7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

1/32

D ams, Rivers & PeopVOL 8 ISSUE 5-6 JUNE JULY 2010 Rs 1 5/-

L e a d P i e ceThe N ational Rive r Conse rvation Auth ority has not m e t at all during U PA rule

Why is the UPA showing such utter disdain for Rivers? The disdain that our politicians, engineers andbureaucrats have for rivers is well known. Even

then the indifference that the UPA I and now UPA II isshowing towards rivers seems shocking.

There can be different ways that this can be shown. Let uslook at the governments most important river conservationinitiative called the National River Conservation Authority.The Authority is chaired by the Prime Minister, no less. Andbelieve it or not, that authority under the Prime Minister hasnot met at all since June 16, 2003, when the last meeting ofNRCA was held. What this means is that during the entirefive years of UPA I and also the last fifteen months of UPAII, the NRCA has not met at all. Even the steeringcommittee of the NRCA, chaired by secretary, UnionMinistry of Environment and Forests, has not met sinceDecember 20, 2007, when the 52 nd meeting of thecommittee was held. What this means is that for the last 32months, including the entire period of UPA II, the steeringcommittee has not met. Even between June 03 and Dec2007, the Steering committee met just four times. It issupposed to meet every quarter, incidentally.

Remember that this is the flagship, National and onlyprogramme of the government for conservation of rivers.Remember also the roots of the programme was in theGanga Action Plan started by the then Prime Minister RajivGandhi in 1985. The apex governing body of the GangaAction Plan was the Central Ganga Authority, chaired bythe Prime Minister. On Sept 5, 1995, the CGA wasconverted into the NRCA, since the GAP had expanded tobecome National Rive Action Plan. One would think that theconnection with Rajiv Gandhi would provide a bettertreatment in this regime, but even that hope is misplaced, itseems.

Importantly, some of the key functions of NRCA include: Tolay down, promote and approve appropriate policies andprogrammes, to examine and approve priorities of NRCP,to review progress of implementation and give necessarydirections, among others. Similarly, the steering committeetoo has very important functions to perform in its quarterlymeetings.

When we asked about this, the officials of the MEF said intheir written reply, Revamping of the river conservationstrategy was initiated in 2007 by the Government and theprocess led to the setting up of National Ganga River BasinAuthority in Feb 2009 for conservation of river Ganga with ariver basin approach. The first meeting of the NGRBA washeld under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister in

October 2009. The experience of this revised approachwould be adopted for conservation of other rivers.

This response does not answer any questions, but onlyraised more. Does the constitution, structure, objectives laiddown, the functioning of the authority for the last 19 monthsand the conduct of its first meeting of the NGRBA raise anyhope for better future of our rivers? Is there any differenceanywhere here that shows that Ganga or other rivers forwhich the same approach is to be adopted are going to betreated any better? Unfortunately, we see no positive signsin any of these.

Incidentally, the process initiated in November 2007through a cabinet note from MEF mentioned in the MEFreply above resulted in a naught. This is because, on24.7.2008 this note was considered in the cabinet and adecision was taken to form a Group of Ministers, but again,disturbingly, that GOM never found time to meet and gotdisbanded with the formation of UPA II.

Our rivers, including Ganga have bleak future. Even MrJairam Ramesh, who gets such high marks from manyobservers for his handling of environment issues on manyother counts, has given absolutely no hope for rivers. Theconclusion is inescapable: the disregard of UPA I and II forour rivers is unprecedented.

SANDRP

INDEXWhy is UPA showing such utter disdain for Rivers? 1Unprecedented floods in Ghaggar Basin in July 2010 2Free f lowing rivers around the world 7Open Letter to Delhi CM: Is there a case for Renuka Dam? 12A village at the merc y of the Bagmati and Bihar government 14 Artif icial glaciers to survive global warming 168.5 lakh ha under System of Rice Intens ification in Tamil Nadu 17Planning Commiss ion critical of Interlinking of Rivers 18Draft Dam Saf ety Bill approved, but will it help? 19Polavaram: AP tries to hoodwink to get National Status 20Babli row between Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra 21Under scanner IVRCL eyes Hydro foray 22Devsari dam public hearing cancelled for the 2 nd time 23Successful campaign against Rupsiyabagar Khasiyabada HEP 24Gujarat is numero uno in river pollution 2689 towns in Rajasthan get w ater by train 27Floods breach century old records in Pakistan: 1500 dead 28Nepal: Kosi High Dam surv ey faces opposition 29Renew able capacity addition surpasses big hydro in 2009 30A bright future for hydro without dams 31Your Letters 32

Contact Himanshu Thakkar, Swarup Bhattacharyya, Ganesh Gaud, Dams, Rivers and People , C/o 86-D, AD Block,Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 1 10 088. India. Ph: 91-11-2748 4654/5 cwaterp@vsnl.com Web: www.sandrp.in

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

2/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

2

Unprecedented floods in Ghaggar BasinSwarup Bhattacharya and Vineet Kumar travelled to affected areas during floods in Ghaggar basin in Punjab and Haryana and bring this report from the ground

In the first and second week of July 2010, Punjab and

Haryana state experienced massive flood disaster in theGhaggar River basin. Ghaggar and its tributariesbreached embankments one after another along itsstretch and flooded vast areas. Over 2 lakh ha ofagricultural land have been affected in Punjab andHaryana, scores of people and hundreds of cattle havedied, houses, roads, bridges, railway lines and canalshave been damaged. There were also breaches incanals, leading to trans fer of flood waters to other partsof the basin far away from the rivers, spreading floods toareas that should not have experienc ed floo ds. Punjaband Haryana Go vts have demanded financial assistanceto the tune of over a thousand crores each from the

Central govt.Ghaggar, a west flowing river originates in Shivalik hillsof Himachal Pradesh flows through Haryana, Punjab,Chandigarh and Rajasthan and disappears in the TharDesert of Rajasthan. Tangri, Markanda, Saras wati,Pachhisdhara are the few important tributaries. Totalbasin area of Ghaggar is 32132 sq km.

Villagers residing in the upper catchment of the Ghaggarin Patiala and Ambala Districts have mentioned that theriver flow was abnormally high from 5 th to 8 th July, 2010due to which the river overflowed and submerged itsflood plain at many places. Haryana and Punjab govt.

blamed each other for the blockade of river flow anddiversion of water. But both of them have raised theirfingers on an unprecedented downpour in the catchmentof Ghaggar River. Heavy discharge and humaninterference in the natural flow of river water along withthe lack of maintenance of embankments and canals aresupposed to be the causes for such a massive loss oflife and property of the common people residing in theGhaggar basin.

Asst. Engineer, Patiala Drainage Division, Punjab toldSANDRP that in Patiala District alone, 73 major andminor breaches have occurred in the first quarter of therainy season in 2010. Here, a breach means the

breakdown of manmade barrier called embankment onthe both side of the river. He pointed out that SangrurDistrict of Punjab has completed GhaggarChannelization process of River Ghaggar just like Sirsaof Haryana District. The Channelization project consistsof putting new embankment discarding the older ones.

Pachhisdhar a, a tributa ry of Ghaggar received heavyflow and it overflowed in Punjab in the first week of theJuly. Main stream Ghaggar along with Markanda andTangri were full o f wat er during that period. On July 6,Ambala and Patiala District received breached water andthat flood water, along the slope of the basin, started

moving in the south-west direction. On 22 nd July, flood

entered into Hanumangarh District of Rajasthan.Chronology: How the flood unfolded and travelled

Ju ly 6 , 2010 A m b a la C a n t o n m e n t , A m b a l a c ity w a s flo o d e d d u e t o a

b r ea c h o f emb ankm e n t ne a r ly 5 km No rt h Ea s t o f the t ownon Tan gri Riv er.

Pa r ts o f the Sha ha b a d t o wn o f A m b a l a D is tr ic tsu b m e rg e d d u e t o a b r e a c h o n M a rka n d a Riv e r.

Lef t b an k of Sut le j -Yamu na Link C an al (SYL) bre ac he dnea r Jyotisa r, Kuruk shetra Distric t, Ha ry an a. Th ane sa r,Kurukshet ra , Did ar N a ga r, Shant i Nag ar an d Jyo t isar gota f f e c t e d .Ju ly 7 , 2010

Anothe r br e a c h oc c u r re d 8 km u p st re am o f th e p rev iou sda y bre ac h s ite ne ar Jy otisar o n SYL.

Gha g g a r wa t e r sp r e a d on b o th sid e s o f t he r ive r ne a rTatia n a, Ka itha l Distr ict of Harya na . Bord ering vil la ges ofPat ia la Dis tr ic t o f Punja b flo od ed . Punjab b la me d Hary an afor b lock ing rive r flo w a t the s iph on s ite of Gha gg ar wi thHa n s i Bu t a n a Ca n a l.

Pa c h h i s d ha ra w a t e r o v e r flo w e d a n d in u n d a te d Ba d aKam m i, La c hhu roo , Sa ra la v i lla ges o f Pa t ia la Dis t ric t , Punja b .Ju ly 8 , 2010

G h a g g a r w a te r b re a c h e d Ha n s i Bu ta n a C a n a l a n dwater en te re d in t o the HBC (a t 003 0 hrs ) ne ar Ta t ian a .

Righ t b ank o f th e HBC n e a r Ta t ian a b r e a c he d a t 0330hrs.

Pa c h h isdha ra b r e a c he d le f t b a n k o f SYL a t t wo p lac e snea r Bada K am m i , Pun j ab . Pac hh isdh a ra f lo w en t e red in toSYL.

