. ManyState Govts likeRajasthan & Kerala arealso finding it difficult toimplement the Sustain-able Sand Mining Man-agement Guidelines is-sued in Aug 2015 byMoEF&CC. The re-peated court orders areclear signs of failure ofthe state and central

government.

In 2016, the news of unchecked sand mining and at-tacks on law enforcers & RTI activists by unauthorizedsand operators have begun filling the news spaces as ifnothing has changed on the ground.

Bhim Singh Rawat([email protected]) SANDRP

~

In 2013, observing continuous violations of environ-mental norms in riverbed quarrying, NGT on 05August 2013 ordered a ban on sand excavation acrossthe country without seeking prior approval for thesame from State Environment Impact AssessmentAuthority and MoEF&CC. The green court also di-rected all concerned departments in States to ensurecompliance of its orders.

The repeated court orders all through 2015 are clearsigns of failure of the state and central governmentin checking the unsustainable riverbed sand mining.In 2016, the news of unchecked sand mining and at-tacks on law enforcers & RTI activists by unautho-rized sand operators have begun filling the newsspaces as if nothing has changed on the ground.

25


Jhulelal or Zindapir: River Saints, fish and flows of the Indus

Perhaps we all have our pet projects which we wishwould go on forever. I have been working on a Primeron Riverine Fisheries of South Asia for some years now(my office may disagree with the definition of ‘some’).Like a magpie collecting shiny knick-knacks, I keep col-lecting (quite serendipitously, or so I think) anecdotesand interviews and snippets on the subject.

Some days back, I was putting together information onthe Hilsa fish from Indus in Pakistan and I came acrossa composite Hindu-Islamic river deity riding, yes, ridingthe Hilsa or Palla! Thrill of this discovery overflowedinto a discussion on social media, with friends from allover, including Pakistan chipping in. Not only could Iglean lesser known insights about South Asia, I was posi-tively pushed towards reading “Empires of the Indus”by Alice Albinia: on my reading list for too long. After afew weeks, some more discussions and trying to join thedots that connect river deities, Palla, Indus and Sufism,I can say that Zindapir (The Living Saint) of Indus hasbeen one of the most beautiful riverine riddles to stumbleupon..

The story is based in Sindh, Pakistan.

As much as Sindh is the land of Indus and its extensivedelta, it is the land of Sufism too…some of the greatestSufi Saints come from Sindh: Sachal Sarmast, knownfor his poetry in search of the eternal truth, ShaheedShah Inayat, a reformer-poet-visionary, who laid thefoundation of a free agrarian reform in Jhook, Sindh inthe 18th Century. As a friend told me, Shah Inayat raisedthe famous slogan against feudalism; “Jo Khery, sokhaey” (The one who sows is the one who reaps). It in-cludes the unstoppable Lal Shabaz Qalander, whosetomb in Shehwan reads “Jhulelal” and Shah Abdul Latif,whose tomb in Bhitshah is described by Albinia as a

place where it is normal to see a “Hindu untouchablefamily sleeping in a Sunni mosque of a Sufi shrine domi-nated by Shias”. It is said that 125,000 holy men areburied’in the yellow sandstone necropolis at Thatta’[i]along the mighty Indus, which gives India its name.

Sufism in Sindh has evolved over centuries, and the flow-ing Indus has had a major role to play in this headyconcoction. Sindh includes the once-extensive IndusDelta, which was ruled by several dynasties, its age oldtrading hubs and ports, including the largest city ofPakistan: Karachi. Indus Delta is the biggest arid man-grove system in the world, extending over 40,000 Sq kms,but is suffering greatly due to ever-decreasing freshwa-ter reaching the mangroves due to upstream dams.

The flowing, composite culture of the Indus Delta em-braces poetry, philosophy, worship and very importantly,music. Millions have been mesmerized by Sufi musicand the other day was no exception when I heard RunaLaila, Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Wadali Brothersand Abida Parveen, each singing their own unique ren-ditions of Bulle Shah’s immortal Dhammal (Songs near-ing Qawalli, but infused with a lively mix of folk ele-ments and instruments, Nakahara, Drums, etc.,) basedon Lal Shahbaz Qalander…possibly one of the best knownDhammals in the world: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fKXzG7jQFc)

“Lal meri pat rakhiyo bana Jhulelaalna,

Sindadi da, Sevan da, Sakhi Shahbaz Qalandar!

….

Hind-Sind Pira teri Naubat baaje

Naal baje, ghadiyaal bala Jhulelaalan

Sindadi da, Sevan da

Sakhi Shahbaz Qalandar!

Damadam mast Qalandar!

Ali dam dam de andar!

