The recent rains and cold spell appear to have augured well for the arrival of migratory birds at the Okhla Bird Sanctuary as also along the upper stretch of the Yamuna and their numbers have picked up significantly in the past few days.
As per T.K. Roy, conservationist and AWC Delhi State Coordinator for Wetlands International – South Asia, which conducts an annual survey on the migratory birds in Delhi, the cold weather has brought with it a number of bird species which were hitherto either giving Delhi a go-by or were coming in only in trickles.
“Climate plays a very important role in migration of birds. In turn, birds are a good indicator of climate,” said Mr. Roy, adding that while Okhla Bird Sanctuary had witnessed a decent arrival of migratory birds till late December, they had not been spotted along the upper stretches of the Yamuna.
“But for the moving flocks of black-headed gulls and brown-headed gulls in the upper stretch of Yamuna, who go there in search of food and return to the sanctuary in the evening,” there has been very little movement of birds in the area.
“Unfortunately, the most attractive greater flamingos have not been seen since last year – despite their earlier number being as high as 500. But with the recent showers, the number of birds in the sanctuary has gone up and most of the flocks are now sheltered in the middle part of the sanctuary,” he said.
So far, the prominent species that have arrived in Delhi include the northern shoveller, northern pintail, crested pochard, common pochard, ferruginous pochard, Eurasian wigeon, gadwal, common teal, common coot, graylag geese, bar-headed geese, Eurasian spoonbill, black-tailed godwits, black-headed gull and brown-headed gull.
Even the number of spotbill duck has been higher than the average of the past years.
But some other migratory species like mallard, garganey, cotton teal, comb duck, pallas gull, bar-tailed godwit and local migrants like black-necked stork and Asian openbill stork have not arrived till date.
Among other common waders, certain species such as common sandpiper, green sandpiper, wood sandpiper, marsh sandpiper, common redshank, greenshank, little stint, northern lapwing, river lapwing, white-tailed lapwing and four species of wagtails, pied avocet, painted stork, white ibis and glossy ibis have only come in very small numbers on the middle islands and western bank of the Yamuna on the Delhi side.
Mr. Roy said while the season had begun on a note of desperation since the dried up river bed in October 2011 had led to a sharp fall in the arrival of the migratory birds, later their numbers had swelled with the filling up of water in the portion of the river passing through Delhi.
“After the revival of the water body, the prominent species like cormorants, darter, black-crowned night heron, egrets, herons, little grebe, pheasant-tailed jacana, bronze-winged jacana, purple moorhen, white-breasted waterhen, common moorhen and brahmini ducks returned to the Okhla sanctuary in large numbers,” he said.
The actual bird count or census would begin in the second week of January, Mr. Roy said.
Monday, January 9, 2012
“Too polluted an area to be married into or from” (The Hindu 08 January 2012)
ADDING TO PROBLEMS: The Timarpur-Okhla wasteto- energy incinerator near Sukhdev Vihar.
“Too polluted an area to be married into or from” is the dubious status that young men and women of Haji Colony here have been battling for the past few years now.
Living in a densely-polluted unauthorised settlement that houses more than 5,000 people from the lower income group, the Haji Colony is located next to a large municipal compost plant, a bio-medical waste incinerator and theTimarpur-Okhla waste-to-energy incinerator.
“The three plants ensure the air remains polluted, our drinking water is brownish, smelly and contaminated and there is a overhanging stench of decaying garbage in the area,” says area resident Noor Mohammed.
“Outsiders visiting the area are put off by the location itself — with the colony sharing a boundary with a municipal compost plant. Besides, adjacent to the colony is the bio-medical waste incinerator which discharges waste that has contaminated the drinking water of the area so extensively that we now have to buy water to drink and cook. People are now refusing marriage into or from the area,” says Mr. Mohammed, whose now-married elder daughter once faced the same problem.
“In my daughter's case, people came to see her but could not bear the nauseous stench. They left in a huff even refusing to have a glass of water at our residence. They later called back to say that it was the pollution in the area that made them flee. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case and we have several cases of boys not being able to find a match because of the polluted environment here,” he adds.