Tw o m o r e b r e a c h e s o n Pa c h h isd h a r a n e a r M a h d u d a nvil la ge , Pun ja b .

Bib ipur Lake ne ar Jyot isar bre ac he d .Ju ly 9 , 2010

Right b ank of HBC b re ach e d ne ar Ke orak , Ka ith a lDistr ic t , Ha ry ana .Ju ly 11 , 2 0 1 0

Three b rea c he s on Ran go i Na llah in Fa teh ab a d Dis t ric t ,Ha r yan a . 77 v il la g e s a f fe c t e d .Ju ly 1 2 , 2 0 1 0

G h a g g a r b re a c h e d n e a r M o o n a k , Sa n g ru r D istr ic t o fPun j a b . 1 2 v i l lage s a f fec t ed .

Two b re a c h es on Gha g ga r n ea r Sa rdu lg a rh, Pu n j ab . 30v il la g e s su bm erg e dJu ly 1 3 , 2 0 1 0

Two bre ac he s do wn strea m o f Ottu Weir in Sirsa Distric t,Ha r yan a . 6 v il la g e s a f fe c t e dJu ly 1 4 , 2 0 1 0

Two m o re b re a c h es do w n st re a m o f O t tu We ir. 800 0a c r e s o f la n d a n d 1 3 v il la g e s a ffe c t e dJu ly 1 5 , 2 0 1 0

O u t er e m b a n k m e n t b re a c h e d n e a r Jh o p ra in Si rsaDist r ic t . Ellen a ba d of S irsa D is tr ic t a ffe c te d .Ju ly 2 2 , 2 0 1 0

Ha n u m ang a rh D is tr ic t o f Ra j a s th a n a f fec t ed

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

3/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

3

Ghaggar floods c ould b e seen in two ways; one isbreaching of embankments and spreading of river waterin the fields. Another way to look at it is how theGhaggar water entered the ill designed and ill

maintained canals like SYL and HBC and spread to faroff areas. Lets see how water entered the two defunctcanals (they are yet to be commissioned and aresupposed to have no water) and how those two canalsinstead of providing irrigation water destroyed thestanding crop.

Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal(SYL) with the capacity of2000 cusecs (cubic feet persecond), was built in 1989-90 (90% of the ent ire c analwas built except someportion in Punjab and its

head work near AnandpurSahib) to divert water ofSutlej river to Yamuna.Since then, due toInterstate dispute onsharing of river waterbetween Punjab andHaryana, the SYL canal isyet to be commissioned.Villagers told us thatthroughout the year, theSYL (though it is notfunctional) has retained

some water. Since its inception, SYL was not maintainedproperly. Asst. Engineer, Patiala Drainage Division,Punjab, mentioned that the water from the area aroundthe canal in the Punjab region also sipped and enteredinto SYL through cracks on the wall of SYL. Haryanafarmers blamed Punjab farmers for throwing excesswater of their fields to SYL by deliberately puncturing thewall of the canal. It has been observed that in BadaKammi village, the farmers of Punjab were pumpingwater from the SYL whereas in Haryana portion of theSYL, we could not see a single such pumpset along theSYL (Haryana farmers criticized the state govt. for notgiving permission to pump water from the SYL).

Left bank of SYL near Jyotisar, Kurukshetra District ofHaryana breached on July 6, 2010 and flooded thesurrounding area. Breached water spread up to ShantiNagar and Didar Nagar of Kurukshetra city. Just 50meters upstream of the breached site, Saraswati Riverand a sewage drain of Kurukshetra are crossing theSYL. Flood water also spread on the other side of theSYL through these cross drainage structures andflooded Jyotisar area. Mr Mit hun Lal, Beldar ( watchman)of Haryana Irrigation Department who was posted at thebreach site near Jogan Khera village of Jyotisar toldSANDRP that 10 days before the breach on July 6, the

same breach point was u nder repair from earlier breach.

He said that the negligence to make that temporary pluginto a permanent one is one of the m ain cause for thebreach on July 6 and inundation of vast areas of thedistrict. Another breach of SYL occurred on the very nextday just few km upstream of the Jyotisar breach point.

Pachhisdhara, a small tributary of River Ghaggaroriginates near Chandigarh and confluence near Saralavillage in Patiala District of Punjab. This tributary alsoreceives sewage water from Chandigarh Drain. Punjabvillagers have mentioned that Pachhisdhara was flowingbeyond its capacity on 6 th , 7 th and 8 th July 2010 andwater overflowed at many places near Bada Kammi,

Lachhuroo, Kapuri,Sanjanpur, Sarada, Raipur,Bada Lachhuroo. AssistantEngineer of Punjab DrainageDepartment, who is in-charge of this region, told usthat Pachhisdhara hadbreached the left bank ofSYL near Bada Kammivillage in the early morningof 8 th July, 2010. But thebreach was plugged.Another breach occurred fewhundred meters downstreamof the plugged site but thisbreach could not be plugged.Eventually, 100 feet breachdeveloped by about 10 am

on the same day and the water of Pachhisdhara entered

into the SY L. Assistant Engineer also said that tw o m orebreaches occurred on the embankment of Pachhisdharanear Mahdudan village but there the flood water did notenter into the SYL.

It is clear from this sequence of events that flood waterentered the ill maintained SYL and when the canalbreached at downstream locations, it spread the floodsto new locations that may not have been flood withoutsuch breaches. Thus SYL was instrumental in bringingfloods to new areas. The lack of proper maintenance ofthe canal both in Punjab and Haryana was a majorreason. This story of ill maintained canals creatingdisasters is not limited to SYL, it seems, as we seebelow for the Hansi Butana Canal, anot her yet to becommissioned canal of Haryana.

Hansi-Butana Canal Hansi-Butana Canal (HBC), aproject of Haryana Govt., officially known as BML-HB-BB-MPLC, was completed for most o f its length in 2008-09 at a cost of Rs 400 crores to take Sutlej water toHansi and Butana region of Haryana. It is supposed tocarry 2086 cusecs of water through its brick-lined canal.As per the project design, it is supposed to get waterafter puncturing the BML (Bhakra Main Line) when itenters into Haryana for a brief stretch in Kaithal Districtnear Samana in Punjab.

I t is clear from this sequence of events thatf lood w ater ent ered the i l l mainta ined SYL andwhen the canal breached at downstreamlocation s, it spread t he floods to ne w lo cation sthat may not have been f lood wi thout suchb re ache s. Thus SYL w as inst ru men t al inbr inging floods to new area s. The lack o fproper maintenance of the canal both inPunjab and Haryana was a major reason. Thisst o ry of ill m ain t ain ed can als creat in g d isast er sis not limite d to SYL, it see ms, as w e see belo wfor the Hansi Butana Canal , another yet to becom m ission ed canal of Ha ryana .

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

4/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

4

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

5/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

5

The canal is yet to be commissioned since Punjab andRajasthan, who have share of water in the BML, haveopposed this and Haryana did not get their consentbefore building the canal. The case is now pending inthe Supreme Court.

On 7 th July midnight at about 0030 hrs in presence ofsenior officials of Haryana Irrigation Department, amassive breach (about 70 m) occurred on the left bankof the HBC at Kharal Village. This left bank of the HBC isalso the left embankment of River Ghaggar (note thatthe flow of water in HBC and Ghaggar is in oppositedirections). Mr. Arvind Kaushik, XEN (ExecutiveEngineer), Irrigation Department, Kaithal, Haryana toldSANDRP that Ghaggar received heavy discharge due torains and inundated flood plains in Kaithal District ofHaryana and Patiala District of Punjab. Flood watercreated pressure on the left embankment near Tatiana

and breached the embankment. Irrigation department ofHaryana Govt. claimed that on 8 th July Ghaggar waterreached 27.50 ft in the gauging station near Tatianawhich was 2 nd highest in last 26 yrs.

Some of the recent High Ghaggar River Di scharge sat RD 140000 of Ghaggar Bund (near Tatiana)Date Year Gauge in ft. Discharge (in Cusecs)26-09 1988 25.40 5635312-07 1993 30.40 10000006-09 1995 27.10 6207006-08 2004 27.00 6173008-07 2010 27.50 63460

Villagers of Khambheda, a flood affected village near

Tatiana, told us that after1993, they have for the firsttime witnessed such amassive downpour as wellas heavy discharge of riverGhaggar. They alsomentioned that the floods of1993 hadnt affected themso much but this flood hadtaken everything from them. They pointed out that thesiphon of HBC on Ghaggar River had obstructed thenatural flow and hence,backwater effect inundated thevast areas.

The Punjab govt. has alsoblamed the Haryana govt. on thesame ground of inadequatecapacity of the sip hon for floodingof Patiala District of Punjab.Another villager said that thelarge number of pillars of thesiphon had obstructed the naturalflow. Mr. Arvind Kaushik, XENreplied that in 1993, the level offlood water in Ghaggar Riverincreased from 21ft to 30 ft in one week at the same

gauge station near Tatiana but in 2010, the level of floodwater increased from 16ft to 27ft in just one night of 6 th-7th July.

Mr. Arvind Kaushik, XEN denied this claim and

supported the structural design of siphon by saying thatthe capacity of that siphon is more than one lakh cusecs(this itself was a gross understatement and aninaccurate figure from the engineer, considering that thedesign capacity is supposed t o be 162300 cusecs)whereas on the night of July 7 the flow in Ghaggar was63460 cusecs (the discharge capacity of Ghaggar riverat the siphon, as mentioned on the board at the sitesays: 1,62,300 cusecs, see the photo, for other photos ofthis visit, see:http://www.sandrp.in/floods/Pictoral_depiction_of_Ghaggar_Flood_2010.pdf ).