Damadam mast Qalandar!”

Zindapir Shrine at Sukkur Photo from: British Library

Sufism in Sindh has evolved over centuries, andthe flowing Indus has had a major role to playin this heady concoction. Sindh includes theonce-extensive Indus Delta, which was ruled byseveral dynasties, its age old trading hubs andports, including the largest city of Pakistan:Karachi.

26


I was intrigued by the mention of Jhulelal, a quintes-sential Sindhi Ishta Devta in this Sufi Dhammal. Butthat is what Sufism, especially Sindh’s Sufism, is allabout: synergy and secu-larism. I have heard ofSufi shrines in Sindhwhich are frequented,nay crowded, by Mus-lims and Hindus alike …even Nanakpathis, dur-ing Urs!

An innocent riddleabout a local fish, andI was about to findout that Jhulelal,that benign old manwith a white flowingbeard, has a lot to dowith it. Jhulelal isfound far and wide inPakistan, as AzharLashri tells me,“Thing that fasci-nates me aboutJhulelal is inscrip-tion of his name onbuses, trucks, vansand taxis, He is ev-erywhere. This isvery ubiquitous phe-nomenon in Paki-stan.”

Jhulelal is not a regular Hindu/Sindhi/Sufi/Islamic deity. For one,Jhulelal or Daryalal is known andworshipped in many forms, across re-ligious sects. Although there are sev-eral tales of Jhulelal known acrossSindh and the global Sindhi diaspora,there is a complex synergy betweenJhulelal, Lal Shabaz Qalander ofShehwan, Shaikh Tahir of Uderolaland Khwaja Khijr, worshipped at dif-ferent times by different groups. Thelink that connects these deities andSaints is singular: The Indus River.Jhulelal is a part of the Daryapanthior Daryahi sect which worships theIndus, a form of River or water wor-ship which may have its links datingback to the ancient Mohenjadaro civi-lization.

Jhulelal and the composite sect of Saints are also knowninterchangeably as the Zinda Pir or Jind Pir: The Liv-ing Saint.

Jhulelal’s fascination is not linked only with the ebb andflow of the Indus, or the Sindhu. I have been research-ing Hilsa, that fabulous fish which comes back to its

rivers to lay eggs andgoes back to the sea,only to repeat its adven-ture in the coming sea-son. Hilsa, or Palla, as itis known in Pakistan isnot simply a fish. Palla

is a cultural icon… one of the strongest icons of WestBengal and Bangladesh too. ..a strange connection be-tween two regions on opposite sides of the Indian sub-continent.

Found in deltas across South Asia (and beyond), thearoma, taste and the dramatic occurrence of this shim-mering silver fish holds all in its thrall: from fish folk inthe deltas of Godavari to Krishna to Narmada to Padma.But Bengalis are jealously possessive about their Ilish.I’ve seen even sane acquaintances turn a shade of pucewhen told that Hilsa is found in deltas across the coun-try and not limited to their Padma and Meghana!

I thought that the cultural significance of Ilish in Ben-gal would be unparalleled. But in Sindh too, the place ofPalla is so very special, it is an indelible part of the“Saqafat of Sindh” (Sindh’s rich culture). Palla is theunofficial regional dish of Sindh, it is the delicacy ofhonor in most Sindhi festivals, but is also given to ur-ban relatives when they trudge back to their cities, withMango Baskets.

And Jhulelal is perched not only on the Lotus

flower, but he actually rides the Palla! It is saidthat in the Zindapir Shrine of Sukkur (A shared monu-ment of Muslims and Hindus till very recently), Pallago to pay respect to its “Murshid” (Revered spiritual

Jhulelal on HilsaPhoto: sanj.yolasite.com

An innocent riddle about a local fish, and I was aboutto find out that Jhulelal, that benign old man with awhite flowing beard, has a lot to do with it.

Mohana Fishermen of Indus with freshly caught Hilsa Photo from: Dawn

27


Guide). Mohana fishermen on the Indus maintain[ii]that it is here that the Palla gets its shimmering silverglow and “a red dot on its forehead”. Before visiting theSukkur Zindapir Shrine, it is an “ok tasting” black fish.But swimming upstream to Sukkur, even till Jamshorogives them the heavenly fragrance, silvery visage andthe unique taste. I partly believe this Mohana tale. Yousee, when Bengal tried to raise Hilsa in captivity, feed-ing the fish at boring intervals, one of the problems wasthat the fish would not breed and second, its uniquetaste was eminently lacking. Its deliciousness comesfrom the muscle, and like all muscle, it has to be earned,often swimming against the tide!