Health issues
But it isn't just the young who are facing a problem here. Women complain about breathing problem, skin diseases and the fact that everything at home and outside is always covered with a thick layer of soot.
“You breathe the colony's acrid air, drink water polluted by the bio-medical waste incinerator and municipal compost plant and live next to a massive waste incinerator. Because of all this, health becomes the first casualty. The high-decibel, constant noise from the compost plant has adversely affected our hearing. Most of us have high blood pressure because of living in an area that forces the body to stay under stress constantly. The children suffer regularly from stomach infections, breathing trouble and lowered immunity, and the situation has only worsened in the past two years,” says resident Feroz Jahan.
She adds that the “trial run” of the Timarpur-Okhla waste-to-energy incinerator has brought to the forefront the most ugly face of pollution here.
“We have no idea how we will live in such a contaminated environment and to think that this is the heart of Delhi,” rues Ms. Jahan.
Sughna Begum, also from the same colony, says: “We have met several officials and politicians, but so far there has been no relief. We continue to battle ill-health and live under a cloud of pollution. With the government now planning to start up the waste-to-energy incinerator, we are worried about the long-term effects on our health and living condition. We are most worried for our children, their health and life.”
“Too polluted an area to be married into or from” is the dubious status that young men and women of Haji Colony here have been battling for the past few years now.
Living in a densely-polluted unauthorised settlement that houses more than 5,000 people from the lower income group, the Haji Colony is located next to a large municipal compost plant, a bio-medical waste incinerator and theTimarpur-Okhla waste-to-energy incinerator.
“The three plants ensure the air remains polluted, our drinking water is brownish, smelly and contaminated and there is a overhanging stench of decaying garbage in the area,” says area resident Noor Mohammed.
“Outsiders visiting the area are put off by the location itself — with the colony sharing a boundary with a municipal compost plant. Besides, adjacent to the colony is the bio-medical waste incinerator which discharges waste that has contaminated the drinking water of the area so extensively that we now have to buy water to drink and cook. People are now refusing marriage into or from the area,” says Mr. Mohammed, whose now-married elder daughter once faced the same problem.
“In my daughter's case, people came to see her but could not bear the nauseous stench. They left in a huff even refusing to have a glass of water at our residence. They later called back to say that it was the pollution in the area that made them flee. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case and we have several cases of boys not being able to find a match because of the polluted environment here,” he adds.
Health issues
But it isn't just the young who are facing a problem here. Women complain about breathing problem, skin diseases and the fact that everything at home and outside is always covered with a thick layer of soot.
“You breathe the colony's acrid air, drink water polluted by the bio-medical waste incinerator and municipal compost plant and live next to a massive waste incinerator. Because of all this, health becomes the first casualty. The high-decibel, constant noise from the compost plant has adversely affected our hearing. Most of us have high blood pressure because of living in an area that forces the body to stay under stress constantly. The children suffer regularly from stomach infections, breathing trouble and lowered immunity, and the situation has only worsened in the past two years,” says resident Feroz Jahan.
She adds that the “trial run” of the Timarpur-Okhla waste-to-energy incinerator has brought to the forefront the most ugly face of pollution here.
“We have no idea how we will live in such a contaminated environment and to think that this is the heart of Delhi,” rues Ms. Jahan.
Sughna Begum, also from the same colony, says: “We have met several officials and politicians, but so far there has been no relief. We continue to battle ill-health and live under a cloud of pollution. With the government now planning to start up the waste-to-energy incinerator, we are worried about the long-term effects on our health and living condition. We are most worried for our children, their health and life.”
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Give us back our green patch (The Hindu 05 January 2012)
Can the ‘sovereign' actively and knowingly violate the laws of the land? Take the case of Delhi's Zone 0. It is spread like a green ribbon over 97 sq km of the national Capital and is categorised as the River Yamuna zone under Delhi's Master Plan. Stretching between the Ring Road in the West and the Bund Road in the East, the plans for this zone, meant for its ‘greening' never provided for a ‘bus depot'. But that's what was set up thanks to the Commonwealth Games 2010.
At Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan (YJA) we followed up the matter closely and the facts that our enquiry threw up were shocking, to say the least.
