Barrages would prevent Polavaram dam from being an economic and environmental disaster : Analysis reveal

 Prof.T.Shivaji Rao,

Director, Centre for Environmental Studies,

Gitam University, Visakhapatnam.

Historical Developments: Initially the Polavaram project was proposed as a storage reservoir with FRL at +150ft  with a water storage of about 150TMC in 1941.  Subsequently many changes were made and in 1948 it emerged as Rampada Sagar dam with FRL at +208ft. with water storage of 836  TMC including 150 MW of hydro-power generation at an estimated cost of 129 crores (at 1948 rates) This scheme was abandoned because it was too costly and was bristled with foundation and construction problems.  Subsequently several expert committees were appointed by the Government of India to study the problems of Godavari water utilisation.  These committees under the Chairmanship of  Dr.A.N. Khosla (1953), Mr.Gulhati (1963) and Mr.A.C.Mitra  (1965) suggested to the state Government to build a barrage at Polavaram for improving the irrigation facilities and also to divert Godavari flood water into Krishna river.  https://www.thehindu.com/2009/05/02/stories/2009050260540600.htmBefore the Bachawat Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh filed a Report of Polavaram Barrage Scheme,( June 1970.)  The scheme consists of a barrage across the river Godavari with two canals; one taking off on the right up to Krishna river and the other on the left up to Vizag port.  It was to be located at Polavaram which is situated 25 miles above Dowlaishwaram anicut and 175 miles downstream of Inchampalli Reservoir.  The project also contemplated generation of power and navigation in the river and canal etc. The FRL of the barrage as given inthis Report is +145ft and minimum pond level +45ft.  The full supply level of the left bank canal is proposed to be +137ft and that of the right bankcanal+138ft. http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/15/images/2005121520180101.jpg

Andhra Pradesh submitted another report called Polavaram Project Volume I, May 1978 (Exhibit APG-360).  This project envisages

“Head Works”: The head work  consist of an earth-cum-rockfill dam across the main river with spillways on the right flank and power-cum-river sluices block on the left flank as detailed below:

(i) The earth-cum-rockfill dam with a maximum height of 48.77 (16 0ft) and a crest length of 1555 m (5100ft) involving a total quantity of 7.3 M.Cum

(ii) Two spillways  on the right flank saddle controlled by 50 Nos of radial gates each +15.24m x 12.80 m (50ft x 42ft) with a flood lift of 4.3m (14 ft) for the peak designed flood of 0.102 M.cum.(3.6 million cusecs).

(iii) A concrete gravity dam on the left flank with power house and river sluices

The earth dam is about 35.05m(115ft) height above the average river bed and 48.77m (160ft) above the deepest bed level f the river, which is stated to be necessary for diverting the required quantity of water into the canals which proposed to irrigate vast areas on both the flanks. The MDDL and FRL stated to be required are RL +44.20m (+145ft) and RL +45.72m (+150ft) respectively.  The lake proposed to be formed by the dam has a waterspread of 552.63 sq.km (213 sq.miles) at FRL +45.72m and a gross capacity of 5665 M.cum (192TMC) The storage available between the minimum draw-down level and FRL (44.20 to 45.72m) is only 800 M.cum (28.31 TMC).

Polavaram project with an earth-cum-rockfill dam  is proposed for irrigating 7.2 lakh acres.  The project proposes to divert 80 TMC of water into Krishna basin out of which 35 TMC will be given to Karnataka and Maharashtra free of cost.  About 25TMC of water will be provided for industrial and drinking water supply to Visakhapatnam city.  960 MW of hydro-power is expected to be produced.  The project report was furnished to the Central Water Commission in 1983 and detailed project report again submitted in 1987 including the revised report in 2000.  A comprehensive report submitted to Central Water Commission in June 2005 and the “inprinciple consent” was issued by Central Water Commission on 28-9-2005.  The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests gave site clearance on 19-9-2005 and the Environmental clearance on 25-10-2005.

2. Bachawat Tribunal and its Conditional Award:  In order to enable clearance for the Polavaram project, anagreement was entered into in 1978 by the 3 states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa regarding an FRL/MWL of +150ft on the condition that the back water curve due to the project during floods should not exceed +150ft above mean sea level.  Ultimately the agreement was revised on 2-4-1980 and it was accepted by the tribunal on 3-4-1980 and the Government of India accepted this agreement. 

 According to paragraph 80 on page-26 of the Final Order of the Bachawat Tribunal clause-VI deals with Polavaram dam and is reproduced here.