The politics around the capacity of that siphon will

actually require a separate analysis and investigation.There is no doubt that the s iphon is going to play crucialrole in coming years.

Mrs. Gurnaam Kaur, 55 yrs., residing beside the siphontold us that her paddy field was submerged but notaffected too much because it was on the downstream ofthe siphon on Ghaggar River. She clearly mentioned thattheir fellow villagers whose land was in the upstream ofthe siphon, were worst affected than her. She wasclearly hinting that siphon did act as a block even at thebelow design flow of 63460 cusecs. In addition to thesiphon structure, villagers also blamed the use of poorconstruction material and negligenc e of m aintenance.

They showed anger againstthe state govt for misusingRs 400 crores on the HBCproject. During the fieldvisit, we observed that fromTatiana to Siphon site(nearly 4 km), both thebanks of the HBC are in bad

shape.

Just about two years old, newly built HBC againcollapsed nearly 25 kmsdownstream of Tatiana village at

RD 160400 (RD is runningdistance, all in feet, from somestarting point, which is thepuncture point at BML for HB C).This time, it was the right bank ofHBC near Keorak village. Mr.Vijender Singh, 36 yrs, residingnearby village along with districtofficials were on the spot on 8 th July to strengthen the rightembankment of the canal but failedto do so. Mr. Singh blamed on the

ill function of the cross-drainage structures near itsbreach portion. He said that the flood water from

It is clear fro m th is seq uen ce of event s th at th ei l l designed (for example the siphon over theGhaggar river) and ill maintained Hansi ButanaCan al has pla yed a crucial role in sp reading thefloo d disast er in Ghaggar ba sin t o ne w areas.

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

6/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

6Kurukshetra ente red into the Kaithal drain and that drainwas not properly maintained due to which the waterengulfed the nearby areas. This stagnant water createdpressure from the outer side on the right bank of theembankment on HBC.

Mr. Arvind Kaushik, XEN,said that in-betweenTatiana and Keorak, thereare 10-20 water inlets whichcontribute to the HBC. OnJuly 8, water level of HBCrose significantly andcreated overflowingsituation. He said that theflood water of Ghaggarwhich entered near Kharalvillage, Tatiana was not the only reason for overflowingHBC near Keorak. Flood water entering through those10-20 inlets (mentioned above) and breached water ofBibipur Lake flowing through Saraswati drain (anotherinlet) contributed to the situation. He pointed out that dueto the relatively lower height of the right bank ofembankment (at breac h point), water came out anderoded the outer wall very fast. Suddenly, a portion ofthe wall collapsed and water spread near to Kaithal towninundating vast areas.

It is clear from thissequence of e vents that theill designed (for examplethe siphon over the

Ghaggar river) and illmaintained Hansi ButanaCanal has played a crucialrole in spreading the flooddisaster in Ghaggar basinto new areas.

Interestingly, twenty yea rs ago, a committee was formednamed Ghaggar Standing Committee, which wassupposed to work on the flood problems of the basin.The committee is chaired by a Central WaterCommission member and includes officials of Punjab,Haryana and Rajasthan. According to Mr. S. S More,Draftsman, Kaithal Water Servic es Division, Haryana,More than 20 meetings have had happened since itsformation but no result has come out yet.

No matter how much w as the unprecedented rain inthe catchment of the Ghaggar basin, human interferencein its natural flow has caused devastation. In the name ofChannelisation or embankment, policy makers virtuallywant to turn a river into a canal. The embankmentsbasically work to rapidly transfer the flood from upstreamto downstream areas. Suddenly, when a river basinreceives more rainfall than what the ill maintainedembankments can safely carry, they pass the blame tounprecedented rains or to the other basin states. In the

name of embankments we are restricting the movementof a free flowing river. We are putting wall in the name ofembankment and narrowing its path. Secondly, we arenot properly maintaining the embankments. Thirdly, we

are creating additio nal

structures like the canalswhich are neither properlydesigned, nor properlymaintained.

There are a number of otherfactors that have contributedto the Ghaggar basin flooddisaster. At a number ofplaces the flood plains andeven flow paths have beenencroached upon by various

builders, with the partnership of the bureaucrats,politicians and the engineers. Secondly, the local waterharvesting structures have been poorly maintained. TheBuilding of the HBC itself had illegally encroached intosanctuary areas. Thirdly, exogenous water is enteringthe basin from the Sutlej and the Yamuna basin andeven as parts of the basin was experiencing havingrainfall and which was down to create heavy flows in theGhaggar river, the water from exogenous sources and

groundwater kept enteringthe surface waters in thebasin.

Moreover, there is nocoordination between the

riparian sates. There is nocoordination even within thestate also. Therefore, whenan upstream state/districtreceives such a heavy

downpour, they dont bother to alert the downstreamstates/districts. The downstream areas are also notusing the information about rainfall, flows in theupstream areas. Many times, the upstream states aretrying to hide the facts and starting to blame others.

One of the direct consequences of this could be seen inSirsa district when the wheat stored in the open and illmaintained godowns got destroyed, when the authoritiesthere had a notice of more than a week that floods th ereare bound to come considering the upstream e vents s eethe map of Ghaggar basin flood that depicts thechronology of events and progress of flood disasterdownst ream so clearly.

