Saturday, April 2, 2011

WHY CWC IS NOT AN EXPERT BODY ON POLAVARAM DAM?



Central Water Commission[CWC] is not a competent organization as per section 45 of the Evidence Act which is known to the Additional solicitor General[ASG] as some of the decicision makers are experts with basic engineering degrees in fields other than Civil and environmental engineering whose skills are relevant in making a sound design of the Polavaram dam project.The incompetent nature of the CWC has been made public with the secrecy of their dealings in case of Alamatti dam back water Level estimations and dam Break analysis reports as can be seen from the following web site:
http://www.sandrp.in/dams/PR_on_CIC_order_to_CWC_to_make_the_Almatti_backwater_study_public_Feb_16_2011.PDF  
First of all Polavaram barrage as advocated by Eminent expert engineers like Sir Arthur Cotton,Dr.K.L.Rao and Union Government technical expert committees headed by Dr.A.N.Khosla [1953]Mr.Gulhati[1963] and Mr.A.C.Mitra [1965]was mainly intended to use Godavari waters for irrigating the upland areas Coastal Andhra Districts.But when the Karnataka and Maharashtra states agitated to get more Krishna water by diverting the Godavari waters into Krishna river, the A.P.state Government headed by Dr.M.Chenna Reddy coerced Karnataka to enter into an agreement on 4th. August,1978 that subject to clearance of Polavaram project with F.R.L.at +150 M.S.L.by Central Water Commission,{CWC]A.P.state agrees to divert 80 TMC of Godavari water into Krishna for subsequent use of 35 TMC of Krishna water by Karnataka and Maharashtra. Again on 25-2-1980 and during the discussions before Bachawat Tribunal during 19-3-1980 and 2-4-1980.
Virtually A.P.State told the Tribunal that they will compensate for submersion in the upper states upto +175 M.S.L and threatened the basin states thus,'If the condition of F.R.L/M.W.L.+150 feet at the [polavaram]Dam site is changed,there can be no question of the diversion of Godavari waters into the Krishna River at all.'
Under Section[10] of the Indian Contract Act,1872,this inter-state agreement on Polavaram Project is not based on free consent of the parties and it is under undue influence from both A.P.state and Central Water Commission and Union Ministry of Water resources because Union Government stated in writing on 26-3-1980 before the Tribunal that Polavaram Dam with F.R.L./M.W.L.at +150 feet is technically feasible.On 3-4-1980 Union Government guaranteed the tribunal that Polavaram project shall be cleared by the Central Water Commission[CWC] for F.R.L/M.W.L.+150 feet.
Basin states,CWC and Union Government fixed the following parameters:
1]Spill-way design flood at 36 lakhs cusecs.
2]F.R.L/M.W.L.of Polavaram Dam at +150 feet at dam site.
3]A.P.state willing to compensate in terms of money/build embankments to avoid submersion in Orissa and Chattisgarh,upto +175 feet,M.S.L.
First parameter is changed from 36 to 50 lakhs cusec.by CWC in 2006
Third parameter is going to change from 175 ft. to 195 ft.
Second parameter is going to augment incremental floods,causing deaths of 50 lakhs people in Godavari Delta since the extreme floods will rise to 93 lakhs cusecs and existing flood embankments will collapse due to an inevitable dam burst for one reason or the other.
Polavaram project is not at all being constructed as per the original conditions stipulated by the Bachawat Tribunal report of April,1980.
For more details see the following web sites by international experts
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-dr-klrao-warned-about-collapse-of.html  
http://www.indiawaterportal.org/blog/shivajirao32/9388
The Additional Solicitor General Raval and the Maharashtra Advocate Andhyarujina should not be afraid of facing the true facts but should develop courage and patriotism to work for pursuit of the right methods of development of Polavaram project that ensures safety of the people the dam and the economic wealth of the nation instead of opting for the wrong methods of development that result in mass scale evacuation of lakhs of tribals and killing of millions of people downstream of the dam due to an inevitable dam collapse. It is widely know that some of the decision makers in the Central Water Commission (CWC) are experts in mechanical and other fields than the relevant civil and environmental engineering fields that mostly governed the design criteria for the development of an ecologically sound environmentally safe and structurally strong Polavaram dam project. As per Sec.45 of the Evidence Act they should cross examine all the relevant individual decision makers who produced the design for the Polavaram dam and they should be brought for cross examination and asked to certify the safety