Coming back to Jhulelal,there are two majorshrines of Jhulelal inSindh where the Palla-riding god and Indus isworshipped by Muslimas well as Hindus. Oneis Uderolal nearBhitshah and the otheris much further north, atSukkur. At the shrine near Uderolal, Muslims worshipit as the shrine of Shaikh Tahir, while Hindus worshipit as Jhulelal. But the celebrations take place on ChetiChand, on Jhulelals’ supposed birthday. There has beenno demand of separate celebrations or shrines. ShaikhTahir is known as the Pani ka Badshah, just like theJhulelal, with power to control the ebb and flow of theIndus.

At Sukkur (itself called as Darya Dino, or the gift of theriver), the Zindapir shrine is in the middle of the riveritself. Here, two separate Hindu and Muslim shrineshave been built across the River fairly recently, but devo-tees are not too bothered with these distinctions. Sameis the case with the Jhulelal Shrine in Manora island ofKarachi, where: “Over the centuries this deity had ac-quired a following of both Hindus and Muslims and hasbecome part of the shared heritage of the people of Sindh.Sindhi Muslims believed that he was none other thanthe prophet Khwaja Khizr, venerated because he is be-lieved to guide and protect travelers and also becausehe is believed to possess the secret of eternal life. (Chris-tians know Khizr as Saint Christopher – the patron saintof travelers.)” (from Admiral Sardarilal MathradasNanda, as told by Nilim Dutta.)

Muhammad Ali Shah, Chairperson of the lively andstrong Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) tells me,“Sufisim in Sindh has long been serving as the unifyingforce between religions in Sindh. We believe that becauseof spiritual inclination, it has helped Sindh be muchlesser victim to terrorism and extremism as compared toother provinces. Sindh bears an identity of the land thatrespects all religions.

People of Sindh whether from the Islamic faith or Hindufaith frequently visit the Sufi shrines and practice therudimentary form of Sufism without any religious dif-ference. When the Urs of Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai,Shaheed Shah Inayat, Sachal Sarmast and others’ areobserved in Sindh; their shrines are inundated by theirdisciples no matter what religion they belong to.

There are shrines of Sufi saints throughout the Sindhbe it the banks of rivers, the sand dunes of the desert,the heights of mountains, nearby the natural springs orthe lakes. The arrival and departure of the Sufi saintsin Sindh dates back to around 11 hundred years ago.The people from urban as well as rural area had consis-

tently been paying visitsto these shrines in dif-ferent Melas and in nor-mal days as well.”

So, call Zindapir as LalShahbaz Qalandar, whois supposed to have rec-ognized and guidedyoung Jhulelal or call

him Khwaja Khijr, literally Mr. Green, “Yaaron ka yaar”who helps “Darya” travelers. Call him Shaikh Tahir, Panika Badshah, who controls the ebb and flow of the Indusfor the Mohana fisherfolk, call him Daryanath, with acomplicated lineage reaching all the way to Nath Sectof India, or call him Jhulelal himself, who is held dearby Hindus and Muslims alike: The Indus River worshiptranscends and brings together all these forms, acrossthe rigid boundaries of religions.

The silvery strands that bind together the myth andthe folklore of Indus are wrought by the water of theriver herself, and her fish that once were abundant.However, it’s been ages since Palla reached SukkurZindapir Shrine. The Sukkur Barrage cut off the migra-tory routes of the fish, just like the Farakka has deci-mated the fish in West Bengal and Bangladesh or theArthur Cotton Barrage in Godavari. Muhammaed AliShah, tells me, “As per the local communities the Pallaused to be caught in the thousands in the Indus just twoto three decades back. They also claimed that the fishcould once be found all the way upstream in Multan, ata time when three barrages in Sindh – Guddu, Sukkurand Kotri – were not built on the river.

Palla previously accounted for 70 % of the total catch inthe past; today that figure has dwindled to just 15 %.The production in 1980 was 1,859 metric tons; this fellto only 265 metric tons in 1995 and just 222 metric tons1999.

Since the last 20 years, the fish has become extinct dueto unavailability of water in downstream areas. Afterthe construction of Kotri barrage in 1956, the migrationof Hilsa has been restricted up to Kotri barrage which

There are two major shrines of Jhulelal in Sindhwhere the Palla-riding god and Indus is worshippedby Muslim as well as Hindus. One is Uderolal nearBhitshah and the other is much further north, atSukkur.

28


is at distance of 300 km from the sea. This obstructionhas deprived Hilsa of two-thirds of the previous spawn-ing area. Palla fish is severely depleted due to declinesin the Indus water flow (majorly affected by the dam/barrage building) in the deltaic region.”