In case o f Ghaggar basin the unused, ill designed and illmaintained SYL and HBC have transferred the flooddisaster to other parts of the states. The events in theGhaggar basin in July 2010 have shown the kind of manmade disasters we are inviting. It could be a wake upcall if we were interested in learning some lessons.Unfortunately, that does not seem to the case.

~~~~~~~

There are a num ber o f o ther fac tors tha t havecontributed to the Ghaggar basin f looddisaste r. At a nu mber of places the f lood plainsand even f low paths have been encroachedupon by various builders, with the partnershipof the bureaucrats , poli t icians and theen gine ers. Secondly, t he local w ate r harvest ingstr uctu res ha ve been poorly m ainta ined.

Int erest ingly, tw enty years ago, a com mitte ewas formed named Ghaggar StandingCommittee, which was supposed to work onthe f lood problems of the basin. Thecomm ittee is chaired by a Cen tral W aterCom m ission me m ber and include s officials ofPu njab, Haryan a and Rajasthan .

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

7/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

7The other side of the Story

Free-flowing rivers around the WorldParineeta Dandekar (parineeta.dandekar@gmail.com)

With around 5100 large dams, India ranks third in theworld with regards to the number of large dams. Theongoing debate over the economic, social andenvironmental costs of large dams has indicated manytimes that these costs are not commensurate with theirbenefits. Although we havedammed all our majorrivers, (except Brahmaputraand plans to dam its majortributaries are on way,some like Ranganadi havealready been dammed),profoundly changing theirhydrological, ecological,

social and cultural systems,we are yet to form alegally enforceable policywhich states thatenvironmental flows inrivers are a necessity . It ismore than clear now thatenvironmental flows relateto well being of not only birds and fishes, but also of theentire human society 1. Take an example of fisheries, lackof flows in rivers and contractor-owned reservoir fishinghas affected the livelihood of hundreds of thousands ofsmall fishermen 2. Environmental flows can also dilute

pollution load, so let us not hide behind the fact thatpollution is wiping out our riverine fish, not the absenceof flows. It is also clear that environmental flows do NOTmean a decommissioning of all the present d ams, nor dothey mean any random figure like 60% or 10% of MeanAnnual Runoff 3. Environmental flows (Eflows, using it forlack of better term) require reaching a wise compromisethrough science and local neg otiations, for each river.

While many countries have put in plac e policies and lawsfor maintaining environmental flows in their rivers, there

1 Dyson, M., Bergkamp, G., Scanlon, J. (eds ). Flow. TheEssentials of Environmental Flows. IUCN, Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK. xiv + 118 pp.2 Person al co mmunication with Chairman of NationalAss ociation o f Fish ermen,* Sandhu, J. S. & Toor, H. S. 1984. Effects of Dams and Fishways on Fish Fauna wi th Special Reference to Punjab , inStatus of Wildlife in Punjab. Indian Ecolog ical Society,Ludhiana, Ind ia. pp 117-124* D. Jackson et al, The Influence of Dams on River Fisheries ,Submiss ion to t he World Commission on Dams3 Smakhtin, V.; Anputhas, M. 2006. An assessment of environmental f low requirements of Indian river basins.Colombo, Sri Lan ka: International Water Management

Institute. 42p. (IWMI Research Report 107)

is also a rarer category: Rivers which have not beendammed yet, rivers which retain their connectionfrom the source to the sea, nurturing myriadecosystem s and communitie s in their wake! Theseare known by many names like Free flowing rivers, Wild

Rivers, Pristine/ Virginrivers, Heritage Rivers, etc.,each indicating their rarecharacter and value. Inecological and culturalterms, the value of theserivers is immense and asmore and more rivers arebeing dammed the world

over, this value is increasingsteeply. Unfortunately, intodays economic terms,these rivers are still waitingto get their due recognition,but as human systemsevolve, they will surely beseen as invaluable service

providers with phenomenal use and non use values.

Such free flowing rivers are, as is evident, d windling fastthroughout. Of the 177 large rivers of the world only onethird are free flowing and a mere 21 rivers, more than1000 kms long retain a direct connection to the sea.

Ecologically, free flowing rivers have a huge significance.All natural flow levels have a specific ecological function,including drought level flows, which help in purgingexotic species, as well in concentrating game at asmaller place, for the benefit of predators and floodflows, which help in numerous ways like groundwaterrecharge, nutrient balancing, fish spawning, sedimentflushing, etc . Owing to the habitats they provide, the fewfree flowing/ least modified rivers in India are last refugesof endangered fish species like Giant Catfish, GangeticDolphin, Snow Trout, Mahaseer, etc. Free flowingstretches of river Chalakudy in Kerala, where water

levels are not strongly affected by dams, support morethan 50 fish species, while the National Chambal GharialSanctuary, Ken and Son National Parks support thrivingpopulations of Gharials, Mugar and the Ganges RiverDolphin. Despite being a Sanctuary, Chambal GharialSanctuary had to face turbulent times when a string offour hydropower projects were planned by Rajasthan inits course, affecting its unique biodiversity. That plan,fortunately, has been rejected by the National WildlifeBoard.

At the same time, free flowing rivers and stretches alsoprovide innumerable community services like fisheries,tourism, water supply, to name a few. For example, one

Althou gh w e have damm ed al l our m ajor r iver s,(except Brahmaputra and plans to dam i t sm ajor tr ibutar ies are on w ay, som e l ikeRanganadi have a l ready been dammed) ,profoundly changing their hydrological,ecological, social and cultural systems, we are

yet to form a legally enforceable policy whichsta tes that environm ental f low s in r ivers are ane cessi ty. I t is mo re th an clear now th aten vironm ent al f low s relate to w ell being of notonly birds and fishes, but also of the entirehu ma n society.

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

8/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

8of the small free flowing rivers in the Western Ghats,Shastri, provides drinking quality water to its inhabitantsthroughout the year, without any dams. Estuary of RiverAnghanashini in Karnataka provides income to morethan 9600 household through collection of bivalves

(clamps) and mussels alone. There is a very urgent needto assess the ecological goods and services provided bythese rivers in order to have a fair cost-benefit analysisof dammed and undammed rivers.

Unfortunately, India does not have any legislation toprotect the free flowing status of any of its rivers. In arecent attempt, following many campaigns including butnot limited to Dr. G.D. Agarwals fast unto death, alimited stretch of Bhagirathi (Gangotri to the point ofupstream of Uttarkashi at the upstream most limit ofreservoir of Maneri Bhali I) had been declared to be freeof dams, but now with the Group of Ministers headed byFinance Minister Pranab Mukherjee deciding to goahead with the controversial Loharinag Pala Hydropowerproject, that possibility has also dimmed. Considering thevery special cultural value of rivers like Ganga andNarmada in the hearts of all Indians, this step, even if itmaterialises, is too little, toolate and rather superficial.

Amidst this scenario, thereare many countries whichare actively trying to protectthese last sentinels fromthe onslaught of dams andhave been devising some

ingenious legislative toolsto co manage ecology, economy and societal well being.

So let us, for a change, look at the other side of the story, where policies and voluntary efforts are being made to enable rivers to run free.

There are a number of lessons to be learnt from thesecases. Firstly : these policies and laws were not easilyconstituted. Many Individuals, Civil SocietyOrganisations, Cultural Groups, Nature Groups,Indigenous Peoples groups, etc., lobbied for them hardand long, and are still doing it. Secondly, these policiesare not a mere compromise to keep som e groups happy,

so that the process of damming other rivers can go onwithout disturbance. Most of the countries have setcriteria for identifying their own Wild and Scenic/ Heritage/Wild or National Rivers and have meticulouslyclassified activities that can take place in variousstretches of these rivers. Community participation andspecial attention to indigenous community and traditionalwater rights are also highlights of these cases. Let ustake a brief look at some of these efforts.

WILD & SCENIC RIVERS ACT (1968): USA

The Act specifically [ d]eclares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at

appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfil other vital national

conservation purpo ses .(Emphasis added)It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain s elected rivers of the Nation which,with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic,fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values,shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The essence of the Act is protection of free-flowingchara cter of the river . Free-flowing is de fined in the Actas existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. Note that, like it iscontested in India that run of-the- river schemes do n ot

affect a river, according tothis Act, a free flowing riverdoes not include modificationin the waterway orstraightening. To qualify, ariver or river segment mustbe in a free-flowing conditionand must be deemed tohave one or more

outstandingly remarkablescenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,cultural or other similar values.

Each river is administered by either a federal or stateagency. The Wild and scenic Rivers and /or theirstretches and tributaries are managed by variousFederal and State Agencies like the Bureau of LandManagement, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US ForestService, N ational Park Service, etc,. In 1995, a Wild andScenic Rivers Council has been formed with thecoordination of the above mentioned agencies as well asany other agencies that have interest in protecting/ managing the river.

Jurisdiction of the States over their waters remainsunaffected, so long as it does not interfere with thefunctioning of this law. It also states that the water rightsof the affected individuals will be compens ated.

Based on their characters, Rivers are classifies as Wild,Scenic and Recreational, with varying management ineach of the categories. This mechanism allowsdevelopment of varying degree to places on and alongthe river.

The Act prohibits fede ral support for actions such a sthe constructio n of dams or other in stream activities

Amidst this scenario, there are many countriesw hich are active ly trying to prot ect th ese lastsentinels from the onslaught of dams and havebeen devising some ingenious legislative toolsto co manage ecology, economy and societalw ell be ing.

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

9/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

9that would harm the river's free-flowing condition,wa ter quality, or outstanding resource values.

As of 2008, the 40 th anniversary of the Act, the NationalSystem protects more than 11,000 miles of 166 rivers

in 38 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; thisis a little more than one-quarter of one percent of thenation's rivers. By compari son, more than 75,000large dams across the country have modified at least600,000 miles, or about 17%, of American rivers.

On March 30, 2010, the congress added 1,100 miles ofrivers to this Act. Currently, the number of riversprotecte d under the Wild and Scenic Rivers scheme toa total of 252 (American Rivers 2009).

CANADI AN HERITAGE RIV ERS S YST EM 1984

Canadas outstanding rivers will be nationally

recognized and managed through the support and stewardship of local people and provincial, ter ritorial and federal governments to ensure the long-term conservation of the rivers natural, cultural and recreational values and integrity. -Vision of Canadian Heritage River System Charter,1997