CLAUSE VI:

1)   In accordance with the statement dated the 3^rd April, 1980 submitted on-behalf of the Government of India, annexed hereto and marked Annexure “H” (See below for details), we direct that --

(i) the Polavaram Project shall be cleared by the Central Water Commission as expeditiously as possible for FRL/MWL +150ft;

(ii) the matter of design of the dam and its operation schedule is left to the Central Water Commission which it shall decide keeping in view all the Agreements between the parties, including the Agreement dated the 2^nd April 1980(see below for Details) as far as practicable; and

(iii) if there is to be any change in the operation schedule as indicated in the Agreement dated the 2^nd April, 1980  it shall be made only after consultation with the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.  The design aspects shall, however, be left entirely to the Central Water Commission.

2)The State of Andhra Pradesh shall observe all safeguards including the safeguards mentioned in sub-clause (1) above regarding the Polavaram project, as directed by the Central Water Commission.

************************************************************************

ANNEXURE-H (Para-163 of  Page 65 of the Bachawat Tribunal Report)

Statement submitted by Counsel for the Government of India in the Ministry of Energy and Irrigation (Department of Irrigation) and the Central Water Commission.

The Government of India in the Ministry of Energy & Irrigation   (Department of Irrigation) and the Central Water Commission are willing to submit to the following order by the Tribunal:

The Polavaram Project shall be cleared by the Central Water Commission as expeditiously as possible for FRL/MWL. 150ft.

The matter of design of the dam and its operation schedule shall be left to the Central Water Commission, which they shall decide keeping in view all the Agreements between the parties, including the Agreement of 2^nd April 1980 filed to day as far as practicable..

 ( For details see below Annexure-G , Para-163 of page-63 of Bachawat Report)   ..

If there is to be any change in the operation schedule as indicated in the Agreement of 2^nd April, 1980 it shall be made only after consultation with the  states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.  The design aspects shall, however, be left entirely to the Central Water Commission.

                                                                                (Sd.)

MURLIDHAR BHANDARE,

3-4-1980                                                          Counsel for the Department of Irrigation

And Central Water Commission.

ANNEXURE-G (Para-163 of page 63 of Bachawat Tribunal Report)

Agreement dated the 2^nd April, 1980 between the States of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.

To enable clearance of Polavaram Project, the following is agreed to:                                

(1)The Polavaram Project spillway shall be designed for a flood discharging capacity  of 36 (thirty six) lakh cusecs at pond level of RL +140ft (One hundred and forty)  and not less than 20 (twenty) lakh cusecs at pond level of RL +130ft (One hundred and thirty).” 

(2) The pond level shall not be kept higher than RL+145ft (One hundred and forty five) in the month of June if the inflow into the Polavaram reservoir exceeds 3 (three) lakh cusecs”. ………etc.,[continued]

In order to protect the interests of the people, their lands and property above +150ft level in Chattisgarh and Orissa likely to be affected by inundation floods including backwater effects due to Polavaram necessary protective embankments with adequate drainage sluices shall be constructed and maintained at the cost of the Polavaram project.  However the upper states may exercise an option to demand compensation instead of protective embankment works and the compensation for any damage or injury as estimated by the District Collectors of the upper states will be paid by the A.P.State.

The agreement deals with protective embankments with adequate drainage sluice gates to protect lands and villages likely to be submerged above FRL +150ft in Orissa and Chattisgarh along with alternative for the states to opt for compensation for the purpose. 

HURDLES DUE TO DELAY OF THE PROJECT:Firstly new obstacles to the project arose due to abnormal delay in the execution of the Polavaram project since 1980.  If the project was commenced before 1994  the new regulations for Environmental clearance for the project under Environmental protection Act 1986 would not have become a source of obstruction for the smooth completion of the project.  Secondly with the passage of time for 30 years  since 1980 extensive deforestation occurred in the catchment area of Godavari with the result the soil was degraded and substantial forest cover disappeared and it resulted in increased levels of extreme floods from the original level of 36 lakh cusecs to 50 lakh cusecs in Godavari river.  Consequently the old spillway design became redundant and the original conditions of the Bachawat Award became out of date and hence Orissa and Chattisgarh are pleading that Bachawat Tribunal Award has become invalid and hence the Polavaram project is objected by both the states since the increased peak flood is going to result in far higher levels of submersion in Motu and Konta taluks of Orissa and Chattisgarh. 