of the dam and give assurance that the non-fulfillment of the conditions as per Orissa High Court orders should result in pledging of the properties of these experts who vouchsafe for the non-failure of the dam and non-submersion of villages, agriculture fields and forests in Orissa. Unless such conditions of accountability are guaranteed by the experts, officials and others arguing for the promotion of this killer dam, the Supreme Court judges should refused to be carried away by the false assurances being given on behalf of the various Union Ministires of Environment and Forest , Water Resources, CWC, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power and other Union and AP State Government agencies and the concerned officials involved in decision making. This kind of security should be provided by the promoters of the project because one of the American Environmentalist Dr.Rene Dubos said that “a nation which blindly believes in its experts is a nation on its way to death”. So blind belief in the expertise of the CWC experts is a tantamount to blind belief of the Indian Nation in the honesty of Union Minister A.Raja of the 2G Spectrum Scandal.
The affidavit filed in the Supreme Court by the Central Water Commission (CWC) on Polavaram dam is misleading and false. The contention of CWC that the Bachawat Tribunal of 1980 settled all issues of submersion is invalid because it is based on the condition of 36 lakh cusecs design flood which was increased to 50 lakh cusecs in August 2006and hence the award is not valid anymore. Orissa High Court considered a writ petition and ordered in March 2006 that Polavaram dam shall not cause submersion of any land in Orissa and this judgement was accepted by the Union Government. In order to comply with the Orissa High Court orders, CWC directed AP State to construct embankment structures to avoid submersion of lands in Orissa AP state prepared an estimate for Rs.700 crores for embankment structures and asked for Environmental clearance for this project in February, 2009. But the Environmental clearance was not given because the AP State did not get the consent of Orissa and Chattisgarh so far. Investment clearance by Planning Commission is based upon hasty and defective technical clearance by the Technical Advisory Committee of the Union Ministry of Water Resources which is again based upon a defective environmental clearance based upon an incomplete EIA report that contains false and insufficient details of Risk and Dam Break Analysis , disaster and Environmental Management reports. The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) of 50 lakh cusecs estimated by CWC is erroneous because National Institute of Hydrology used 60 lakh cusecs as the inflow design flood based on 36 lakh cusecs for preparing the Dam Break Analysis report 1999 as desired by the AP State Government. The dam safety as presumed by the CWC is false because Dr.K.L.Rao warned in April 1983 that due to defective design of Polavaram dam it is bound to fail. If the scenario of extreme floods of 26.4 lakh cusecs that occurred in Krishna in October, 2009 is applied to Godavari catchment the extreme flood at Polavaram can be estimated at 90 lakhs cusecs and the dam safety cannot be ensured and consequential dam burst will result in killing 50 lakhs of people downstream, causing more than one lakh crores worth of property losses. The embankments cannot provide even temporary solutions as observed all over the world. In fact the dykes constructed at Bhadrachalam to contain the Godavari floods always resulted in submersion of the residential colonies as the drainage arrangements mostly failed due to obstruction caused by the embankments. Even in Rajahmundry city the embankments failed to avoid submersion of residential colonies since the local drains emptying into Godavari failed to get emptied even by pumping arrangements that mostly failed due to several reasons. These frequent problems of failure of embankments are not appreciated by CWC because of dearth of experts in the CWC who have adequate exposure to field investigations, designs, construction, operation and maintenance of irrigation flood control works. The Bachawat Tribunal insisted that the design of the Polavaram dam must be based not only on the interstate agreement of 1978 but also the agreement of 1980 as far as practicable and it clearly emphasized that if any changes are to be made in the stipulated conditions the consent of the other states must be obtained . since the critical design criteria of PMF changed from 36 lakh cusecs in 1980 to 50 lakh cusecs in 2006 there is need for reformulation of the Polavaram Dam into safe Barrages project in consultation with Orissa and Chattisgarh states.