The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) isCanada's national river conservation program. TheCHRS was established in 1 984 by the federal, provincialand territorial governments to conserve and protect thebest examples of Canadas river heritage to give themnational recognition, and to encourage the public toenjoy and appreciate them(http://www.chrs.ca/About_e.htm). It is a cooperativeprogram of the governments of Canada, all 10 pro vinces,and the three territories. CHRS is a Public Trust andparticipation in the CHRS is purely voluntary .

The system is governed by a Heritage Rivers Boardwhich has members from the government as well ascitizens. For a river to be included in the Heritagesystem, it needs to be nominated and designated. To beconsidered, the river must have outstanding natural,cultural and/or recreational values, a high level of publicsupport, and the application should demonstrate that

sufficient measures will be put in place to ensure thatthose values will be maintained. One of the important(though not the decidi ng) criteria related to NaturalIntegrity is absence of human made impoundments in the river course.

The river becomes designated as a Heritage River whena management plan, or heritage strategy , thatensures the river will be managed to conserve itsoutstanding natural, cultural and/or recreational values,is lodged with the Board by the go vernme nt(s) that madethe nomination. This plan charts out important activitiesto be undertaken to protect the river like resto ration,environment education, pollution treatment, etc,

Production of a management plan or heritagestrategy is ba sed on public consultation andconsensus.

The Heritage Rivers Board has published important

works relating to Cultural Framework for CanadianHeritage Rivers" which enumerates the elements ofCanada's cultural river heritage and a Framework forthe Natural Values of Canadian Heritage Rivers, whichcan be used to assess the representation of theseelements by rivers in the CHRS, or candidate CHRSrivers.

In a recent happening, an MP of North Alberta voicedstrong opposition to an oil sands project, which wasabout to draw freshwater f rom t he untouched ClearwaterRiver, using the support from his constituents throughClearwaters CHRS status. This is far cry from ourcountry where rivers which are untouched and of great

ecological and cultural importance are looked upon asuntapped resources, as if we are deriving no servicefrom them currently.

Interesting part is that CHRS does not only work withfree flowing rivers, but also on highly developed riverslike Grand and Ottawa, to conserve their heritagecharacters. Currently, 38 rivers are designated asHeritage Rivers, whi le six are nominated. These riversrepresent Canadas diverse social, cultural andecosystems.

WILD RIVERS ACT, AUST RALIA

According to the Act, a Wild River is defined as a channel, channel network, or a connected network of waterbodies, of natural origin and exhibiting overland flow (which can be perennial, intermittent or episodic) in which: the biological, hydrological and geomorphological

processes associated with river flow; and the biological, hydrological and geomorphological

processes in those parts of the catchment, with which the river is intimately linked, have not been significantly altered since European settlement.

Like India, many of Australias river systems received a

ravaging during the process of colonisation and thedevelopment of modern Australia. Most of its riversystems today are severely degraded due to over-extraction, pollution, catchment modification and riverregulation (Dunn 2000, Arthington and Pussey 2003,Kingsford et al 2005).

Background: The seeds of the Wild Rivers Campaignand the subsequent Act were sown during the FranklinRiver campaign, led by The Tasmanian WildernessSociety in 1970s. With intense and tireless efforts, ahuge hydropower dam on the unique Franklin River inTasmania was stopped. Through the Wilderness

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

10/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

10Society, efforts for protecting the remaining untouchedrivers went on.

In 1992, the Wild Rivers Act was passed, The mainresponsibility of managingWild Rivers lay with theAustralian HeritageCommission, overseeingthe project was the Wild Rivers Committee , whichincluded representatives from the Commonwealth, Stateand Territory governments, local government,landowners (including the National Farmers Federation),conservation groups, Indigenous people and thescientific community.

The Australian Heritage Commission completed the Wild Rivers Project in 1998, which culminated in the reports

The Identification of Wild Rivers and Conservation Guidelines for the Management of Wild River Values ( Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australia.1998a and 1998b ). Thes e reports later formed the basisfor the Queensland Wild Rivers Act 2005.

Wild River Criteria Wild Rivers is defined as a streamthat has all, or almost all, of its natu ral values intact. Thisdoes not necessarily mean that the river is in pristinecondition, but rather that it remains largely unaffectedby development in its catchment area . TheDepartment of Environment and Resource Managementhas identified the following elements that are necessaryto constitute a wild river:* Hydrology - the rivers are free flowing and wellconnected to their floodplains and shallow aquifers.* Geomorphology - the bed and bank are stable with anatural movement of sediment along the river toestuaries and floodplains.* Water quality - sufficient to meet hum an and ecologicalneeds.* Riparian vegetation - sufficient trees, shrubs andsedges to protect banks and provide food for fauna.* Wildlife corridors - natural habitat along rivers to allownative animals to migrate within their natural ranges.

Like in India, water is a State subject in Australia andeach state has the right to manage its Wild Rivers inwhichever way it deems fit.

In some Australian states like Queensland, when thestate government sought to reform water managementby passing the Water Act 2000, conservation groups strongl y advocated for paral lel di screte legisla tion to protect the conservation values of rivers, including free flowing rivers. This was in recognition that the Water Act focused on water allocation and use but did not specifically address environm ental protection issues, nor provide a sensible and effective regulatory framework to protect Queen slands remaining free flowing ri vers.

How the Legislation works In order to give cleardefinition for this assessmentprocess, a declared WildRiver Area (defined by ariver basin) is spatially

mapped into differentmanagement areas, whichhave varying rules to guidedevelopment activities in theWild Rivers Code .

The management areas include: High Preservation Area : the buffer zone around the

main watercourses and wetlands where ecologicallydestructive development like dams, irrigated agricultureand strip mining is prohibited. Lower-impact activities,such as grazing, infrastructure such as houses, andfishing are allowed. Preservation Area : the remainder of the basin, where

most development activity can occur as long as it meetsrequirements that minimise the impacts on the riversystem. Floodplain Management Area : important floodplain

areas in the basin, where the construction of levees andother flow-impeding development is regulated to protectthe connectivity between this area and the main riverchannels. Sub-artesian Managem ent Area : areas where there

is an underlying aquifer that is strongly connected to theriver system. Water extraction from this area needs to beconsidered in the overall water allocation for the basin. Designated Urban Area : areas where there is a town

or village, so certain types of development are exemptfrom the Wild Rivers C ode . Nominated Waterways : secondary tributaries or

streams in the Preservation Area where certaindevelopment set-backs apply.

In practice this means that destructive developmentslike large dams, intensive irrigation, and miningcannot occur in sensitive riverine and wetlandenvironments (in the High Preservation Area), while arange of other developments have to meet sensiblerequirements outlined by the Wild Rivers Code .

A Wild River declaration cannot occur without extensive

community consultation, including a public submissionphase. The formal consultation process is triggeredwhen the Government releases a draft declarationproposal (termed a nomination). This includesreleasing a draft map showing proposed managementareas, and is followed by months of face-to-facemeetings between the Government and communities,sectoral groups, and in dustry organisations, as well as achance for people to lodge submissions with the Govt.

NATIO NAL RIV ERS, SWEDEN

According to the Swedish Ecologist Christer Nilsson, oneof the pioneering champions of free flowing rivers,environmental movement to protect the countrys last

Looking at the ecological assessment of riversin India, w e can safely conclude t hat ecologicalgoods and services of mo st of th e rivers are n otyet quantif ied, and i t wil l indeed be anirreparable loss to lose these services throughsho rt sight ed m anagem ent decisions.

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

11/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

11four major rivers from dams began in the late sixties,following the damming of Swedens majority of rivers.This was the first major environmental battle in Sweden.In April 1970 the government decided to prohibit theplanned development on one of the four rivers.

The environmental movement was discussing theimportance of free flowing rivers scientifically for the firsttime. The Swedish Govt protected these four rivers asNational Rivers and a few smaller ones through variousmeasures like National Parks, Protected areas, etc.Presently the major rivers Kalix, Torne and two otherrivers are national rivers, protected from any planneddevelopment.

Conclusion Looking at the immense use and non usevalues of free flowing rivers, the need to protect these(few) rivers is very real and urgent. Although thecountries listed here which have worked on legislation/ institutions to maintain free flowing rivers are developed,developing countries like ours have important lessons tolearn from this as we depend more heavily and directlyon our natural resources. The rural poor and themarginalised are the biggest losers when we lose thisnatural capital. When climate change has become anirrevocable fact and the futures of peninsular andHimalayan Rivers look disturbing, conservation of naturalresources, especially free flowing rivers becomes evenmore critical.

Without getting entangled in trying to exactly define afree flowing river (as most of the rivers, if not the feederstreams, have been impounded through small scale

structures, which impounda miniscule quantity ofwater, compared to largedams), we can assume thatrivers whose water flow andsediment flow is notstrongly affected by dams,which have not beenembanked or channelized,which have good riparianhealth and water qualityand which supportimportant biodiversity andcommunity services shouldbe protected for the benefit of current and futuregenerations. These rivers will provide an engagingoutdoor laboratory for young minds of tomorrow, whomay not see a natural river at all. Like river Gundia inWestern Ghats, which is now threatened withhydropower dams, these rivers will provide the lasthaven for dwindling aquatic, riparian and avianbiodiversity and may nurture a thriving forest ecosystem.

Looking at the ecological assessment of rivers in India,we can safely conclude that ecological goods andservices of the rivers are not yet quantified. It will indeedbe an irreparable loss to lose these services throughshort sighted management decisions.

At the same time, even in the case of dammed rivers,there are stretches which are of unique ecological/ social/ cultural value, which should be protected. Forexample, stretches of rivers like Chalakudy, Jia Bhoroli,Ramganga, Kabini, etc. which s upport immensely richfisheries as well as avian biodiversity, Stretches of riverslike Narmada, Ganga, Krishna, Godavari which are ofhigh cultural/ spiritual importance. These stretchesshould receive special protection through measures likeEcological Sensitive Areas, National Parks,Cons ervation areas, etc .