 3. Faulty design of the spillway and design flood:  The Polavaram project was designed in 1980s and as updated in 2005 has adopted the Probable Maximum Flood of 36 lakh cusecs for design of the spillway and these designs were not accepted by the Central Water Commission (CWC)  which originally accepted the design spillway flood of 36 lakhs cusecs on the premise that the Polavaram project was presented as a barrage to the Central Water Commission in the initial stages.   When Godavari experienced high floods of about 28 lakh cusecs and caused devastating inundation resulting in submersion of about 370 villages in Andhra Pradesh, the CWC opened its eyes to the changed realities of deforestation and global warming that lead to accelerated flooding they made a fresh assessment of the Probabale Maximum Flood (PMF) and estimated it as 49.5 lakh cusecs or 50 lakhs cusecs.  Consequently CWC directed the AP State Government to revise the Polavaram project designs to handle 50 lakh cusecs flood  for its spillway.  Infact the PMF of 50 lakh cusecs estimated by CWC for Polavaram project is highly underestimated because the experts of the National Institute of Hydrology (a research wing of Union Ministry of Water Resources) employed an inflow design flood of 170,000 cumecs (equivalent to about 60 lakh cusecs)for preparing the Dam Break Analysis report at the request of the AP State Government  which had to submit this report to the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests for obtaining the Environmental clearance.   According to the peak flood estimates made for several major rivers in the world  by International experts like Prof.L.Berga, Chairman of ICOLD committee on Dams and Floods.   The Polavaram dam  will experience an extreme  flood of 70 to 83 lakh cusecs as per the envelope curve prepared by international Dam experts.In fact Dr.K.L.Rao who studied the problems of Polavaram for decades stated that Polavaram project will not work due to poor spillway design as can be seen from the web site:

http://kfki.baw.de/fileadmin/conferences/ICHE/2002-Warsaw/ARTICLES/PDF/129C2.pdf

 4. Incomplete Dam break analysis:  The dam break analysis for Polavaram project is an essential component of the environmental impact Assessment report to be submitted by the AP State Government to the Union Government for obtaining the environmental clearance for the project and the Environmental Protection Act 1986 for preparing this report the AP State Government paid huge sums of money towards consultation charges to the National Institute of Hydrology at Roorkee in 1999.  The experts prepared the report according to International Standards and submitted the same to the Government of Andhra Pradesh through the Environmental Protection Training and Research Institute (EPTRI) which was under the control of the AP State Government.  This dam break analysis report clearly establish that if the dam were to collapse for one reason or the other the peak flood  that will flow out of the dam will be more than  2,00,000 cumecs equivalent to more than 70 lakh cusecs at a distance of 30 km in the neighbourhood of the major cities like Rajahmundry and Kovvuru which will be under flood water at an elevation of about 35m.  Unfortunately this dam analysis report was not  prepared in a logical way to extend the impact of this large scale flood waters until they join the Bay of Bengal by  inundating thousands of villages, a few townships and extensive fertile lands for about 100 kms distance.    This dam break analysis report clearly shows that the risk is very high amounting to several thousands of crores of rupees and such a scenario should have induced the AP state Government engineers to design the Polavaram dam for the Probable Maximum Flood and not for a limited design flood of 36 lakh cusecs.  Based upon this incomplete report a highly erroneous Environmental Impact Assessment report was submitted to the Union Government  which did not get the reports examined thoroughly to know whether it is beneficial to the nation or it will result in economic ruination of the country including the killing of about half a million people downstream of the dam in the most fertile delta districts of East and West Godavari.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lEJ_gqJvFPgC&lpg=PP1&ots=7MY94a97uC&dq=Perspectives%20on%20Polavaram&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q=&f=false  (pages 103-107)

5. Disaster Management Plans ignored: According to the schedule under the Environmental Impact Assessment report the AP state Government has to submit the dam break analysis report and the devastating inundation impact scenarios downstream of the dam by indicating what levels of floods at different times of arrivals will present  a wall of flood water that will engulf the lives of thousand of people in different village, towns and cities in East Godavari and West Godavari districts.  Vast stretches of fertile agriculture fields will be inundated along with collapse of lakhs of houses of poor people including the death of lakhs of cattle.  In order to safeguard the interest the people and their properties the state Government has to prepare emergency response systems and evacuate all the villages and towns likely to be flooded at different points of time after the dam break and rehabilitate the potential victims in safe places.  The emergency response system has not been prepared on similar lines as followed in other countries like USA as per example in the case of the Horsetooth reservoir dam burst scenario and emergency response system as presented in the website.

http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter3.htm  

6. Improper rehabilitation and Resettlement programs:  The AP State Government has to submit the details on rehabilitation and resettlement programmes for the Polavaram project as per the schedule under EIA report proforma as contained in the website:

Unfortunately the AP state Government did not prepare the rehabilitation schemes by properly identifying the places likely to be submerged due to Polavaram dam construction and its back water afflux.  The state Government used a peak flood of 36 lakh cusecs which is incorrect for preparation of the maps to show the areas likely to be inundated.  The Central Water Commission also belatedly directed the State Government to adopt a Probable Maximum flood of 50 lakh cuses for the design of the spillway for the Polavaram project.  According to the Narmada water dispute tribunal award the back water levels have to be calculated by using the maximum water level in the reservoir for the Probable Maximum flood used for the design of the dam.  Since the AP state Government did not follow this procedure  the rehabilitation and resettlement schemes prepared for Polavaram project become highly underestimated and the expenditure involved is also underestimated and hence the costs of the R&R scheme are not properly reflected in the cost estimates of the project which fail to make a proper cost estimate ratio.