The mangroves of the Indus are drying and dying, justlike the mangroves of Krishna, because we think thatwater going to the sea is a waste. Indus has only beenleft on the mercy of flood waters that are usually re-leased only between March to August which does notcorrespond with the Palla season.

The Indus Delta is shrinking just like the KrishnaGodavari delta due to the silt trapped by the upstreamdams which impoverish the delta further. Fish laddersin barrages for Palla don’t work in Sindh, just like theynever worked in case of Farakka Barrage. PakistanFisherfolk Forum, with the guidance of the “Martyr ofIndus” Late Tahira Ali Shah and Muhammad Ali Shahhas been fighting for the rights of Sindhi fisherfolk..fortheir right to the water of Indus. The PFF has a mem-bership of over 70,000 people from fishing and peasant

communities and is one of the biggestsocial movements of South Asia,working towards more freshwater forthe Indus Delta.

According to the remarkable PolicyAnalyst and writer from Pakistan,Raza Rumi[iii], “Indus legends are thelived reality of the communities thatreside along its majestic banks. Thisis where culture and environment ac-quire a powerful synthesis for they areequally important to preserve and con-serve life patterns. Water holds a sig-nificant position in the cultural exist-ence of the Sindhi people. Water hasbeen a source of literature, mysticalbeliefs and a composite way of life thatis threatened now. Reclaiming Indus

folklore along with environmental conservation is a pow-erful way of saving the shared heritage of India and Pa-kistan. The Indus is an all-encompassing metaphor ofsecuring long-term peace in the region, documenting andpreserving our cultural heritage and maintaining the sub-lime literary standards set by the Indus followers. Indiacannot be without the Indus and Pakistan cannot func-tion as a viable ecological zone without this magical river.”

For synthesis to flourish, for a rich, synergistic and com-posite culture to exist side by side we need a livingIndus…we need living rivers in Pakistan and India aswell. A shared Zindapir is not an aberration, not an al-ternative narrative of this subcontinent. Such sharing,such synergy formed the mainstream narrative, not toomany years ago.

We need a perspective towards water management whichaspires not only for improved irrigation and hydropower,but respects the livelihoods, culture, folklore, music andphilosophy of our rivers embodied in miracles like the RiverSaints of Indus…Indus is as much about the Palla reach-ing its Murshid, as it is about dams and hydropower…

Parineeta Dandekar,[email protected], SANDRP

PS: I would like to thank several friends who helped mewith anecdotes, references and stories. Some of them in-clude Shreekant Pol, Nilim Dutta, Azhar Lashri,Muhammad Ali Shah, Pankaj Sekhsaria and Sunil Tambe.

Some References:[i] http: / /www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft /

article.php?issue=20110916&page=24[ii] http://www.dawn.com/news/1204243[iii] http: / /www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft /

article.php?issue=20110916&page=24

~

The silvery strands that bind together the mythand the folklore of Indus are wrought by thewater of the river herself, and her fish that oncewere abundant. However, it’s been ages sincePalla reached Sukkur Zindapir Shrine. TheSukkur Barrage cut off the migratory routes ofthe fish, just like the Farakka has decimatedthe fish in West Bengal and Bangladesh or theArthur Cotton Barrage in Godavari.

Fisherfolk Protest for more freshwater in Indus,Sindh Photo: Pakistan Fishworkers’ Forum

Fisherfolk Protest for more freshwater in Indus, Sindh Photo: Pakistan Fishworkers’ Forum

29


Massive expenditure on Large Dams will only help con-tractors The Union Budget 2016-17 presented by FinanceMinister Arun Jaitley on Feb 29, 2016 seems to be promis-ing in its thrust and focus towards farmers and the farmingsector of the country. For a sector which employs about 55%of the work force of the country, this priority is much neededand one which holds a promise of a number of multipliereffects. He stated, ”We are grateful to our farmers for beingthe backbone of our food security. We need to move beyondfood security and give our farmers a sense of “IncomeSecurity”.” This is particularly required when the farmersare in dire states as they are today, many of them facingfour consecutive crop failures, Kharif 2014, Rabi 2015,Kharif 2015 and Rabi 2016. In 2015, on average 52 farm-ers committed suicide every single day in India.

And hence, focus on farming is indeed a positivestep. As Maharashtra State Water Resources Minister forState Vijay Shivtare once told me, “We are not very both-ered about the high costs of Lift Irrigation Schemes per se.If they work well, and result in prosperous farmers, it wouldmean more agricultural implements, more Tractors, morevehicles, better homes etc., increasing the government’s rev-enue at the end of the day.” (“If they work well” was theoperative part here, which has seldom materialized inMaharashtra). A Prosperous Farmer and strong farmingeconomy can help all sectors.