At the very least, rivers representing each ecologicalclass like Himalayan, desert rivers, peninsular riversfrom eastern and Western Ghats, etc., need to beconserved and ecologically/socially important stretchesin all the large rivers should be identified and protected.

All in all, looking at the dismal performance of Union and

state water resources ministries, Union and StateMinistries of Environment and Forests, Central and StatePollution Control Boards, Fisheries Departments, ActionPlans like Ganga, Yamuna and other River Action Planswhich result in NO change in the status of river,Parliament, judiciary, media and other arms of ourdemocracy, it is high time that we learn our lessons:River Conserva tion i s better than re storation andprioritise protection of fre e flow ing rivers.

Bibliography

1. An introduction to Wild and Scenic Rivers ,1998, Technical Report ofthe Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council

2. Free-flowing rivers: Economic luxury or ecological necessity? 2006, World Wide Fund for Nature3. Jhunjhunw ala, 2010, Economicsof River Flow s , Lessons f rom DamRemovals in America, Kalpaz Books4. Canadian Heritage RiverSystems Charter, 1997,www.chrs.ca/PDF/CHEng.pdf5. A Cultural Framew ork f orCanadian Heritage Rivers, 1997,Minister of Public Works andGovernment Services Canadahttp://www.chrs.ca/PDF/Cultural_ Fr

amew ork_e.pdf6. A Framework of the NaturalValues of Canadian Heritage

Rivers, 1997, Minister of PublicWorks and Government Services Canadahttp://www.chrs.ca/PDF/Natural_Values_e.pdf7. Canadian Heritage River Sys tem, Strategic Plan , 2008-2018, (2007) Canadian Heritage River Systemshttp://www.chrs.ca/PDF/CHRS-Strategic-Plan-2008-2018-eng.pdf8. Stein et al, 2001, Wild Rivers in Australia, International Journal of Wilderness ,VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1www.wilderness.net/library/documents/stein1.pdf9. Helen Dunn, 2000, Identifying and Protecting Rivers of High Ecological Value , LWRRDC Occ asional Paper 01/ 10. Glenn Walker ,2010, Wilderness Societys Wild River Campaign http://www.w ildrivers.org.au/infoQuentine Duthie,2009, Rivers Wild and Free , FMC Bulletin, New Z ealand11. Postel, Richter, 2003 Rivers for Life: Managing Water for Peopleand Nature, Island Press12. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report, 2005

Loo king at t he disma l perform ance of Union &sta te w ater resources ministr ies, Un ion & StateM inist ries o f Env iron m ent & Forest s, Cen tra l &State Pollution Control Boards, FisheriesDepartments, Action Plans like Ganga, Yamunaan d ot her River Act ion Plan s w hich result in N Ochange in the status of river, Parliament,judiciary, media and other arms of ourd em ocracy, it is high t im e t hat w e pr iorit isep rotect ion o f free flo w ing rivers.

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

12/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

12Open letter to Delhi & Himachal Pradesh govt, Ministr ies of Environment & Water Resources, Planning Commission

Is there a case for Renuka Dam?A large number of individuals and organizations from Delhi on June 30, 2010 wrote a letter to Delhi Chief Minister, Lt Governor of Delhi, Delhi Jal Board CEO, Himachal Prades h Chief Minister, Chairman of Himachal Pradesh Power

Corporation Limited, Union Ministe rs of Environment & Forests , Union Minister of Water Resources and also Pl anning Commiss ion memb er in charge of water resources, besides UPA chairperson Smt Sonia Gandhi. The letter questioned the need, desirability and viability of the proposed Renuk a dam, meant b asically for Delhis water supply. The signatories included Shri Ramaswamy Iyer, Paritosh Tyagi, Manoj Mishra, Rajendra Singh, Dr. Vandana Shiva, Prof Amita Baviskar, among many others. The full text and list of signatories can be found at www.sandrp.in. Here we are giving main text of the letter. Except an ack nowledgement from the office of Delhi Chief Minister, there has been no response from any one to whom the letter has been sent.

The Delhi govt has been promoting and funding thecontroversial 148 m high Renuka Dam in Sirmaur Districtof Himachal Pradesh. This dam on river Giri, a tributaryof Yamuna River is basically meant to supply water toDelhi. The Rs 3900 crores(2006 price line) project is tobe funded with 90% of themoney coming from theCentre. In fact the Delhigovt has already paid theHimachal Pradesh PowerCorp Limited Rs 215 crorefor land acquisition anddisplacement related to thisRenuka dam from whichDelhi hopes to get 23 cubicmeters p er s econd water fornine post-monsoon months.We the citizens and groups

of Delhi (some of usrecently visited the valley)after study of the projectand Delhis water situationwould like to raise thefollowing points:

1. Avoidable losse s According to a number of studies,including a recent ASSOCHAM 4 study and also thestatements of Delhi Jal Board, water losses in Delhiduring transmission and distribution are 35-40%, whichshould be no more than 10-15% even by developingcountry standards. 23% of the water supply connectionsremain unmetered. Most of the bulk water meters of theDJB have not been functioning for m any ye ars, so adisintegrated analysis as to where these losses aregoing is not possible. This state of affairs has beenknown to exist for o ver a decade, but the re is no changein this state of affairs. Why is the DJB not able to installfunctioning bulk water met ers at various inlets, includingupto the colony level inlets? Why is the DJB not able toreduce the losses? If Delhi co uld reduce the losses from40% to technically feasible 10%, the water saved wouldbe almost the same quantity that Delhi hopes to get fromthe proposed Renuka dam at far less costs and impacts.

4 http://beta.theh indu.com /news/cities/Delhi/art icle76718.ece, accessed onJune 23, 2010

Similarly, why is Delhi not taking other possible demandside management options to discourage avoidablemisuse of water? Here it is equally important to note thatDelhi has been using its current water supply in a most

inequitable way. While the

vast majority of thepopulation struggles to getwater for their daily basicneeds, there are islands thatuse water most wastefully.This is the known state ofaffairs for many years andDelhi govt has achievedprecious little improvement inthis situation. Sooner, ratherthan later, we need to realizethat Delhi cannot keepdemanding more water foritself from far-off placeswhen there are competingand justifiable demands onthat water from local people.

2. Non-e ssential a ctivities Delhi is basically dependent

on water imported from long distances. Despite t his a lotof avoidable water-intensive non essential activities areallowed to continue in Delhi, including licensed and otherwater bottling plants (including by the DJB andRailways), golf courses, water parks an d so on. How canDelhi justify demands for more water from long distanceswhen such non-essential water guzzling activities are

allowed to go on here?3. Rainwater harvesting Even as lip service is beingpaid and massive amounts spent ritualistically every yearin advertisements, why there is so little progress on theground in achieving Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) inDelhi? What proportion of Govt (Centre, State and citygovernment) buildings, embassies, commercialbuildings, offices, malls, multiplexes, colleges, schools,institutional buildings, road surfaces, flyovers, parks andsuch other open spaces have installed RWH systems?Why should they all not be given say a two-year timelimit to achieve this, failure in the end inviting punitive

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

13/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

13measures 5? Without achieving such measures, can Delhi

just ify demanding more water from outside? Should notDelhi be protecting its local water systems of tanks,baolis, lakes and so on before it starts looking foradditional water from far-off regions? Why is Delhi

allowing the local water systems to be systematicallydestroyed year after year? The recent incident atMuradnagar is o ne of series of such incidents in the pastwhere upstream demands have held Delhis water usehostage. Such incidents underscore the need for Delhi tomanage its water within limits that depend largely onlocal sources of water including rainwater harvests.

4. Groundwater over use and recharge It is wellknown that Delhi uses (as in 2004, it would haveincreased thereafter) about 480 Million Cubic Meters ofGroundw ater per a nnum, which is about 170% of annualrecharge potential amounting to 280 MCM. The actualrecharge potential is likely to be less than this

considering the rapid pace at which we are destroyinglocal water bodies, the Ridge, the floodplain and otherrecharge systems. However, c onsidering the floodpl ains,Ridge and an extensive concrete built up area, there ishuge unexplored recharge potential and Delhi govt istaking very little effective action to achieve that potential.Is there any justification for Delhi demanding additionalwater from far-off sources before it realizes this hugepotential, which may actually provide greater storagespace in underground aquifers than proposed dams likeRenuka may provide?

5. Wastewater treatment and Recycle Delhi iscurrently producing at least 800 MGD of wastewater(DJB claims to supply 800 MGD plus additional localgroundwater use of at least 200 MGD, thus total wateruse of 1000 MGD, as per standard assumption, 80%would be returning as sewage). But the Design capacityof Delhis Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) is about 520MGD, actual treatment happening is closer to 380 MGD.This means that by design Delhi does not have capacityto t reat the se wage it ge nerates and untreat ed sewage isby design, destined to be dumped in the Yamuna River,in complete violation of the Water Pollution Control Act of1974. If Delhi gets more freshwater, it will generate moresewage, worsening the situation of Yamuna River inDelhi and downstream. This will be in violation of the law

and the declared objective of the Prime Minister-headedNational Ganga River Basin Authority. Should not Delhibe expected to install adequate capacity of operatingSTPs in Delhi for the current and future sewage thatDelhi will generate? Should not all the industries, hotels,office complexes, malls, multiplexes and such units beasked to install functional STPs in their premises andrecycle part of treated water in their units in say next twoyears, punitive measures kicking in if they fail to achievethat at the end of t hat term? W hy should the hundreds of

5 In the past notifications and deadlines have been issued, but there wasneither the declaration of consequences when these nor implemented, nor the

will to implement them.

parks in Delhi continue to be irrigated with freshwater?Why should Delhi be demanding more freshwater fromoutside without achieving all this?

6. Issues rela ted to environmental and socia lcosts/de struction due to Renuka Dam Delhi seems tohave got used to demanding water from far-off sources.Some of the sources that Delhi has used up in theprocess in the past include: Bhakra Dam (Sutlej River),Hathnikund barrage and Western Yamuna Canal(Yamuna River), Ramganga Dam (Ramganga River),Tehri Dam (Bha girathi Ganga Ri ver). The hugedisplacements and environmental destruction that theseprojects have created are fresh in peoples minds andthe number of sufferers keeps going up, they getting nobenefits, only the costs. What right Delhi has to demandmore of such displacement and destruction?