WHYREHABILITATION  SCHEMES INHUMAN AND UNLAWFUL?

Only in September,2006,the Central water commission [CWC]Changed the maximum flood from 36 to 50 lakhs cusecs  for Polavaram spillway design and hence Orissa is objecting to Polavaram as the crucial conditions on peak flood changed and  hence Bachawat Tribunal Award becomes  out of date and illegal and void as the revised peak flood causes extensive flooding of villages and lands in Motu taluk of Orissa located in a highly fertile tribal belt.

Moreover, A.P. state has not revised the Back water Levels to correspond to the revision of peak floods from 36 to 50 lakhs. Central Water Commission is unknowingly denying the right to life of hundreds of tribals who will face avoidable submersion due to back water afflux from FRL/MWL of +150 ft. for Polavaram Dam project[If it is a Barrage with +100 ft., it is safe The Central water commission is unknowingly playing with the lives of tribals by not making Back Water afflux calculations as per standard norms fixed by Narmada Tribunal Award as in the case of Sardar Sarovar project . This mistake is committed by basin states and CWC is highly unacceptable to the victims. To illustrate this wrong being done by the CWC, one can see below two relevant proofs.
They consist of two parts. The first part deals with the directions given by the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal on Rehabilitation and Resettlement schemes to be prepared by the states on the basis of the Back water levels to be fixed by the central water commission on the basis of using the highest floods relevant to  the     maximum level of Water in the project Reservoir. This basic exercise is not done in time by CWC and it is incorrect to wink at such wrong calculations furnished by the project proponents of Gujarat based on under-estimated floods.  Orissa state Government is preparing scientific arguments to protect the interests of tribals of Orissa from the avoidable submersion due to Polavaram project which can be redesigned  as a barrage for the good of the people of the state and the country at large.

 PART-I:

 NARMADA WATER DISPUTE TRIBUNAL AWARD ON LAND ACQUISITION  for Rehabilitation & Resettlement of people likely to face Submersion   (Back Water Levels for submersible areas upstream to be fixed by (CWC) based on Highest Floods due to MWL of SARDAR SAROVAR PROJECT)

 http://www.sspa.gujarat.gov.in/nwdt.htm

Under the above web site,at the End,you have 3 menus for being clicked for more information and for the purpose ,click on the following item.
"Extracts related to R & R from NWDT award" and you will get the following web site

 www.sspa.gujarat.gov.in/NWDT%20Award.pdf  –[1979] and it gives you the following

CLAUSE XI. - Directions Regarding Submergence, Land Acquisition  And Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons.

SUB-CLAUSE I. - Definitions.

1(1): "Land" The expression "land" shall have the same meaning as defined in the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894

1(2): "Oustee" An 'oustee' shall mean any person who since at least one year prior to the

date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act,

1(3): "Family"A family shall include husband, wife and minor children and other persons dependent on the head of the family, e.g. widowed mother.

 SUB-CLAUSE II. - Lands Which Are To Be Compulsorily Acquired.

II(1) :All Lands below FRL: Madhya Pradesh [M.P]and Maharashtra shall acquire for under Land Acquisition Act, all lands below the FRL+138. m (455') of Sardar Sarovar

II(2) All Buildings Between FRL and BWL:: M.P.and Maharashtra shall also acquire under L.A.Act , all buildings between FRL + 138. m (455') and MWL + 141 m (460') as also those affected by the backwater effect resulting from MWL +141. M (460').

II (3) Back Water Levels for Highest Flood from MWL: The Backwater level at the highest flood level in Sardar Sarovar shall be worked out by the Central Water Commission in consultation with Madhya Pradesh

 PART-II  Expert Committee of Union Environment Ministry Faults R & R schemes Of Sardar Sarovar project as violative of Narmada Tribunal Directives:

https://www.thehindu.com/2009/04/29/stories/2009042955691300.htm TheHindu,Apr,2009.

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Official%20report.pdf

http://www.narmada.org/nba-press-releases/april-2009/24April.html

 13 February 2009

INTERIM REPORT

Sub: ASSESSMENT OF SURVEY /STUDIES /PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARD MEASURES FOR SARDAR SAROVAR & INDIRA SAGAR PROJECTS
The Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India vide O.M. No. 3-87/80-IA-I, dated 09.7.2008 superseded by O.M. of even number dated 02-09-2008 has constituted a Committee for assessment of survey/ studies/planning and implementation the plans on environmental safeguard measures for Sardar Sarovar & Indira Sagar Project. One of the time bound tasks is to assess the work relating to mitigation of impacts generated by raising of the piers and overhead bridge of Sardar Sarovar Project.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