Prof.T.Shivaji Rao,
Director, Center for Environmental Studies,
GITAM University, Visakhapatnam-45

Friday, March 11, 2011

RAISING POLAVARAM DAM TO MWL 177ft. DROWNS 50 VILLAGES IN C'GARH

C'garh will move SC to stop Polavaram project
RABINDRA NATH CHOUDHURY
RAIPUR
Article Date 10-3-2011, The Asian Age ePaper
 
POLAVARAM OPPOSED BY CHATTISGARH ,   2011

Chhattisgarh March 9: Chhattisgarh chief minister Raman Singh on Wednesday announced that the state government would soon move Supreme Court seeking its intervention to stop Andhra Pradesh from going ahead with the multi-purpose Polavaram project.
“We have decided to move the apex court against the project as Andhra Pradesh is going ahead with its construction without consulting us on several issues, including raising the dam height,” Mr Singh told the state Assembly here.
The chief minister said an estimated 17,000 hectares of reserve forest in south Bastar region would be submerged and more than 15,000 tribals displaced by the Indira Sagar Dam Project. Mr Singh said he had already written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh urging them to call a meeting of the chief ministers of the concerned states — Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa — to resolve the issue.
The chief minister said he had also discussed the issue with his Orissa counterpart, Mr Naveen Patnaik, who is also opposed to the project.
He said the controversial project would only benefit Andhra Pradesh, while Chhattisgarh and Orissa would be worst affected.
Even the Union environment minister had admitted that public hearing for the
proposed project was not conducted by Andhra government before the project obtained environment clearance, he added.
Making a statement in the House, state forest minister Vikram Usendi said the height of the proposed dam was increased from 150 ft to 177.04 feet by Andhra Pradesh without taking Chhattisgarh government into confidence.
Earlier, Congress Legislature Party leader Ravindra Choubey and former chief minister Ajit Jogi expressed serious concern over the adverse impact of the project on Chhattisgarh. They said nearly 50 tribal villages would be submerged by the project and extended their party's support for any movement by the state government against the project.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

ALAMATTI DAM, A BUNDLE , OF CONTRADICTIONS SINCE 1978


Alamatti dam problems create rifts between union and state governments since 1978


the louder you shout and the more noise you make, the greater is your chance of succeeding: this seems to be the mantra of both Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (ap) politicians on the contentious issue of the Alamatti dam (over the Krishna river in Karnataka). The dam is part of the Upper Krishna Project (ukp) in the Krishna river valley.

Karnataka's move to raise the level of Alamatti to 528 metre (m) had been troubling ap for some time. ap fears that once Karnataka raised the level to impound excess Krishna waters, nothing on earth will bring it down and into the command areas of Krishna valley dams in ap - including Srisailam, Nagarjunasagar, Jerula and Krishna barrage - thereby jeopardising the economy of ap's rice bowl.Karnataka is bent on building as high dam as possible so that by the year 2000, when review of the Krishna water dispute tribunal becomes due, it is in a position to show maximum use of the Krishna waters.

Suspecting that the Centre was almost hand-in-glove with Karnataka on the issue, ap decided to act by petitioning the state high court, among other things. What ap is basically afraid of is that the projects built by it will become redundant once upstream states start using their share of the water.

While both Karnataka and ap swear by the Bachawat award (1976) of the Krishna water dispute tribunal, both wish to garner the maximum amount of water before the review of the award after May in 2000. The Bachawat award had allocated 700 tmc-ft (thousand million cubic feet) of water to Karnataka, 800 tmc-ft to ap and 560 tmc-ft to Maharashtra. These limits set up by the tribunal and the mega project-centered mindset of the water resources bureaucracy and politicians, seem to be root of the problem. In their haste to show maximum utilisation of Krishna waters, all three states are building oversized reservoirs, without taking into consideration social, environmental or financial implications of the projects.