Now Delhi is saying that it wants to purchase more waterand it claims that Himachal is the next willing seller 6 through the building of Renuka Dam. The trouble is, thatthe reality is quite complex and this attitude of Delhirulers as buyers of water from such far off dams withoutbothering about the consequences thereof would bepretty shocking, if true. Renuka dam with live storagecapacity of 498 MCM will displace at least 6000 peoplefrom 34 villages, submerge about 1600 ha of land,mostly very fertile land or dense biodiversity rich forest,implying uprooting of several lakh trees, thus destroyinga huge carbon sink and implying huge climate changeimpact (in complete violation of the declared aim of theNational Action Plan on Climate Change and NationalGreen Mission), destruction of the river and so on.Briefly, it will create immense destruction which seemscompletely avoidable. There are many other relatedissues, including that of lack of legal memorandum ofagreement, demand from the upper Yamuna basinstates (Haryana, UP, Rajasthan) for share in benefits,the huge economic cost, the serious impact of theproject on existing downstream hydropower project andother use of the river, inadequate EIA, publicconsultation and so on. In short, we do not think there isany case for Delhi to demand and facilitate building ofRenuka dam for its use.

Under the circumstances, we do not think there is any justification i n Delhis dem and for this dam. We urge youkindly give this issue serious thought and review Delhigovernments position on the same. Delhi must give alead to the entire country in managing its water withinavailable limits rather than plan on poaching water fromfar flung areas, which provides the city dwellers with afalse sense of unlimited and plentiful supplies, justbecause Delhi happens to be the nation's capital. LetDelhi under your stewardship set a shining example forother cities in the country to follow by withdrawing fromthe Dam project on river Giri at Renuka ji.

6 The phrases used by Delhi Chief Minister Smt Sheila Dixit when adelegat ion met h er on July 23, 2009 on t he issue of Renuka Dam.

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

14/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

14

A village at the mer cy of the Bagmati and Bihar governmentDr Dine sh Kumar Mi shra

Rampur Kanth, with only 90 families, was a small villagelocated on the right bank of the Bagmati River in

Bairgania block of Sitamarhi district of Bihar in early1970s. In order to protectsome areas againstflooding, the Bagmati wasembanked in then in itsupper reaches and thevillage got trapped withintwo embankments of theriver and had to berelocated in the protectedcountryside of the easternembankment.

The village has 259 families according to the censusreport (2001) with a population of 1,009. Reorganisationof blocks brought Rampur Kanth into the Suppi block ofthe same district. Relocation meant that any displacedfamily would get a small plot of land for building a houseand a shifting allowance of Rs 300 per family for the kindof houses that Rampur Kanth used to have. No help wasgiven by the state to build the houses.

The displaced persons were also entitled for somecommon land for roads, schools etc and a hand pumpfor drinking wat er. All its agricultural land was locatedwithin the embankments which the oustees weresupposed to till and continues to be at the mercy of the

river.The village is now located on the left bank of the riverand all the families are crammed in a plot of 16.86 acres.It took about 3-4 years to get the favour of allocation ofland and the displacedpeople had to live on theunder constructionembankment during period.

Part land of the village waslost to the alignment of theembankment, rehabilitationsite and the remainingportion was consigned tothe river flowing within theembankments whichstarted gnawing it slowlyand that forced the youth of the village to seekemployment in greener pastures of Punjab and Delhi asthe local employment came to standstill. At the moment,all the working hands of the village have migratedelsewhere in search of employment.

The river came very close to the embankment in July2007 and only a sand wall in the shape of embankmentseparated the Rampur Kanth from the river. This sent

shock waves to the residents of the Rampur Kanth

rehabilitation site as the embankment could slump do wnany moment and the village would get washed away.

On July 29, the residents ofthe village informed the chiefminister, minister for waterresources and the floodcontrol room about theimpending disaster andrepeated their request to thecollector of the district on theJuly 31 for immediate actionand copied the message toall other concerned officialsand ministers.

Only ADM of the district responded and wrote to thedivisional executive engineer to save the people andreport back to him of the action taken. No action wastaken and the embankment gave way at 2100 hrs onAug 18, 07, exactly one year before the infamousbreach of the Kosi emb ankment at Kusaha in 2008.

Most of the houses were swept away and almost all theresidents of the village had to shift to the remainingportion of the embankment in makeshift hutments madeof bamboo, leaves, straw, polythene sheets etc.

The collector visited the site on August 20 and issuedsome instructions to the concerned officials who werenow busy digging earth from the heel and toe of theembankment and trying to plug the breach. Thinking thatthe exercise was a futile attempt to plug the breach, thevillagers wrote to the chief minister and the concerned

officials for help with noresponse from anywhere.

Those camping on theembankment did not know tillthen that the river has notonly swept away theirdwellings but has alsoconverted their rehabilitation

site into a ditch over whichno construction was possibleunless the ditch was filled upwith earth that was nowherein sight as floodwater was

everywhere. They approached engineers & officials onSept 7, 07 but by now the officials had got used tolistening to such woes.

The situations had changed with the outset of winter andso did the charter of demands by the victims. Theywanted the ditch to be filled, compensation for the loss ofproperty, monitory help for building houses and actionagainst the guilty officials and their suspension. It is

The river came very close to the embankmentin July 2007 and only a sand w all in the sha peof embankment separa ted the Rampur Kanthfro m th e river. This sent shock w aves t o t heresidents of the Rampur Kanth rehabil i tat ionsi te as the emb ankm ent could slum p dow n anymoment and the v i l lage would get washeda w a y.

No ac t ion was t aken and the embankmentgave way at 2100 hrs on Aug 18, 07, exactlyone year before the infamous breach of theKosi em bankm en t at Kusaha in 2008. M ost oft he hou ses w ere sw ept aw ay and almo st all th eresidents of the vi l lage had to shif t to the

remaining port ion of the embankment inmakeshift hutments made of bamboo, leaves,st raw , polyth ene shee t s etc.

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

15/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

15reported that grant for constructing houses for 134families reached Sitamarhi but the mukhia of the villagestarted demanding Rs 5,000 per family as bribe so thatthe grant could be advanced to the victims.

The villagers refused to pay him and he modified thebeneficiary's list to 185 toinclude his men in it. Thegovt smelt a rat andwithdrew the grant. Theflood victims wrote to theCM, minister for disastermanagement,commissioner, and thedistrict collector to dosomething for them. Thatwas Dec 15, 08 and over ayear had passed since thebreach had occurred.

This prayer induced the administration to ensure that theeroded land is filled with earth to facilitate housebuilding. The contractor, however, did not find the jobrewarding and left it half done although he turned theremaining portion of land up side down. The site remainsunfit for house construction and all the 134 residents arestill camping on the embankment in their huts.

The state government is raising, strengthening andextending the Bagmati embankments at an estimatedcost of Rs 792 crore and this work is being done all overexcept Rampur Kanth where no work has been donebecause the people are camping over there and refuseto shift elsewhere unless their demands are met. Theyare still demanding filling of their land and some grant tobuild their houses.

In the meanwhile, therewas a janata darbar of thechief minister at RaghopurBakhari village in Dumrablock of Sitamarhi on Jan24, 10 and the residents ofRampur Kanth went thereto give a representation tothe CM. It is reported that

the chief minister hadassured these villagers thattheir problems would besolved soon.

Yet, nothing happened andthe villagers once againapproached the collector ofSitamarhi on the Feb 2, 10requesting him, to complete the half done work of fillingof the homestead land and that all the 134 families begiven housing grants under Indira Awas Yojana tocompens ate for the losses incurred due to breach in theembankment in 2007. When this was reported in a local

daily through my article, the CM denied he made any

promises but the proof of his promises exists. Leavingthe issue of promises aside, what is stopping CM totaking necessary action?

That was the progress made after toil of over two and a

half years' knocking at every door, from the local mukhiato prime minister of thecountry. They have comeback to the same situationthat the river had put them inon the night of August 18,2007 braving rains, cold andheat waves ever since. Sandthat blows with summerwinds tests their patienceand the government feelscontended that the peopleare equipped to boldly faceany problem, be itforthcoming rains or the chill

winter for the past three years.

It also might be thinking that once 90 families wererehabilitated when the embankments were built in1970s, there was no point in rehabilitating 134 familiesonce again as that was going to be an endless processbecause the embankments would keep on breachingand such demands would keep coming in.

Rampur Kanth should not become an example for theothers to make such demands and it might be trying tonip the bud in the beginning. It is worth noting that theBagmati embankments have breached 43 times during

1997-2009 period according to official sources.Had the flood victims k nown that the embankment mightbreach in future rendering them homeless with nobody

to look after them, theywould never have acceptedrehabilitation. Had theyknown that the governmentknows only how to build theembankments but not tomaintain them, they mightnot have acceptedrelocation.

They would also not havecome to rehabilitation sites ifthey had known that all theconcerned officials wouldshrug off their responsibilityto the people once acalamity like the one of 2007strikes them. They are

scared that the river might sweep the remaining portionof the embankment anytime and there is none in theadministration to take cognisance of the imminentdanger they will be faced with.

Will someone listen to t he woes o f the people of Rampur

Kanth?

The govt sm elt a ra t and wi thdrew the grant .The f lood vict ims wro te to the CM , m inister fo rdisaster management, commissioner, and thedistrict collector to do something for them.That was Dec 15, 08 and over a year hadp assed sin ce the brea ch h ad occurr ed The sit eremains unfit for house construction even nowand all the 134 residents are still camping onth e embankment in th e ir hu ts.

In the m eanwhi le , there w as a jana t a da r ba r o fthe chief minister Nit ish Kumar at RaghopurBakhari village in Dumra block of Sitamarhi onJan 24, 10 and th e reside nts of Rampur Kanthw ent t here t o g ive a representa t ion to the CM .It is reported that the chief minister hadassured these villagers that their problems

w ould be solved soon . Yet, nothing happene d.W hen t his w as reported in a local daily t hroughm y ar t icle , the CM den ied he made anypromises but the proof of his promises exists.Lea ving the issue o f pro m ises aside, w hat isst opp ing CM to t aking nece ssar y act ion?

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

16/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

16CLIMATE CHANGE & WATER SECTOR

Artificial Glac iers to Survive Global Warming

As glaciers disappear in the rain shadow of the

Himalayas, one man is helping farmers irrigate theirfields by storing water in an innovati ve way.

The village of Stakmo is reac hed by a dusty road thatwinds through the barren Ladakhi landscape. The slopessurrounding the village were cloaked with three glaciers30 years ago, but villagers say that over the past decadethe glaciers have vanished, leaving nothing but barerock. Without water, the villagers' crops have failed. Thesnow line here has risen 150 meters, and glaciers haveretreated by 10 kms .