Story so far
The saga dates to end 2007 when the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) first approached the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), for “allotment of land for idle parking of 300 buses during Commonwealth Games 2010”. DDA in turn suggested four sites (see map) to the DTC, three of which (Site II, III and IV) lay in the Zone O. After a joint site inspection and meeting in November 2007 the Site II measuring 10 acres opposite the Millennium Park in Zone O was selected by the DTC. It may be noted that the DDA while suggesting the said options had clearly stated in its letter dated October 16, 2007 that “one of these sites shall be made available to the DTC purely on temporary basis to be taken back by DDA after the games.” What we fail to understand is that when a site marked P (parking) spread over 6 ha (15 acres) and lying between the CWG village site and the Akshardham already existed then why was it not identified as the most appropriate and made available to the DTC?
Later on, on August 18, 2008 subsequent to a number of meetings held between DDA and DTC all through the year, the DDA made an offer to DTC for space near Mayur Vihar District Centre for temporary parking which could later be converted into a bus depot as the zonal plan provided for it.
While all this back and forth between DTC and DDA was going on, Lt. Governor (LG) of Delhi, Tajendra Khanna agreed on Feb 24, 2009, for temporary allotment of Site III lying in Zone O with five strict conditions. These included that the “land will remain with DDA/Govt. and will be licensed to Government of Delhi/DTC for temporary stabling of buses till one week after the Games are over.”
Alerted by these developments, YJA sent two letters on June 22 and 23, 2009 to the LG, in which the site marked as P lying behind Akshardham was highlighted for consideration. We also expressed the fear that “many a times what begins as a temporary feature soon enough becomes a permanent one with the agency owning it finding one or the other excuse to keep it going.” (Little did we know then how prophetic these fears would ultimately prove to be.)
In response YJA received a letter on July1, 2009 from the office of the LG stating: “Considering the security threat perception prevailing in the region and security arrangement for the athletes during the CWG-2010, temporary parking for about 300 buses near Games Village has been permitted by the LG, Delhi. This parking lot is to be used during the CWG 2010 only for 2-3 weeks. It is assured that this will purely be a temporary arrangement and there is no question of any concretisation of the river bed on this account. Further, there is no proposal by DTC for any other bus depot on the Yamuna river bed. LG Delhi himself is extremely sympathetic towards the Yamuna river bed and would never allow anything which would adversely affect the eco-system of the Yamuna.”
Some revelations
Subsequent responses to RTI queries reveal that sometime in 2009, Site II opposite the Millennium Park (also known as IP Park) in Zone O was finally chosen. The Indraprastha Power Generation Co Ltd (IPGCL), which had the possession of the said land, handed over 60 acres of the land under LG's directions to the DTC with a condition that the “transfer of land is purely on temporary basis and vacant possession of same shall be given back to IPGCL after CWG 2010.”
YJA, on observing large scale construction work going on in Zone O sought reassurances through a letter to the LG dated April 23, 2010. A response dated May 5, 2010 received from the LG's office with a copy marked to DDA, DTC and others clearly stated, “It is to confirm that the bus parking facility opposite the I.P. Park will be a temporary arrangement for the DTC for the duration of the CWG-2010 and there is no plan for any permanent structures. The structures are supposed to be completely removed post games.”
Thus when on September 18, 2010, the media in the city quoted the DTC sources on having created the world's largest bus depot spread over 60 acre plot and constructed at Rs 61 crores, it came as an incredulous shock to us at YJA. Did the Master Plan of Delhi and the authority and words of the LG of Delhi carry any meaning at all?
Thus once the games were over the YJA was compelled to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister through a letter dated October 16, 2010, the ill intent and the illegalities involved in the matter.
On November 3, 2010, a team from Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) led by its Chairman, KT Ravindran made a site visit to the bus depot. Post the visit, the DUAC, whose directions are binding in nature directed both the DDA and the DTC as follows: “Since it was built as a temporary facility for the Commonwealth Games, the Yamuna river bed should be restored to its original form and the existing structures and hard top road surfaces should be demolished and removed immediately.”