The Alamatti dam - which the Bachawat tribunal called the "carry-over reservoir" - has reportedly already reached a height of 507 m. Against the three-m gates as originally envisaged, the dam will now have 15.5-m gates. What is significant is that while Karnataka is trying to raise the height of the dam, the World Bank, under whose active patronage construction on the dam started, is silent even though the aid to the dam had to be stopped at least twice for poor rehabilitation facilities. In the haste to complete the dam, the people to be affected by it stand to lose the most.

Way back in 1976, the Bachawat tribunal had more than once pointed out that Karnataka had deviated from the Planning Commission (pc) sanctions in the case of the ukp. While the pc has given the go-ahead for the power component of the project, the central electricity authority had yet to give techno-economic clearance, says the Union power minister S Venugopalachary. Likewise, K C Agarwal, commissioner (projects) of the Union water resources ministry points out that no sanction had been given for stage ii, including the power component. The sequence of events shows that there is no comprehensive impact assessment, nor is there a coordination between different sanctioning authorities for the project.

According to Agarwal, there is no central body to check if the sanctions are being adhered to.In 1990, the pc had approved the raising of the dam's height from the earlier 512.2 m to 523.8 m. But the same sanction also gave a 'no-objection' to the stage ii construction plans of the dam in the spillway and power dam portions, which would raise the height further to 528.25 m. Karnataka's claims it has the pc's clearance to construct the dam for an additional four m to store an additional 100 tmc-ft water for non-consumptive hydropower use, is based on this sanction.

In its affidavit filed before the ap high court, Karnataka has said that the central water commission (cwc), "in its letter dated July 4, 1996, cleared the gate design aspect, subject to compliance of certain observations, which are in respect of technical aspects regarding design of the gates". By taking a strong stand over the last two months, the ap chief minister C Chandrababu Naidu has been attempting to preempt sanction for this additional construction. Also under fire from him is the alleged Rs 200 crore sanction for the dam under the Union government's new accelerated irrigation development scheme. Agarwal, however, terms the issue of sanction of Rs200 crore an imaginary matter as no proposal was even considered.

In his efforts to resolve the tangle, Prime Minister Deve Gowda recently appointed an expert committee including members from the pc and the cwc to look into the matter, but later he had to backtrack when it was pointed out that such a committee could not go beyond the purview of the tribunal's award. The committee was not even allowed to visit the dam site. In fact, the objective of maximum utilisation of river waters can be best realised by resorting to multiple small projects and extensive watershed development. Strangely, the increased social and environmental costs are not part of the debate.

The nerve-centre of the lingering river valley disputes has been reflected upon aptly by L C Jain. Said the former member of planning commission, "Fifty years of development planning should teach us that as long as we confine the solutions within interstate parameters, we cannot find sustainable, durable or real solutions. Rigid bureaucracy and the tendency of politicians to play up to imaginary galleries have defied solutions. Unless people on both sides of borders who are going to be affected or benefitted are taken into confidence, the real solutions will continue to elude us."
14/09/1996
Down to Earth

ALAMATTI DAM TO BE RAISED TO 528.8 METERS?