Retired local engineer Chewang Norphel has beenworking on a met hod to create arti ficial glaciers. He

approached the villagers at Stakmo and offered his help.Norphel began by constructing stone walls in the slopesabove the village to divert the runoff from winterprecipitation into an area that is shaded from the sunduring winter and spring by the mountain. A series ofembankments slowed the freezing water for long enoughthat it could build up into an artificial glacier.

Villagers helped Norphel to build retaining walls for astorage r eservoir that would act as a second glacier, fedby excess runoff from the primary glacier higher up theslope. During winter, the glacier formed as planned,storing water that would otherwise have flowed awaypast the village of Stakmo.

During the crucial sowing season, the artificial glacierbegan melting, releasing much-needed water to thevillagers. Carefully constructed irrigation channels werebuilt by Stakmo villagers under Norphel's guidance.Previously barren fields i n Stakmo were turned green bythe stored water from the artificial glacier. Harvestsincreased threefold in Stakmo, and villagers beganplanting more than one crop per year.

"We have so much wheat yield now that we are evenselling some," says Tashi Angmo, who lives in Stakmo."People who moved away are starting to return to thevillage becaus e there is hope now." Thanks to Norphel'sman-made glacier, the villagers now have enough grassto store for their animals. It means that they no longerhave to let herds in search of grazing patches roam farinto the mountains, where they are easy prey for snowleopards and wolves.

Norphel is continually improving his design, adding moreglaciers higher up and near different villages. "Water isthe most important thing we have. Without water, wehave no food; no life," he says. Around 10,000 peoplenow benefit from his 10 glaciers, but he knows that histechnology provides just a temporary respite. "Evenartificial glaciers won't freeze if it gets too warm," hewarns. (scientificamerican.com, 240510)

Water Mission clea red by PMs council: Promi se s allwater data in public domain: MWR says NO ThePrime Ministers Council on Climate Change on May 28,2010 approved in principle the National Water Missionand suggested that its basic approach should be to

make water conservation a peoples movement in India.For this it is essential to make available all data on waterin the public domain to be able to mobilise c itizens, localand State Governments for focused action on waterconservation and augmentation, as stated in theGovernment press released of that day. The PrimeMinister chairing the Council said that political leadershipat the local body level, state level and civil societyorganizations need to be involved in activities of theWater Miss ion. It was stated that the fi rst step in thisdirection would be to prepare a comprehensive waterdata base in the public domain and assessing the impactof climate c hange on wate r. It was also decide d thatwater use efficiency should be raised by 20%. (PIB280510, other s ources)

Contradicting these intentions, the process offormulating the NWM was completely non transparentand no participatory even though many includingSANDRP had written to the Ministry of Water Resourcesin early 2009, over 14 months ago suggesting such anapproach. The SANDRPs critique of th e National ActionPlan, including the Water Mission, was sent to all themembers of the PMs council on water mission and allthe members of the various committees constituted forthe water mission. No one from the ministry evenbothered to acknowledge receipt of the critique, leave

aside the question of responding to the issues raisedtherein. The draft action plan was put up on the Ministryof Water Resources website for over 14 months, but noattempt was made to translate the mission documentinto hindi and other local languages, disseminate it orseek wider views and suggestions on the mission.

The governments press release says it is essential tomake available all data on water in the public domain,but a week after that press release, at a hearing beforethe Central Information Commission, the Union Ministryof Water Resources refused to share the report, minutesand agenda notes of meeting on large hydropowerprojects in the North East India. It is clear that UnionMinistry of Water Resources have rather far to go beforeit can start making claims about sharing information inpublic domain.

Gree n India Mission mi sse s crucial le ssons TheNational Mission for a Green India, or Green IndiaMission, one of the eight missions announced under theNational Action Plan on Climate Change, acknowledgesthe influence that the forestry sector has onenvironmental amelioration through climate mitigation,food security, water security, biodiversity conservationand livelihood security of forest-dependentcommunities. One of three basic objectives of the

mission includes, Enhance the functions and resilience

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

17/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

17of ecosystems, including inc reased water infiltration,groundwater recharge, stream and spring flows,biodiversity values and forest benefits (fuel wood,fodder, timber and non-timber forest produce, amongother things) to local communities. The mission

document makes many promises but does not spell outhow they will be achieved. One of its biggestweaknesses is the complete absence of a strategy toprevent the loss of standing forests. While the MoEFformulates greening programmes, the Government ofIndia is busy de-greening India. Between 1999 and2007, about 50,000 ha of forest land, some of it withgood standing forests was diverted annually to non-forest use. Communities have been involved in variousplantation and protection activities but the decision-making has not been shared, and often the promisedbenefits have not reached the people, resulting in lowstakes and sustainability. A Joint statement from forestmovements clearly concluded: This Mission, in itscurrent form, will lead to increased land grabbing,violation of people's rights, environmental destruction,and loss of common lands and livelihoods based onthem, without in any way genuinely responding to theburning problem of climate change. (Joint statement fromforest movements 200710, Frontline 300710)

Orissa climate plan eyewash: NGOs Terming theextended date for receiving public comments andsuggestions by one month as not sufficient, the OrissaNGOs has urged the Govt. of Orissa to make the DraftOrissa Climate Change Action Plan available in O riya toall sections of the society; organize consultations in each

district, give three months for people to respond anddisclose the loan burden the plan will bring to the stateand its people. The organisations also expressedconcern about the role of World Bank and the UnitedKingdoms Department for International Development inpreparation of the draft and how these inst itutesinvolvement i n climate change plans worldwide is vestedwith business interest. (Water Initiatives Orissa, Focus OdishaForum, Pioneer 280610)

HP: ADB report on climate adaptation water strategy Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh has releasedAsian Development Bank report on "Climate ChangeAdaptation Water Resources Strategy for Him achal

Pradesh". She said that this study has been done byAsian Development Bank under technical c ooperationprogramme with the Department of Agriculture,Himachal Pradesh which started in September, 2009.The report is supposed to help in Planning &Management of Water Resources for the State in view ofclimate change. The strategy examines the presentinstitutional arrangements for water resourcesmanagement and assesses the requirement forinstitutional development, strengthening and necessaryreform measures to support the development ofsustainable water resourc e management. It wasrevealed that Analysis of temperature trends in the

Himalayas and vicinities shows that temperature

increases are greater in the uplands than the lowlands.(indiaeducationdiary.in 250610) It is noteworthy, however, thatthe ADB is involved in funding large hydropo wer projectsin Himachal Pradesh, which are actually destroying thewater resources and also accelerating the climate

change impacts with destruction of forests, rivers andother natural resources. Credibility of ADB efforts onclimate change, under the circumstances, will remainsuspect.

15% Sunderbans may submerge by 2020: Report With rising sea level, about 15 per cent of theSunderbans islands is likely to be submerged by 2020,thereby leaving 70,000 islanders stranded asenvironmental refugees, says a state humandevelopment report on South 24 Parganas district.Prepared by the Development and Planning departmentwith technical support of United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, the report warns that neglecting theSunderbans Delta can have significant implications onglobal climate. (Indian Express 140710)

2009 drought in Kenya due to Climate Change: GTZ The 2000-2009 decade, the warmest on record, led tosignificant climate anomalies. As always, it is the poorthat have been hardest hit. The 2009 drought in Kenya,for example, was responsible for the loss of over150,000 head of livestock and a 40% drop in maizeharvests, leading to massive food shortages, affectingsome 23 million people. However, the government ofIndia made no attempt to link its 2009 monsoon failure toclimate change. (GTZ new sletter Adapt to climate change July2010)

SRI: SAV ES WATER, INCREASES OUTP UT

8.5 Lakh Ha under SRI in Tamil Nadu Despite a goodmonsoon in Tamil Nadu in 2010, areas under cultivationhave not received enough rainfall. However, the stategovernment has assured that foodgrains production inkharif would touch 11.2 million tonnes, including 8.5million tonnes rice and 2.3 million tonnes pulses. SKosalraman, commissioner of agriculture, Tamil Nadugovernment, said the government had introducedsystem rice intensification (SRI) to overcome the watershortage and maximise production. The area under SRI

had been increased from 2,000 hectares to 0.6 millionhectares last year. This year, it would be increased to0.85 million hectares. K Nanda Kishore, secretary in theagriculture department, said rice production hasincreased from 23.66 million tonnes in 2001-05 to 24million tonnes in 2006-09. Food grain production hasgone up from 28.7 million tonnes in 2001-05 to 31.89million tonnes in 2006-09. (Business Standard 300710)

NABARD to promote SRI in AP National Bank forAgriculture and Rural Development will rope in aboutone lakh farmers of Andhra Pradesh this year to promoteSystem of Rice Intensification method. "We are going toappoint NGOs to help farmers in the rain-fed areas,"

7/31/2019 DRP June July 2010

18/32

D ams, Rivers & People

June July 2010

18Chief General Manager of NABARD (AP) said. (IndianExpress 120710)

SRI to help Bengal cut water consumption At a timewhen productivity is dwindling in West Bengal, farmersare trying out a new method, Systemic RiceIntensification, to i ncrease productivity. The new methoduses 40% less water and has helped increaseproduction by 20% in some blocks of the state. Wehave seen a very good response in West Bengal.Farmers have already accepted the new method ofcultivation, said Sanjiv Chopra, joint secretary, Unionagriculture mi nistry. According to agriculture departmentofficials, farmers in almost all blocks in North Bengalhave adopted the new technique after initial resistance.

Although farmers are using the method during Borocropping season, we are also trying to popularise SRImethod in up-land districts like Purulia, Bankura,

Paschim Medinipur, Birbhum and Burdwan during theKharif season, Subir Choudhury, consultant of RKVYsaid. W Bengal, which has almost 15 lakh hectaresunder Boro rice cultivation, has resorted to the newcropping pattern in 2008, starting on pilot basis. Thefarmers have now seen the benefits of the new method.Apart from low water requirement, fertiliser cost andrequirement of pumpsets has also come down,Choudhury said. While the productivity was around 4tonne per hectare in the normal mode of cultivation, itwent up to 4.5-4.6 tonne after farmers resorted to SRImethod, he added. (Financial Express 030710)

GROUNDW ATER

Groundwater depletion The proportion of the unsaf