Mr. Jaitley opened his budget speech with an Agenda to“Transform India”, based on nine pillars. Foremost pillaris ‘Agriculture and farmers’ welfare, with a focus ondoubling farmers’ income in five years, by 2022. Thetotal allocation for Agriculture and Farmers Welfare isRs 35, 984 Crores.

Finance Minister rightly diagnosed that ”Irrigation is thecritical input for increasing agricultural productionand productivity.” Out of 141 million hectares of net cul-tivated area, only 46% is covered with irrigation and thatthere is a “need to address optimal utilization of water re-sources, create new irrigation infrastructure, conserve soilfertility, value addition and connectivity from farm to mar-kets.”

For ensuring this, ”Pradhan Mantri Krishi SinchaiYojana” will be implemented in mission mode throughwhich 28.5 lakh hectares will be brought under irrigation”.A major part of this will be through ”Fast trackingand Implementation of 89 irrigation projects underAIBP (Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Program) whichhave been languishing. These will help irrigate 80.6Lakh hectares. These projects will need Rs 17,000Crores next year and 86,500 Crores in next five years.23 of these will be completed before 31st March 2017.”

So, in the coming 5 years, a whopping Rs 86,500 Crores ofthe taxes collected from all Indians and at least a part ofthe Krishi Kalyan Cess at 0.5% all taxable services will gointo AIBP Projects, with over Rs 17,000 Crores being allo-cated in 2016-17 itself. This is highly problematic. AIBPwas started by P. Chidambaram in 1996 and in two decades

since then, it has not delivered anything susbstantial ex-cept huge bank balances for contractors, as also for the en-gineers, bureaucrats and politicians,hand in glove with thecontractors. CAG reports have repeatedly highlighted thisreality in case of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujaratand now possibly Madhya Pradesh. In fact, this was thevery plank on which BJP came to power in Maharashtra.But Arun Jaitely seems to have no new ideas to offer here,except treading on the same path.

While it is clear that the government cannot abandon allincomplete projects, before it decides to spend more goodmoney after already sunk costs on incomplete projects, itneeds to halt more Major and Medium irrigation projectsand undertake a credible, independent review of why theprojects were incomplete for so long, what were the loopholes, what are the lessons learned from past mistakes,which projects are worth going ahead, in what form. Andfinally, which need to be abandoned. Without doing suchan exercise, the money allocated for incomplete projects isnot going to help the farmers.

1. Massive Support for AIBP Projects in Union Bud-get 2016 17 is unwarranted

Rs 86,500 Crores over 5 years is a massive amount. Will itbe able to ensure promised Irrigation? Which are these AIBPProjects? Why do they need so much support from the Cen-ter? How have they performed till now? Where are they lo-cated? Is this expenditure wise?

Here is a snapshot of some of the 89 AIBP Projects, maxi-mum of which, 13, come from Maharashtra. Maharashtrahas had enough bad publicity following the Dam Scam butmore importantly, it now has a Chief Minister, also fromBJP, who openly stated in the State Assembly on July21, 2015 that ”We have built Large dams everywherewithout thinking of feasibility or water availability”and that “Large Dams are not the roadahead”. Devendra Fadanvis wisely separated Large Damsfrom actual Irrigation and said: “We pushed large dams,not irrigation, this has to change”. He has spearheadeda considerably successful program that focuses on smallscale interventions for harvesting and recharging waterknown as Jal Yukta Shivar Yojana.

With this context, it is ironic and deeply troublingthat maximum Large Irrigation Projects under AIBPcome from Maharashtra. The name “Accelerated Irriga-tion Benefit” is also ironic as many of these projects havebeen going on for over 2-3 decades, have seen huge costsescalations, corruption charges, question marks about theirviability, desirability, optimality, quality and final effective-ness.

Out of 149 AIBP Projects across the country, 89 projects areactive, out of which 46 projects have been prioritized in theUnion Budget. 23 Priority I Projects are to be completed by2016-17 and additional 23 Priority II Projects are to be com-pleted by 2019-20. Of these 46 Projects, maximum 13projects come from Maharashtra.

Farmers, Rivers and the Environment in Union Budget 2016-17

30


In addition to these, cost escalations of Lower Wardha,Lower Panzara, Nandur Madhyameshwar II (whichwill need 3 dams in the upstream) are also well known. (Linkto all projects in References below)

Across the country, but more sharply so in Maharashtra,Large Irrigation Projects have not automatically meantincreased irrigated area, which is what the farmer needs.SANDRP has shown with official data that even afterspending over Rs 600,000 crores on Major and MediumDam and Canal Network between 1993-2010-11, net na-tional canal irrigated area has been decreasing and notincreasing. There are several reasons for this.