Karnataka Govt. to challenge Krishna tribunal order in Supreme Court

Bangalore, Feb 25 (ANI): Karnataka Government has decided to challenge the verdict of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal on the division of surplus water from the Krishna River in the Supreme Court of India.
A meeting, which was chaired here today Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa and attended by Karnataka Water Resources Minister Basavaraj Bommai and floor leaders of the Opposition parties felt that the tribunal in its final award has not done justice to Karnataka which had demanded a share of 278 tmcft and was allocated only 178 tmcft.
The meeting, which was also attended by Industries Minister Murgesh Nirani, Minor Irrigation Minister Govind Karjol and JDS leader M C Nanaiah, was convened to discuss and finalise the state’s future course of action on the Tribunal order.
Basavaraj Bommai after the meeting said besides contesting the allocation of water before Supreme Court, the state would also file an application seeking clarifications from the Tribunal on why the state’s plea for allocating 50 percent of the 448 tmcft available for sharing was not considered.
The Tribunal passing its verdict in December last year allocated the maximum share of 1001 TMC feet of water of the river to Andhra Pradesh, 911 to Karnataka and 666 to Maharashtra.
The Krishna River originates in Maharashtra and flows through Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh before discharging into the Bay of Bengal.
Sharing of Krishna waters has been surrounded in controversy as Karnataka has been seeking to raise the height of the Almatti Dam to 528 metres. It argued that the Union Planning Commission approved the original height of 528 metres in 1978.
But Andhra Pradesh contended that Karnataka has been raising the height of the dam without legal sanction, and in violation of a 1974 tribunal award, accepted by both states. (ANI)

Monday, March 7, 2011

WHY ORISSA OPPOSES POLAVARAM DAM ?

 ORISSA  OPPOSES KILLER  POLAVARAM DAM BUT  PREFERS SAFE BARRAGES PROJECT ?
http://www.dowrorissa.gov.in/AnnualReport/WR_AR08-09.pdf
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/experts-wated-polavaram-as-barrage-and.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-barrages-had-to-be-proposed-for.html
http://www.indiawaterportal.org/blog/shivajirao32/10053
http://sites.google.com/site/profshivajirao/polavaramdam-0
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-dr-klrao-warned-about-collapse-of.html
Government of Andhra Pradesh have proposed to construct a Multipurpose project across river Godavari near Polavaram at 42 kms upstream of existing Godavari barrage near Rajmahendry in the West Godavary district of Andhra Pradesh.
In the inter-state meeting held on 15.12.78, it was decided to go for the construction of Polavaram project in such a manner that maximum submergence in Orissa territory should not exceed RL 150ft at Konta/Motu due to all effects including back water effect.
Further as per agreement dated 02.04.1980 the co-basin states agreed upon that the discharging capacity of the spillway may be 36 lakh cusecs at RL + 140 feet and an operation schedule was also prescribed.
The Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal (GWDT) passed its final order during April 1980.Clause(VI) of the order states that the Polavaram project shall be cleared by the Central Water Commission (CWC) as expeditiously as possible for MWL/FRL 150ft. The matter of design and its operation was left to CWC keeping in view all the agreements and change in operation schedule to be done in consultation with co-basin states. The design aspect was left entirely to CWC by GWDT