(A) The Report on the revised Back Water Levels calculations as submitted by NCA is not acceptable as it violates the NWDTA on following accounts:
(i) Firstly, because the award directed that calculations of Back Water Levels be done resulting from the Maximum Water Level of 140.21 meter (460 feet) at Sardar Sarovar dam. However, the computation for Back Water Levels by the NCA (June 2008) has been done with the maximum level of 137.17 meter at the dam site.
(ii) Secondly, the Back Water Levels calculations are to be carried out by the Central Water Commission (CWC) as per the award and not by a sub-committee of the NCA even if one member in the sub-committee is from CWC as has been done in the instant case.
(iii) Thirdly, since the dam is already designed and constructed for discharging the highest flood (30.7 Lakh cusecs), calculations of Back Water Levels corresponding to the observed flood of 24.5 Lakh cusecs (reduced to 16.9 Lakh cusecs upon routing) are not applicable.

(iv) As per the award of NWDT and stipulations of clearances (environment, forests and investment) accorded to the project by the Central Government, the E & R planning needed a higher level of flood protection. Thus the use of outflow of moderated flood from ISP of 10 Lakh cusecs for determining of BWL by the NCA sub committee is unsafe for planning of R&R and environmental issues as the rehabilitation and environmental safeguard measures have to be complied with respect to submergence caused by Back Water of highest flood.

(B) The revised Back Water Levels calculations of NCA has many technical infirmities as indicated below:

(i) The report has used the highest flood at SSP to be 24 Lakh cusecs which is lower than 24.5 Lakh cusecs worked out for a return period of 100 Years. The highest flood for spillway design has to be the probable maximum flood for a dam of this size for a return of 10,000 years as specified under CWC guideline.

7. Command area – more than two-thirds is already irrigated by the sources:    Only less than about one lakh ha. of new land will be irrigated under Polavaram project because  out of     7.2 lakh acres originally proposed for irrigation under  Polavaram dam, about  4.7 lakh acres is  actually irrigated under the New lift  irrigation schemes of  Pushkaram (1.86 lakh acres), Tadipudi (60,000acres), Chagalnadu (32,000acres) and old schemes of Yeleru project, wells,Bore-wells and tank irrigation as per field data  obtained by Dr.Bhiksham et.al (See pages 69-82 in the following website.) and other experts as indicated in the appendix. below

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lEJ_gqJvFPgC&lpg=PP1&ots=7MY94a97uC&dq=Perspectives%20on%20Polavaram&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Moreover other experts state that due to proposed industrialization and urbanization under the left bank canal in between the port cities of Kakinada and Visakhapatnam about 30,000 acres will become unavailable for irrigation.  Other experts who worked in the field emphasize that 70% of the land under the right bank canals  is already irrigated by means of wells, bore wells, tanks and canals and indicated in the following websites.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2502/stories/20080201508912000.htm        http://jalayagnam.org/index1.php?action=results                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

APPENDIX

POLAVARAM COMMAND IS MOSTLY ALREADY IRRIGATED BY SEVERAL  SOURCES AS INDICATED BY THE FOLLOWING EXTRACTS FROM THE FOLLOWING TWO RECENTLY PUBLISHED PAPERS

PAPER-1:  Analysis of the Inter-basin Water Transfer Scheme in India:A Case Study of the Godavari–Krishna Link

http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/Other/PDF/NRLP_Proceedin-2.pdf

Luna Bharati1, B.K. Anand2, and Vladmir Smakhtin1

1 International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka

2 Consultant, Bangalore

The planned Polavaram Dam is to have a live storage of 2,130 MCM. The annual total water use is, however, estimated to be 8,000 MCM. Since the planned storage is small in comparison to the water use, run-of–the–river flows will be utilized to ensure the expected benefits of the project. Thus the project will function more as a barrage combined with limited storage use. The project also includes a hydropower component (GOI 1999). It has been estimated that the proposed reservoir will submerge around 63,000 ha of land, which at present hosts 250 villages with a total population of 145,000 (Census 1991; GOI 1999; GOI 2006).

The government feasibility report states that the total cultivable area of the Polavaram link canal is 139,740 ha. Of this area, 71 % (99,755 ha) is irrigated by bore wells, tanks and open head channels taking off from the river, and the balance 29 % (39,985 ha) is non-irrigated  (GOI 1999). An independent survey conducted by Bhaduri et al. (2007) in the Polavaram area to assess the irrigation benefits, showed that these figures are outdated and that 95 % of the cultivated area in the link command area is under irrigation at present. Table 1 shows the different sources of irrigation in the link command area. Bhaduri et al. (2007) indicate that all cultivable area is irrigated and the remaining 5 % that is not irrigated is not under cultivation.