Canal irrigated area declining in thecountry (Source: SANDRP)

Groundwater dominates Irrigation in India, not damsand canals (Source: IWMI)

If Large Dam approach delivered all that it promised, thenMaharashtra, with the largest number of large dams in thecountry would have had the highest irrigated area. Theactual picture is the opposite. Maharashtra has the lowestirrigated area in the country at about 18%. This is not acoincidence. As the dam scam highlighted, more largeprojects with complicated, ever-changing plans, far awayoffices and opaque funding mechanisms meant that localpeople had no clue about what was happening, leaving doorsopen for the unholy nexus of Babus, Contractors andEngineers to eat away public funds, without ensuringirrigation. Recent example is when the Maharashtra Gov-ernment told the Hon High Court that they have resolvedall of the financial backlog in areas like Marathwada andVidarbha, but the PHYSICAL backlog remains nearly thesame. So is money for large irrigation projects an answer inthis scenario?

While three major projects from Vidarbha (Bawanthadi,Bembla and Lower Wardha) included in AIBP will receivehuge support from the Center, the Vidarbha Irrigation De-velopment Corporation (VIDC) faces some of the most seri-ous charges of corruption, cost and time escalations, as high-lighted by a series of government appointed committees andeven CAG. Jan Manch, an NGO from Vidarbha which wasinstrumental in exposing the scam clearly stated that prob-lems of projects here run deeper. Money is not an easyfix.

So why are the same projects being pushed in the name offarmers when it is demonstrated in Maharashtra that farm-ers are NOT benefiting from these projects? Cynics wouldpoint this out as another Jumlaa! Again, in the same state,the power of small scale water harvesting structures andpeople’s participation have shown how quickly things canchange. Maharashtra still needs to complete Anti-Corrup-tion Bureau Inquiry against several Large Dams, it needsto work on an Integrated State Water Plan and, as per or-ders of the Hon High Court, it can undertake new Projectsonly as per the provisions of this plan, it needs to take trans-parent and credible action regarding its own enquiry re-ports, which includes Special Investigation Team Report,

A brief snapshot of some AIBP Projects in Maharashtra

No. Project District Issue

1. Tillari Interstate Sindhudurg Based in hilly tracts of Western Ghats, highly unviable project, very low irrigationProject efficiency, terrain not suitable for large dams, Protests, Land Acquisition problems.

2. Bembla Major Yavatmal Huge Corruption Charges, Work ongoing since last 24 years. High cost escalations.Project Cracked canal Lining due to poor quality work. Enquiry ordered against Contractor for

substandard work.

3. Tarali Major Irri- Satara Whistle Blower of Maharashtra Dam Scam, then-Serving Chief Engineer Mr. Vijaygation Project Pandhare inspected construction of Tarali Project and stated that compressive strength

of all 66 cores of the dam is as low as 42% when a difference in core strength by 1-2%is considered serious. This indicates corruption, use of less cement and institutionalisedill-intent. He officially wrote letter against these happenings. No action taken.

4. Dhom Balkawadi Satara Contract of Canal works given to a close relative of Ajit Pawar, Former Deputy CM andMinister of Water Resources. Several tendering lacuna exposed by officials.

5. Arjuna Medium Ratnagiri Massive cost and time escalations, unviable project in hilly terrain, corruption charges,Project rehabilitation issues not settled.

31


CAG Report on Irrigation Projects dated 2013, etc. Unlessall these steps are taken, and when small scale inter-ventions are demonstrating their impacts, what is thelogic behind putting huge public resources on the sameapproach?

Projects in other states like Sardar Sarovar, Narmada Sagar,Omkareshwar and Maheshwar Projects in Gujarat andMadhya Pradesh have not resettled the oustees and hasused repressive mechanism to still fill the dams. It has beenrapped by the Courts. Local communities in Manipur havebeen opposing dams there and have gone to the NationalGreen Tribunal against Thaubal Dam.

In this context, maximum allocation of funds for Large Irri-gation Projects in the Union Budget is clearly, neither con-vincing nor beneficial to farmers.

Other Schemes included under PMKSY with budgeted ex-penses for 2016-17 are• Har Khet ko Pani: Rs 500 Crores• Per Drop more crop: Rs 2340 Crores• Integrated Watershed Management: Rs 1500 Crores

2. Some Positive water related steps in the Budget:

• A major program for sustainable management ofGW with allocation of Rs 6000 Crores and proposedfor multilateral finding: Although the amount bud-geted is hardly comparable to AIBP Projects, when con-tribution of groundwater in irrigation is much largerthan surface water! We do not really need World Bankfunding for this, we should be able to do this on our own.