During the inter-state meeting held on 26.2.1997,Government of Andhra Pradesh intimated that at 36 lakh cusecs design flood the water level may go up to RL 182 feet due to back water effect. As a result 7 villages (1026 ha of land) in Orissa territory are likely to be affected.Further Govt. of Andhra Pradesh intimated
during March 2001 that 10 villages and 2119.38 ha. of land were likely to be affected in Orissa territory. 648.05 ha. of land would be submerged at RL 150 ft. which includes 102.16 ha. of reserve forest in Orissa territory. These values are based on the remote sensing data.While the the issue of submergence in Orissa
remain unresolved.
The Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India have granted environmental clearance to the project on 25.10.2005 based on design flood of 36 lakh cusecs. In the meanwhile, the design flood of
the project has been revised by CWC to the order of 50 lakh cusecs. As such, the environmental clearance given to this project can not be treated as valid and has to be revoked as the Environmental clearance was given basing ondesign flood of 36 lakh cusecs.
Sri R.Vidya Sagar Rao, Retired Chief Engineer,C.W.C had filed a petition before the Central Empowered Committee (constituted by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) challenging the Forest & Environment clearance accorded by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India dated 25.10.2005.The officers of Government of Orissa appeared before the C.E.C on 26.6.2006, 26.7.2006 and
29.8.2006 and strongly opposed the proposed Polavaram project of A.P. Government.
Hon’ble High Court of Orissa has passed order in the Misc Case No.3117 of 2006 arising out of W.P© No.3669/2006; “It is open to the State of Andrha Pradesh to proceed with the construction of Indira Sagar (Polavaram)Multipurpose Project after complying with the requirements of all laws applicable in this regard in such manner that no land/village/area within the territory of the State of Orissa is submerged.”
Hon’ble Chief Minister, Orissa has requested the Hon’ble Prime Minister, Hon’ble Union Minister of Water Resources, Hon’ble Union Minister of F&E and Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to reformulate the Pollavaram Multipurpose project without any submergence in Orissa territory as socio-economic situation
of Orissa has undergone a sea change since 1978.
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India have granted R&R clearance to the project on 17.4.2007.
Government of Orissa have filed a suit in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Art 131 of the Indian Constitution on 09.10.2007 with prayer
(a) To declare that the first defendant has no right or entitlement to undertake or proceed with the construction of Polavaram Project (now known as Indira Sagar Project) on Godavari river at Polavaram.
(b) To declare the clearance of the Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests dated 25.10.2005 as illegal and null & void.
(c) To declare the tribal clearance given by the Secretary (Tribal), Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi as null & void.
(d) To grant a permanent injunction restraining the A.P. Government from undertaking or proceeding with the construction of Polavaram Project (now known as Indira Sagar Project) on Godavari river at Polavaram or order to defendant to lower its heights so as not to submerge the territory of Orissa Stat
(e) To declare the permission of Central Water Commission vide its letter No.6/125/2007 PAC(S) dated.11.04.2007 to construct embankments as null & void as is not based on any technical data. CWC has not done any investigation. Further, no data has been supplied to Plaintiff State of Orissa by CWC before giving
its decision.
(f) To grant a mandatory injunction to remove all its structures related to the Polavaram Project (now known as Indira Sagar Project) on Godvari river at Polavaram being executed by the A.P.Government.
 Environmental clearance granted by MOEF on 25.10.2005 in favour of Polavaram Project has been set aside by the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) vide order dt.19.12.2007.
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh challenged this order in Andhra Pradesh High Court and A.P High court has suspended the order of NEAA on 31.12.2007. A counter affidavit has been filed by F&E Department , Government of Orissa in WP No.27787 of 2007, WPMP No.36348 of 2007 and WVMP of 2008 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh requesting to vacate the interim order dated 31.12.2007.
A written statement has been filed by MOTA on Suit No.4 of 2007, the State of Orissa Vrs State of Andhra Pradesh and others in the Supreme Court of India.A written statement has also been filed by Govt.of A.P.on Suit No.4 of 2007, the State of Orissa Vrs State of Andhra Pradesh and others in the Supreme Court of India. The rejoinder to the above written statement has been prepared by Govt. of Orissa and filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The TAC clearance for the project has been accorded on 23.01.2009 by Central Water Commission as per the stipulation given below
1. The project authorities shall give to the MOEF the details of the proposed protection bunds along Sabari and Sileru to prevent Submergence in Orissa and Chhattisgarh in accordance with orders of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and condition imposed by MOTA and MOEF and takes their concurrence before construction of these protection embankments.
2. The project authorities shall furnish confirmation report to MOTA that there is no change in the number of project affected ST family and ST population from what was reported at the clearance of R&R plan by MOTA.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh shall ensure that there is no submergence of any habitations or forest area in Orissa and Chhattisgarh as assured by them by constructing protective embankments with adequate drainage arrangements.
4. The project authorities shall fulfill the stipulated conditions of MOEF and MOTA as laid down in their respective clearances.
The application for stay of operation of the clearance granted by TAC of CWC in respect of Indirasagar ( Pollavaram) Project, Andhra Pradesh on 20th January 2009 and injunction restraining A.P Government from proceeding further with construction work in respect of the project has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India on 16.02.2009. Also the rejoinder to the written statement filed by MOTA on suit 4 of 2007 has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Forest clearance to the project has been accorded by MOEF on 07.12.2008.Action is being taken for filling counter to the Forest clearance granted by MOEF in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.