On January 29, 2011, a letter from the Principal Secretary (Transport), Government of National Capital of Delhi (GNCTD) to YJA admitted that the bus depot in question is ‘temporary' and that the government shall shift it but only when alternate land has been given by the DDA. In this context the alternative suggested way back in 2008 by the DDA to DTC near the Mayur Vihar District Centre is pertinent. It is also pertinent to note whether the DDA would have been as oblivious of DTC's illegal presence on the river bed, had the latter been a private entity?
The intent of the DTC and GNCTD was further nailed by the PM appointed Shunglu Committee which went into the wrong doings connected with the hosting of the CWG 2010 and which in the context of the bus depot observed: “It appears as if the hosting of CWG provided a pretext for ‘land grab' by various Government Agencies after short circuiting the established rules and procedures.”
Against evidence presented above, should an illegal occupation of land in Zone O be allowed to persist?
What's a bus depot doing in a place demarcated as a ‘river zone' in Delhi's Master Plan? Manoj Misra, Convenor of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, recounts his ongoing battle to restore the area to its pre-Common Wealth Games status.
At Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan (YJA) we followed up the matter closely and the facts that our enquiry threw up were shocking, to say the least.
Story so far
The saga dates to end 2007 when the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) first approached the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), for “allotment of land for idle parking of 300 buses during Commonwealth Games 2010”. DDA in turn suggested four sites (see map) to the DTC, three of which (Site II, III and IV) lay in the Zone O. After a joint site inspection and meeting in November 2007 the Site II measuring 10 acres opposite the Millennium Park in Zone O was selected by the DTC. It may be noted that the DDA while suggesting the said options had clearly stated in its letter dated October 16, 2007 that “one of these sites shall be made available to the DTC purely on temporary basis to be taken back by DDA after the games.” What we fail to understand is that when a site marked P (parking) spread over 6 ha (15 acres) and lying between the CWG village site and the Akshardham already existed then why was it not identified as the most appropriate and made available to the DTC?
Later on, on August 18, 2008 subsequent to a number of meetings held between DDA and DTC all through the year, the DDA made an offer to DTC for space near Mayur Vihar District Centre for temporary parking which could later be converted into a bus depot as the zonal plan provided for it.
While all this back and forth between DTC and DDA was going on, Lt. Governor (LG) of Delhi, Tajendra Khanna agreed on Feb 24, 2009, for temporary allotment of Site III lying in Zone O with five strict conditions. These included that the “land will remain with DDA/Govt. and will be licensed to Government of Delhi/DTC for temporary stabling of buses till one week after the Games are over.”
Alerted by these developments, YJA sent two letters on June 22 and 23, 2009 to the LG, in which the site marked as P lying behind Akshardham was highlighted for consideration. We also expressed the fear that “many a times what begins as a temporary feature soon enough becomes a permanent one with the agency owning it finding one or the other excuse to keep it going.” (Little did we know then how prophetic these fears would ultimately prove to be.)
In response YJA received a letter on July1, 2009 from the office of the LG stating: “Considering the security threat perception prevailing in the region and security arrangement for the athletes during the CWG-2010, temporary parking for about 300 buses near Games Village has been permitted by the LG, Delhi. This parking lot is to be used during the CWG 2010 only for 2-3 weeks. It is assured that this will purely be a temporary arrangement and there is no question of any concretisation of the river bed on this account. Further, there is no proposal by DTC for any other bus depot on the Yamuna river bed. LG Delhi himself is extremely sympathetic towards the Yamuna river bed and would never allow anything which would adversely affect the eco-system of the Yamuna.”
Some revelations
Subsequent responses to RTI queries reveal that sometime in 2009, Site II opposite the Millennium Park (also known as IP Park) in Zone O was finally chosen. The Indraprastha Power Generation Co Ltd (IPGCL), which had the possession of the said land, handed over 60 acres of the land under LG's directions to the DTC with a condition that the “transfer of land is purely on temporary basis and vacant possession of same shall be given back to IPGCL after CWG 2010.”
YJA, on observing large scale construction work going on in Zone O sought reassurances through a letter to the LG dated April 23, 2010. A response dated May 5, 2010 received from the LG's office with a copy marked to DDA, DTC and others clearly stated, “It is to confirm that the bus parking facility opposite the I.P. Park will be a temporary arrangement for the DTC for the duration of the CWG-2010 and there is no plan for any permanent structures. The structures are supposed to be completely removed post games.”