• A dedicated Long -term Irrigation Fund will be cre-ated in NABARD with initial corpus of Rs 20,000 Cores.Unfortunately, NABARD has no specific social and en-vironmental policies and has been funding projects with-out attention to the key governance issues.

• 5 lakh farm ponds and dug wells in rain fed areas and10 lakh compost pits through MNEREGA.

• Allocation for MNREGA is Rs 38500 crores, in real-ity this is much less than the actual demand and alsoless than what was actually spent last year. Last year,the actual spending on the programme was Rs 41,169crore. The additional spending of Rs 6,470 crore is thepending liability and if adjusted the actual allocation in2016-17 drops to Rs 32,030 crore—less than what wasallocated in 2015-16. MNREGA allocation should havebeen higher.

• Organic farming to be promoted: ParamparagatKrishi Vikas Yojana 5 lakh acres under organic farmingin 3 years with allocation of around Rs 412 crores. Whilemore areas under organic farming is welcome, the tar-get is more un-ambitious and allocation most meager.As Jayapal Reddy (Secy, confederation of kisanorganisations) says we need aid for increasing carboncontent in soil all across India.

• Incentives for enhancement of Pulse production.Rs 500 Crores under National Food Security Mission topulses. Districts covered increased to 622. This is a spe-cifically encouraging step taken as Pulse Farming ismostly rainfed, require low fertilizer inputs, contributes

to protein security, is climate friendly. We spent aboutRs 15,000 Crores this year to import pulses and a fo-cused plan for procurement and assured MSP will be ofa great help. But the FM could have been much moreambitious here. A similar scheme was needed for oilseedstoo.

• Access to markets is critical for farmer incomes. Uni-fied Agri Marketing Scheme has been announced wherea common e-platform will be developed for 585 regulatedwholesale markets. Amendments in APMC Acts are aprerequisite for joining. On the 14th April Birthday ofDr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Unified Platform dedicatedto Nation.

• Revised norms of assistance under National Disas-ter Response Fund in April 2015.

• Special focus on adequate and timely flow of credit tofarmers. Against target of 8.5 Lakh Crores in 2015 16,the target of agri credit 2016-17 will be Rs 9 lakh Crores.

• Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana providing greatercover against natural calamities at a low premium. Pro-vision of Rs 5500 Crores in Budget 2016-17. However,the amount originally estimated to cover all farmers wasRs 17,600 crore. Why this lower allocation?

3. Where are the Rivers? In NDA’s first budget in 2014-15, when Ganga Arati and rhetoric on Ganga cleaning wereat their peak, the Finance Minister had said during his bud-get speech: ” Rivers form the lifeline of our country. Theyprovide water not only for producing food for the multitudesbut also drinking water.”

This year however, there is no mention of Rivers, not evenGanga. However, Namami Gange Plan/ National GangaPlan has been allocated Rs 2250 Crores in the year 2016-17. The plan itself remains unclear. A plan based on Sew-age Treatment Plants alone does not hold promise for Gangawith Rs 2000 Crores budgetary support, or Rs 20,000 Crores,like the money we have spent in the past years, correspond-ing to declining water quality of the river.

Inland Waterways Plan: The much-talked about Planpushed by Minister for Road Transport and Highways andShipping Mr. Nitin Gadkari would be getting around 350Crores in 2016-17 as the combined budget for Sagaramala(Ports project) and Inland Waterways is pitched at 800Crores and Sagarmala is budgeted at 450 Crores. InlandWaterways Program is being pushed without a thought be-ing given to rivers in which they will operate. It is raisingsome very crucial questions, elaborated here: Digging OurRivers’ Graves?

Interlinking of Rivers Plan: The Plan has not been men-tioned in the budget and the scheme does not feature in thefurther discussions. However, the Center is pursuing theproject, disregarding ecological cost, social costs, financialcosts and interstate conflicts.

It looks like Budget 2016-17 has no special announcementsfor rivers. However, plans like 100 Urban Rejuvenation Mis-sion (Amrut and 100 Smart Cities) have been allocated amassive Rs 7296 Crores this FY. Projects like Smart Cit-ies, Highways Project, Inland Waterways all have a stronglink and impact on life support systems like rivers and these

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].

needed to be seriously addressed. India has no policy forUrban Rivers, and this has meant that rivers are commongrounds for encroachment, pollution and extraction, lead-ing to their destruction, like the Ganga, among others.

