Friday, June 22, 2012

Raw water being dumped into drain in the name of recharging Yamuna (The Hindu 17 June 2012)



‘This release into the Yamuna through Najafgarh drain is part of the Supreme Court's direction'
“When the well is dry, we know the worth of water,” wrote Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States in Poor Richard's Almanac. But here in Delhi, where lakhs of wells have dried up, water table has dropped to as low as 550 feet in many areas and lakhs of people are going without adequate drinking water supply, as much as 34 to 60 crore litres of clean raw water are being dumped every day into the dirty Najafgarh drain in the name of recharging the Yamuna river system.
Moreover, while this dumping of raw water in the drain has been going on for several years, neither Delhi nor the Haryana Government has tried to use this water for their citizens' drinking needs.
According to Anand Kumar, Chief Engineer of Yamuna Water Services Unit (South), Haryana Irrigation Department, “this release into the Yamuna through the Najafgarh drain is a part of the Supreme Court's direction regarding maintenance of minimum flow in the river Yamuna for which purpose 10 cumecs of water have to be released into the Yamuna for maintenance of the eco-system and for flushing out impurities.''
In compliance of this order, he insists: “Of this, 160 cusecs are released from Tajewala and 140 cusecs are released from the Delhi Sub-Branch into the Najafgarh drain.''
Pinky Anand, senior advocate and amicus curiae in Writ Petition No. 537 of 1992 – Commander Sureshwar D. Sinha and others versus Union of India and others -- insists that the “Supreme Court never directed the authorities to dump clean raw water in a filthy highly polluted drain.''
“The Supreme Court, vide order dated February 29, 1996 directed the Haryana to ensure that there is enough water supply to keep ponds at the Haiderpur and Wazirabad treatment plants full to fulfil Delhi's water requirements since Delhi's requirement was only about three per cent of Haryana's total water availability,'' she said.
Then, Ms. Anand said, “the Supreme Court vide order dated May 14, 1999 directed Haryana and other riparian States to ensure flow of minimum fresh water into the Yamuna for maintaining the eco system and for flushing out impurities.''
On his part, Mr. Sinha said the 1996 order had clearly specified that the additional water to be supplied for maintaining the pond levels of Delhi's water treatment plants at Haiderpur and Wazirabad, was to be allowed to flow downstream "through Yamuna". “This wording was specifically sought and stated, so as to also maintain the ecology of the river,'' he insisted.
After a High Powered Committee had recommended a minimum flow of 10 cumecs or 353 cusecs, Mr. Sinha said he had asked that at least this lesser amount be released until the scientifically evaluated "adequate flow" was decided upon and ordered by the Supreme Court.
But while the order on minimum flow was passed in 1999, Mr. Sinha said ``regrettably, even the "minimum flow" of 10 cumecs ordered by the Supreme Court to be allowed to flow throughout the river is not being permitted to flow. There is no question of sending such flow through a canal to Delhi, when the order states that the same should flow throughout the river, i.e. from Tajewala to Allahabad.''
“In any case it is nonsensical to send clean water through a sewage drain, which the Najafgarh drain becomes in its lower reaches,'' he said.
Even environmentalist Manoj Misra of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan concurs that the apex court never directed such wastage of raw water. He said the Supreme Court had not specified how the minimum flow of water into the Yamuna should be maintained but had apportioned the percentage of share of this flow between different States. “It was presumed that this flow shall be in the river proper and not through this or that canal as Haryana is now claiming to the following''.
“For Haryana to claim to put raw water in the river in Najafgarh drain to meet the revival needs of Yamuna in Delhi in tune with the orders of Supreme Court is a fallacious and misleading argument,'' the environmentalist said, adding that this was “nothing short of a mockery of the intent of the Supreme Court order of 1999.''

No comments:

Post a Comment