Thus when on September 18, 2010, the media in the city quoted the DTC sources on having created the world's largest bus depot spread over 60 acre plot and constructed at Rs 61 crores, it came as an incredulous shock to us at YJA. Did the Master Plan of Delhi and the authority and words of the LG of Delhi carry any meaning at all?
Thus once the games were over the YJA was compelled to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister through a letter dated October 16, 2010, the ill intent and the illegalities involved in the matter.
On November 3, 2010, a team from Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) led by its Chairman, KT Ravindran made a site visit to the bus depot. Post the visit, the DUAC, whose directions are binding in nature directed both the DDA and the DTC as follows: “Since it was built as a temporary facility for the Commonwealth Games, the Yamuna river bed should be restored to its original form and the existing structures and hard top road surfaces should be demolished and removed immediately.”
On January 29, 2011, a letter from the Principal Secretary (Transport), Government of National Capital of Delhi (GNCTD) to YJA admitted that the bus depot in question is ‘temporary' and that the government shall shift it but only when alternate land has been given by the DDA. In this context the alternative suggested way back in 2008 by the DDA to DTC near the Mayur Vihar District Centre is pertinent. It is also pertinent to note whether the DDA would have been as oblivious of DTC's illegal presence on the river bed, had the latter been a private entity?
The intent of the DTC and GNCTD was further nailed by the PM appointed Shunglu Committee which went into the wrong doings connected with the hosting of the CWG 2010 and which in the context of the bus depot observed: “It appears as if the hosting of CWG provided a pretext for ‘land grab' by various Government Agencies after short circuiting the established rules and procedures.”
Against evidence presented above, should an illegal occupation of land in Zone O be allowed to persist?
What's a bus depot doing in a place demarcated as a ‘river zone' in Delhi's Master Plan? Manoj Misra, Convenor of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, recounts his ongoing battle to restore the area to its pre-Common Wealth Games status.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Organic farming not a green alternative now (Time of India 03 January 2012)
TODOS SANTOS, MEXICO: Clamshell containers on supermarket shelves in the US may depict verdant fields, tangles of vines and ruby red tomatoes . But at this time of year, the tomatoes , peppers and basil certified as organic by the agriculture department often hail from the Mexican desert, and are nurtured with intensive irrigation. Growers here on the Baja Peninsula, the epicenter of Mexico's thriving new organic export sector, describe their toil amid the cactuses as "planting the beach" .
Del Cabo Cooperative, a supplier here for Trader Joe's and Fairway, is sending more than seven and a half tons of tomatoes and basil every day to US by truck and plane to sate the American demand for organic produce year-round . But even as more Americans buy foods with the organic label, the products are increasingly removed from the traditional organic ideal: produce that is not only free of chemicals and pesticides but also grown locally on small farms in a way that protects environment.
The explosive growth in the commercial cultivation of organic tomatoes here, for example, is putting stress on the water table. In some areas , wells have run dry this year, meaning that small subsistence farmers cannot grow crops. And the organic tomatoes end up in an energy-intensive global distribution chain that takes them as far as New York and Dubai, UAE, producing significant emissions that contribute to global warming.
From now until spring, farms from Mexico to Chile to Argentina are enjoying their busiest season. Some large farms that have qualified as organic employed environmentally damaging practices , like planting only one crop, which is bad for soil health, or overtaxing local freshwater supplies. Many growers and even environmental groups in Mexico defend the export-driven organic farming, even as they acknowledge that more than a third of the aquifers in are categorized as overexploited by the Mexican water authority.
Del Cabo Cooperative, a supplier here for Trader Joe's and Fairway, is sending more than seven and a half tons of tomatoes and basil every day to US by truck and plane to sate the American demand for organic produce year-round . But even as more Americans buy foods with the organic label, the products are increasingly removed from the traditional organic ideal: produce that is not only free of chemicals and pesticides but also grown locally on small farms in a way that protects environment.