4. Environment in Union Budget 2016-17

While the Environment Minister was one of the first Minis-ters to official hail Union Budget as “Visionary”, it is a bitsad to see that Ministry of Environment Forests and Cli-mate Change (MoEF and CC) does not feature in the list ofImportant Ministries annexed to Finance Minister’s Speech,nor does a single Scheme from MoEF and CC feature in thelist of Important schemes.

MoEF and CC gets a slightly higher budget than the mas-sively slashed budget for the past two years. However,as Down to Earth has pointed out, there is a hitch here: “TheBudget document shows that allocations to the Ministry ofEnvironment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) havecontinued to rise, from Rs 1,681.60 crore in last year’s bud-get to Rs 2,250.34 crore in 2016-17. But most of this Rs 570-crore increase has come in the form of planned revenue ex-penditure (salary and other operational expenses), whichhas risen by Rs 540 crore to Rs 1,944.75 crore this year.This leaves an increase of only Rs 30 crore divided betweenplanned capital expenditure estimates (expenditure onschemes and programmes) and non-planned estimates. Infact, planned capital expenditure saw a dip in comparisonto actual expenditure undertaken during fiscal year 2014-15.”

Some Climate Change initiates like National Action Planon Climate Change (NAPCC), have seen an increased allo-cation. Of the Rs 180 Crores for Climate Change initiatives,Climate Change Action Programme (CCAP) has been allot-ted Rs 30 crore, the National Mission on Himalayan Stud-ies Rs 50 crore and the National Adaptation Fund Rs 100crore. According to Down to Earth, “While this is more thanthe Rs 160 crore allocated last year, there is no provision tocover the revised estimates of total expenditure of Rs 136.79crore for the CCAP and Rs 115 crore for the National Adap-tation Fund.”

There has been an upward spike in the National CleanEnergy Fund, constituted mainly by Coal Peat & ligniteCess, which has seen increase from Rs 50 to 100 Rs/tonnein 2014-15, further to 200 Rs/tonne is 2015-16 to 400 Rs/tonne in 2016-17. It is reported that it is this fund whichwill be support Inland Waterways Project, which is likelyto destroy our remaining rivers. It will be hugely ironical ifClean Energy Fund levied on coal because of its environ-mental impact is used for Inland transport of Flyash andCoal from Rivers, as envisioned in the Inland WaterwaysPlan!

Budget of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy hasalso been increased considerablyfrom Actual 2014-15:Rs 515 Crores, Revised Estimates 2015-16: Rs 262 Croresand Budgeted Expenditure of 2016-17 at 5036 Crores.

~

All in all, the massive thrust and support for largedam and canal network which has not delivered inpast remains one of the most problematic parts of theBudget. The focus of farmers, encouragement to pulse farm-ers, increased decentralized procurement, increased CleanEnvironment Cess, increased allocations (marginal) toMoEF and CC and CC initiatives are welcome steps. Fi-nally, a budget is as good as its implementation. A look atachievements of the last year indicates that that severalschemes are still listed as under progress. While the aim ofincreasing farmers’ incomes by double in 2022 sounds verystrong and positive, it does remind one of the BJP’s electionpromised of ensuring 50% profit over costs to farmers, unmettill date and now abandoned. Agricultural growth rate hasnot achieved more than 4% in any five year plans, and thistarget will need about 15% Compound Annnual Growth ratein farmers’ income, that looks nearly impossible.

It is also sobering to note, as Devinder Sharma says, thatin 17 states of the country, farmers average monthly in-come is 1666 Rs. Doubling it in five years would mean 3332Rs a month, nearly the same as five years back, if adjustedagainst inflation!

Parineeta Dandekar

References:

1. State-wise details on AIBP Projects here: http://mowr.gov.in/writereaddata/1-1-Completing%20priority%20projects.pdf

2. http://thewire.in/2016/03/01/agriculture-sector-needs-more-than-just-income-security-for-farmers-23273/

3. https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/we-pushed-large-dams-not-irrigation-cm-fadnavis-assembly-speech/

4. http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/proposed-in-1992-bembla-irrigation-project-still-incomplete-112101802012_1.html

5. http://sandrp.in/irrigation Failure of Big IrrigationProjects and Rainfed Agriculture 0510.pdf

6. https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/rivers-and-wa-ter-in-union-budget-2014-15/

7. https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/digging-our-rivers-graves/

8. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/budget-2016-17-loose-change-for-climate-change-52973

Documents

Digging Our Rivers’ Graves? - WordPress.com...2016/02/03 · Budget 2016-17 29 2 Dams, Rivers & People February-March, 2016 1. NWB as a river-control ploy: the Bill, at its core,