Therefore, the assumption that 39,985 ha of new irrigated area will develop due to the link canal is overestimated, as the existing Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage in the Godavari, the Prakasham  Barrage in the Krishna, and lift irrigation from the main river channel, all supply surface water to the Deltas. Therefore, most of the ‘new area’, which according to the feasibility study is to be brought  under irrigation, already is being irrigated with groundwater and water from either tanks or canals. Table 1 shows that currently 84 % of the command area is irrigated with groundwater and 9 % by canals (Bhaduri et al. 2007).

The letters in brackets correspond to locations in Figure 1 .Location of the link:

1= Upstream of the proposed Polavaram Reservoir including the submergence area,

2 = Downstream of the Polavaram Project area,

3= Command area of the link canal,

4 = Outside the command area of the link canal.

Category A = the command area for the link canal; Category B = mandals upstream of the link command area; Category C = the area submerged by the proposed reservoir; Category D = mandals upstream of the proposed Polavaram Reservoir; and Category E = the mandals downstream of the link canal command area. Locations A and C will be directly affected by the project. Locations B, D, and E will be indirectly affected by the project

 PAPER-2 : IRRIGATION PLANNING UNDER CHAPTER-8 OF NWDA PROPOSAL 

http://nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/sublink2images/80.pdf

The Polavaram – Vijayawada link canal takes-off from stilling basin proposed at the end of right side tunnel with a starting FSL of 40.232 m and runs for 174 km before joining Budameru river upstream of the existing regulator near Velagaleru village near Vijayawada. The water meant for diversion into Krishna river then pass through the existing Budameru Diversion Channel and join Krishna river about 8 km upstream of Prakasam barrage. The FSL of the canal at the tail end is 27.965 m. The link canal irrigates the cultivable and commandable lands lying between its alignment and the existing Eluru canals in Godavari and Krishna Delta systems. The total culturable command area of the Polavaram - Vijayawada link is 139740 ha. After deducting 7.5% towards watercourses, etc., the net irrigable area comes to 129259 ha. Out of this, an area of 121232 ha is commanded by gravity while 8027 ha is by a lift of 23 m. Out of the total CCA under Polavaram - Vijayawada link canal, 99755 ha is irrigated by bore wells, tanks and open head channels taking off from the river courses and 4032 ha is covered by dry lands presently under rainfed cultivation. There is an un-irrigated area of 35953 ha

The source wise irrigation details in the command area are given in the following Table.  21.16% of the irrigated area is served by open head channels, 20.45% by tanks and 43.38% by wells and the balance 15.01% by other sources.

8. Cost-benefit analysis works strongly against the project:  The cost benefit analysis for Polavaram project has been worked out by various individual experts and the AP State Government and for the Right bank canal the National Water Development Agency also presented the cost benefit ratio.  Among the experts Dr.Bhiksham presented the analysis which indicates that the project costs by far exceed the benefits as indicated in pages 69 to 82 of the following website:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lEJ_gqJvFPgC&lpg=PP1&ots=7MY94a97uC&dq=Perspectives%20on%20Polavaram&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Dr.Subrahmanyam , expert in economics from the Centre for Economics and social studies, Hyderabad presented detailed cost benefit analysis in pages 113 to 122 of the above website and this presentation also establishes hat the benefit cost ratio claimed by the state Government cannot be achieved.

According to another International expert Sri.T.Hanumantha Rao, former Engineer-in-Chief in Government Andhra Pradesh the cost of the proposed dam project will be very high when compared with the proposed barrages whose cost will be quite low.

On the basis of cost of Kanthalapally Barrage prepared in details in 2008-09 as Rs.880 crores, the cost of three barrages can be estimated at 4000 crores. Asa comparison the cost of Polavaram spillway and rock filled dam (2004-05 rates) was only 1627 crores including the surplus course.  Selection of locations of barrages will have to be done to get economic designs.  For example cost of alternate barrage at Polavaram was estimated as Rs.3000 crores.  This is almost double the cost of Dam & Spill Way. Whereas it should be only a fraction of this.

Assuming the R&R costs (to be worked out as per actual submersions), would be Rs.1500 crores (for the alternative proposal of much lesser submersion) and the cost of the canals and distribution system as Rs.3500 crores (some as in dam proposal) the irrigation component of that of the project (for the alternative proposals) would work out to Rs.9,000 crores. The total irrigation component for the “Dam” proposal would work out to Rs.18,700 crores (Rs.6700 crores for dam, spillway and power block-civil)+Rs,6500 crores (revised)  for R+R+Rs.3500 crores for canal and Rs.2000 crores for appurtenant works and connections.  On the basis of ayacut considered as 2.5 lakhs acres, the per acre cost of the alternative proposal would be Rs.3,60,000/- per acre (Rs.9,000 crore/2.5 lakhs acres) and that of the “Dam”proposal would be Rs.7,48,000/- per acre. Thus, the benefit cost ratio for the alternative proposal would be 2.07 times of that of the “Dam” proposal.