The explosive growth in the commercial cultivation of organic tomatoes here, for example, is putting stress on the water table. In some areas , wells have run dry this year, meaning that small subsistence farmers cannot grow crops. And the organic tomatoes end up in an energy-intensive global distribution chain that takes them as far as New York and Dubai, UAE, producing significant emissions that contribute to global warming.
From now until spring, farms from Mexico to Chile to Argentina are enjoying their busiest season. Some large farms that have qualified as organic employed environmentally damaging practices , like planting only one crop, which is bad for soil health, or overtaxing local freshwater supplies. Many growers and even environmental groups in Mexico defend the export-driven organic farming, even as they acknowledge that more than a third of the aquifers in are categorized as overexploited by the Mexican water authority.
The case for a new Mullaperiyar dam (The Hindu 03 January 2012)
Kerala’s apprehensions about the 116-year-old Mullaperiyar dam’s stability are not of recent origin. File photo: H. Vibhu
The existing dam is unsafe. There is ample scope for Kerala to invoke the ‘precautionary principle of action' in order to protect its people.
In his article headlined “Unwarranted fears on Mullaperiyar,” published in The Hindu on December 31, 2011, Durai Murugan, Tamil Nadu's former Minister for Water Resources and Law, and senior DMK leader, attempts to portray Tamil Nadu as a potential victim of machinations by Kerala aimed at depriving Tamil Nadu of its rightful share of water from the Mullaperiyar dam. It is necessary to lay out the facts relating to the stance taken by Kerala so as to impart greater clarity on, and understanding of, the issue.
It is true that the Mullaperiyar dam was commissioned as part of a lease deed signed in 1886 to divert the waters of the Periyar for irrigation in parts of the Madras Presidency, and that Tamil Nadu is entitled to claim its share as a right. But by no stretch of imagination can the Periyar be classified as an inter-State river, as claimed in the article. The river across which the dam is situated is entirely in Kerala; no part of it originates from, or runs through, any other State. The entire stretch flows through Kerala, with a negligible 2 per cent contribution from insignificant rivulets from Tamil Nadu joining the main course downstream of the Mullaperiyar dam. Therefore, claiming that Mullaperiyar is an “inter-State resource governed by the principles of inter-State rivers” is fallacious.
Kerala has not repudiated the Periyar lease agreement at any point: this is indeed a reflection of the earnest desire on the part of Kerala to assure its brethren across the border that it would not renege on its assurance to ensure water to Tamil Nadu. The issue of the validity of the original lease agreement is pending before the Supreme Court, with a Constitution Bench examining the merits of this pre-Independence-era agreement.
The author seeks to assert that “the land belongs to Tamil Nadu.” This is a new claim, fraught with serious ramifications. Tamil Nadu is merely the lessee. Far from helping to find a lasting solution within the federal framework, this new contention will only serve to provide a new twist to the imbroglio.
Kerala's apprehensions about the dam's stability — or lack of it — are not of recent origin. It was built when construction techniques were in a nascent stage. Its core was built of lime surki concrete, with a facing of coarse rubble masonry in lime mortar. Attempts were made in the 1930s to strengthen it by grouting and guniting. Even after repeating the grouting in 1960, leaks were observed. Tamil Nadu itself has conceded before the Supreme Court that over 3,500 tonnes of lime has been washed away from the structure over the last century. As against this, a mere 542 tonnes of concrete has been put into the dam which, it should be reiterated, relies on gravity for stability. Strengthening cannot guarantee the structural stability of the dam, which lies in a highly seismic zone. That it is necessary to periodically strengthen the dam is in itself a pointer to its intrinsic structural weakness and the hazards that have manifested over time.
Even as the Central Water Commission (CWC) was advocating short, medium and long-term measures to strengthen the dam, Kerala and Tamil Nadu agreed in 1979 that a permanent solution lay in constructing a new dam. At the discussions held on January 25, 1979, under the chairmanship of K.C. Thomas, CWC Chairman, it was decided that “a joint team of engineers from Tamil Nadu and Kerala will explore the possibility of locating a new dam within a reasonable distance from the existing dam.” Officials from both States jointly identified and confirmed the specific location and alignment where the new construction was to be made. Officials from Kerala and Tamil Nadu even inked an agreement on December 20, 1979, to this effect, and this was approved by the CWC Chairman. But this agreement was not carried forward to its logical conclusion. Why is Tamil Nadu objecting to a new dam now?