 9. Manipulated environmental and other clearances make the project illegal:  The environmental clearance for the Polavaram project was based on the environmental impact assessment report prepared in 2005. This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report does not contain the compressive report on dam break analysis as prepared by the experts of the National Institute of Hydrology at Roorkee which is a research wing of the Union Ministry of Water Resources since this report presents a very alarmistic dam collapse scenario the project should have been given up as a reservoir but should have been changed into a multiple barrages project .  In fact the Environmental Impact Assessment report requires a presentation of alternative schemes for achieving the same economic goals as proposed by the dam.  Unfortunately these alternatives have not been presented  and even the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests did not exercise their right to obtain this relevant information from the sponsors of the project. Moreover EIA report was prepared on the basis of the Probable Maximum Flood of 36 lakh cusecs which is a serious underestimate for a massive catchment area of a major river like Godavari.  In view of the enormous floods received in Godavari in  August 2006  the Central Water Commission opened their eyes and made realistic calculations for estimating the Probable Maximum Flood and placed it at 49.5 lakh cusecs or 50 lakh cusecs. Since the Environmental clearance for the project was already obtained based on 36 lakh cusecs flood the calculations made for dam break analysis and for demarcation of backwater levels for identifying the areas of submersion in the upstream of the dam will be highly unrealistic and consequently the estimated cost of the project would be underestimated. By furnishing wrong information and without conducting public hearing on the EIA report in the areas likely to be submerged in Motu and Konta taluks of Orissa and Chattisgarh, the Environmental clearance obtained cannot be strictly considered to be legal.  Further the AP State Government submitted a second EIA report estimated at Rs.600 crores for construction of embankments to protect the areas likely tos be submerged in the Sileru and Sabari catchments in Orissa for a length of about 30km  and even for this project also there was no public hearing conducted in the upper states and the state Government has not taken the consents of the upper states for construction of these embankments.  Thus the clearances taken for this project from the various Ministries of the Union Government such as Water Resources, and Tribal Affairs and Planning Commission are based upon a misleading and incomplete environmental   clearance obtained from the Union Ministry of Environment.

10. Legal aspects – Precautionary principle – law of comparative consequences: Whenever legal judgments are to be pronounced on the acceptability or rejection of any development projects including irrigation projects an environmental impact assessment including the social impact assessments have to be made and if there are grey areas regarding the environmental backlashes on crucial natural resources conservation including species of plants, animals and human beings a decision has to be based on the precautionary principle which has been accepted by the world nations at the Rio-De-Janeiro conference on Human environment (1992).  One of the reputed Judges of the Supreme court of New South Wales, Australia , Justice Paul Stein gave his considered opinion on how to take decisions on projects intended for sustainable development. (Quoted from Environmental Law Review Journal of UK Volume-2, 2000)

Use Of The Precautionary Principle For Development Projects

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration states:

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”.

In the Australian context definition adopted in legislation has been:

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

(i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to theenvironment; and

(ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options”.

The precautionary principle has the potential for positive gains for the environment and national development  if applied appropriately by decision-makers. Along with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD), this principle has the capacity to be a key tool for  environmental protection and even improvement. The converse of the non-application of this precautionary principle, where the circumstances demand it, can surely lead to an irreversible deterioration in the environment and loss of ecosystems and human environmental assets.

To deal with some cases of application of this principle we can quote the “ Pakistani case of Zia v WAPDA in which the State Authority was constructing an electrical grid station in a residential area.  The petitioners, local residents alleged that the electromagnetic field created by the high voltage transmission lines would pose a serious health hazard. Article 9 of the Pakistani Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law’.  Article 14 of the constitution  provides that ‘the dignity of man and the privacy of the home shall be inviolable’. Article 184(3) provides for public interest litigation. Where the ‘life’ of citizens is degraded, the quality of life is adversely affected and health hazards are created, affecting a large number of people, the Supreme Court may grant relief to the extent of issuing injunctions on factories which create and promote environmental degradation. The Court held that existing scientific evidence regarding the possibility of adverse biological effects on people from exposure, as well as the possibility of reducing or eliminating such effects, was inconclusive. In responding to such scientific uncertainty the Court applied the precautionary principle for the benefit of the public.

In another case of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v Nayudu,  the Supreme Court of India considered a petition claiming that certain hazardous industries proposed to be established without the necessary certificate from the Pollution Control Board could not proceed to operate such polluting industries . M. Jagannadha Rao J elaborated the difficulties faced by environmental courts in dealing with scientific data. He quoted articles by Lords Woolf and Carnworth on the desirability of specialist environmental courts. In particular, his Honour discussed the status and application of the precautionary principle.

His Honour said:

“The ‘uncertainty’ of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time has led to great changes in environment concepts during the period between the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and the Rio Conference of 1992. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India and others, 1995 (5) SCC 647, a three Judge Bench of this Court referred to these changes, to the ‘precautionary principle’ and the new concept of ‘burden of proof’ in environmental matters.”

Kuldip Singh J after quoting  the principles evolved in various international Conferences and to the concept of ‘Sustainable Development’, asserted that the Precautionary Principle, the Polluter-Pays Principle and the special concept of Onus of Proof have now emerged and govern the law in India too, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of Indian Constitution . . .

The Court also elaborated on  the issue of burden of proof in cases involving the application of the precautionary principle: “ The precautionary principle suggested that where there is an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm, including, for example, extinction of species, widespread toxic pollution in major threats to essential ecological processes, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment.”

 Freestone, Legal Expert of the World Bank recognizes the emergence of the precautionary  principle as one of the most important developments of the new era. The precautionary principle has become part of international customary law. How the rhetoric of the principle can be operationalised is one of the challenges for the first decade of the 21st century.  This precautionary principle is not absolute nor extreme in its scope. It does not halt development  until the science is clear. But it changes  the underlying presumption from freedom of exploitation to one of conservation. One thing is clear—the precautionary principle is here to stay, with or without legislative support.  However Decision-makers and courts will not be able to avoid it or merely pay lip-service to it. Surely the courts will be required to review its application and attempt to apply it. Courts have to evaluate the principle and its place in environmental decision-making and particularly with regard to major irrigation projects whose viability is questioned in public interest.

In the Polavaram project the scientific and technical experts of the Union Ministry of Water Resources located in the National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee clearly stated in their report that several dams have collapsed and if the proposed earth and rockfill dam at Polavaram were to fail for one reason or the other the consequential wall of flood water will wipe out of existing thousands of people living downstream of the dam.  Hence there is sufficient scientific proof  and the precautionary principle has to be applied in this case and alternate methods of achieving the same economic goals can be obtained by converting the killer Polavaram dam into multiple barrages which are safe and beneficial. 

Law of Comparative Consequences: In the United States whenever there is a conflict in decision making with regard to a major development projects a comprehensive environmental impact analysis report is prepared including emergency response systems and disaster management systems.  After considering the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed project a decision is ultimately taken on the basis of the law of comparative consequences.  If expert “X” presents a particular  view that the positive contributions of the project work out to certain amount of costs  and expert “Y” presents another view involving the disastrous consequence of the project resulting in negative impacts of the project amounting to certain amount of costs,  then the decision makers will consider both points of view.  The decision makers compare the relative costs of implementation of the project and non-implementation of project and  ultimately decide on the choice which presents least cost to the community.  Otherwise a modified project which can achieve more or less the same economic goals of development will be taken up in the interests of ensuring sustainable development of the community on the plea that development also forms part of the Right to life and Right to livelihood as the project not only provides employment potential but also secures economic and social development resulting in a better quality of life.  In this context the people of India in general and the people of Andhra Pradesh in particular must weigh the costs and benefits of the proposals made by the State Government for construction of Polavaram dam and alternate proposals of constructing multiple barrages in place of the dam.

 12. Alternate barrages to the dam make the project safe & beneficial to the people: In view of the economic and environmental backlashes of the proposed Polavaram dam project  the people Andhra Pradesh and India must debate about all the above problems pertaining to the project and discharge their duties to protect the public health and environmental resources of the country as per article 51 A(g) of the constitution of India. 

Mahatma Gandhi said in 1947 after putting Mr.Nehru in the seat of the Prime Minister of India “Today I call Nehru as the Uncrowned King of India and he is a human being.  To err is human.  If  Mr.Nehru as Prime Minister commit some errors in the course of conducting administrative work his mistakes have to be corrected in public interest and for promoting a social welfare state.  In such a case his ministers will not come forward to correct his mistakes and his officials also will not dare to come forward to correct such mistakes.  In such a case who will correct his mistakes, Mahatma Gandhi asked the people before him.  When nobody came forward to answer. He told them in unmistaken terms “You, the people of India are the are the bosses in democracy and eternal vigilance is the price you have to pay for the democracy.  Hence all of you must come forward to commit the mistakes of the Prime Minister failing which you become unfit to be treated as responsible citizens of this great social welfare state.”. Even Mrs. Indira Gandhi wanted the people of India to protect the environmental under article 51 A(g) of the constitution of India.  I commend the alternative proposal of  barrages at Polavaram in place of the killer Polavaram dam as proposed by an eminent irrigation expert Shri.T.Hanumantha Rao  as presented in the following website.

https://www.indiawaterportal.org/blog/shivajirao32/9368

In exercise of this power the author demands that as an environmentalist interested in ensuring development without destruction  and in promoting sustainable development the proposed Polavaram dam must be immediately changed into a multiple barrages project which will be safe economical and eco-friendly.