Kerala has always respected the judiciary and unflinchingly abided by its verdicts. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of February 27, 2006, allowed the raising of the water level to 142 feet, and thereafter to 152 feet upon the baby dam being strengthened. This verdict was based entirely on the recommendations of an Expert Committee constituted by the CWC, which had concluded that the dam is safe, on the basis of erroneous values and insufficient data.
In March 2006, the Kerala Assembly amended the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003, fixing the full reservoir level (FRL) of 22 dams in the State. In the case of the Mullaperiyar dam, the FRL was fixed at 136 feet. Through an Original Suit before the Supreme Court, pending final verdict, Tamil Nadu has questioned the Kerala Legislature's competence to enact such an amendment.
The Supreme Court has so far not stayed the legislation fixing the water level at 136 feet, and has only ordered that no dam-strengthening measures be taken up, and that the status quo be maintained on the water level issue. Kerala has the right to object to any cosmetic strengthening measures proposed by Tamil Nadu in the interregnum. It is not true that Kerala has displayed scant regard for a judgment of the Supreme Court.
A study on the “Probable Maximum Flood Estimation and Flood Routing of Mullaperiyar Dam,” by Dr. A.K. Gosain of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, concluded that the dam is hydrologically unsafe. At no point have the findings been disputed. A study on the “Structural Stability of Mullaperiyar Dam with regard to Seismic Effect,” by a team with Dr. Arun Bapat as Chairman, and Dr. D.K. Paul, Head of the Earthquake Engineering Department of the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, as member, predicted that the structure would collapse in the event of a Magnitude-6 earthquake.
These studies point to the fact that the dam is a disaster waiting to happen. In the past few months, the area proximate to the dam has experienced over two dozen tremors of varying magnitudes. The argument that the Idukki dam also lies in this zone and is equally vulnerable is again ingenuous. The Idukki dam has been designed and built to withstand earthquakes of Magnitude-8.
The claim that the Idukki dam can contain the flood water in the event of the Mullaperiyar dam collapsing is contrary to the truth. The combined storage of the Mullaperiyar and Idukki reservoirs had crossed the FRL in 1981, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2005 and 2007. In the event of such a situation arising again and the Mullaperiyar dam collapsing, Idukki would overflow, thereby putting its stability under serious jeopardy. There are more than 1.5 lakh people living downstream between the Mullaperiyar structure and the Idukki dam. What happens to them in the event of damage to the Mullaperiyar dam? Kerala stares at the prospect of a 30-feet tall column of water surging down at a speed of 50 kmph upon the Idukki and Kulamavu dams, thereby overwhelming them and setting off a chain of events that have the makings of an apocalypse for the 35 lakh people living in four districts. The Government of Kerala has to protect its people. There is ample scope to invoke the “precautionary principle of action” in this case, and Kerala is duty-bound to raise it.
It is against this background that Kerala decided to construct a dam downstream of the existing dam to ensure the safety of its citizens and ensure continued supply of water to Tamil Nadu. Contrary to Mr. Durai Murugan's contention, the dam is proposed to be built leaving the present dam intact and without disrupting water supply to Tamil Nadu. It is only on completion of the structure that the old dam is to be decommissioned. Problems pertaining to environmental clearances have been cited in the article as an impediment to the construction of a new dam. The environmental catastrophe that would be unleashed by the collapse of the Mullaperiyar dam, not to mention the cost in terms of human lives lost, needs to be factored in at that stage.
Kerala's commitment to supply the same quantum of water to Tamil Nadu has been endorsed by the Kerala Assembly through a unanimous resolution. Therefore, it is hard to fathom Tamil Nadu's objections against Kerala building a dam on its territory, across a State-river with its own funds. Moreover, is the Tamil Nadu Government — or indeed Mr. Durai Murugan — willing to guarantee that the present structure would withstand the shortcomings in its construction technology and the ravages of nature for the 863 years of the residual period of the lease agreement?
Mr. Durai Murugan contends that there is no scope for further dialogue between the States. Our democracy and the Constitution provide ample opportunity for sustained and purposeful discussions to resolve even the most vexed of issues. Kerala has immense faith in this mechanism to resolve the Mullaperiyar issue to mutual satisfaction. But apparently, Tamil Nadu has been in a state of denial and reluctant to reciprocate, even at the bidding of the Government of India.
The need is for a “new dam,” and not “as good as new dam” as advocated by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister. In Kerala, we hope the government and the people of Tamil Nadu, and indeed the whole nation, would accept this reality and recognise the need for a dam to replace the existing Mullaperiyar dam.
(The author was Minister for Water Resources in the Left Democratic Front government that preceded the present one in Kerala.)
The existing dam is unsafe. There is ample scope for Kerala to invoke the ‘precautionary principle of action' in order to protect its people.
In his article headlined “Unwarranted fears on Mullaperiyar,” published in The Hindu on December 31, 2011, Durai Murugan, Tamil Nadu's former Minister for Water Resources and Law, and senior DMK leader, attempts to portray Tamil Nadu as a potential victim of machinations by Kerala aimed at depriving Tamil Nadu of its rightful share of water from the Mullaperiyar dam. It is necessary to lay out the facts relating to the stance taken by Kerala so as to impart greater clarity on, and understanding of, the issue.
It is true that the Mullaperiyar dam was commissioned as part of a lease deed signed in 1886 to divert the waters of the Periyar for irrigation in parts of the Madras Presidency, and that Tamil Nadu is entitled to claim its share as a right. But by no stretch of imagination can the Periyar be classified as an inter-State river, as claimed in the article. The river across which the dam is situated is entirely in Kerala; no part of it originates from, or runs through, any other State. The entire stretch flows through Kerala, with a negligible 2 per cent contribution from insignificant rivulets from Tamil Nadu joining the main course downstream of the Mullaperiyar dam. Therefore, claiming that Mullaperiyar is an “inter-State resource governed by the principles of inter-State rivers” is fallacious.
Kerala has not repudiated the Periyar lease agreement at any point: this is indeed a reflection of the earnest desire on the part of Kerala to assure its brethren across the border that it would not renege on its assurance to ensure water to Tamil Nadu. The issue of the validity of the original lease agreement is pending before the Supreme Court, with a Constitution Bench examining the merits of this pre-Independence-era agreement.
The author seeks to assert that “the land belongs to Tamil Nadu.” This is a new claim, fraught with serious ramifications. Tamil Nadu is merely the lessee. Far from helping to find a lasting solution within the federal framework, this new contention will only serve to provide a new twist to the imbroglio.
Kerala's apprehensions about the dam's stability — or lack of it — are not of recent origin. It was built when construction techniques were in a nascent stage. Its core was built of lime surki concrete, with a facing of coarse rubble masonry in lime mortar. Attempts were made in the 1930s to strengthen it by grouting and guniting. Even after repeating the grouting in 1960, leaks were observed. Tamil Nadu itself has conceded before the Supreme Court that over 3,500 tonnes of lime has been washed away from the structure over the last century. As against this, a mere 542 tonnes of concrete has been put into the dam which, it should be reiterated, relies on gravity for stability. Strengthening cannot guarantee the structural stability of the dam, which lies in a highly seismic zone. That it is necessary to periodically strengthen the dam is in itself a pointer to its intrinsic structural weakness and the hazards that have manifested over time.
Even as the Central Water Commission (CWC) was advocating short, medium and long-term measures to strengthen the dam, Kerala and Tamil Nadu agreed in 1979 that a permanent solution lay in constructing a new dam. At the discussions held on January 25, 1979, under the chairmanship of K.C. Thomas, CWC Chairman, it was decided that “a joint team of engineers from Tamil Nadu and Kerala will explore the possibility of locating a new dam within a reasonable distance from the existing dam.” Officials from both States jointly identified and confirmed the specific location and alignment where the new construction was to be made. Officials from Kerala and Tamil Nadu even inked an agreement on December 20, 1979, to this effect, and this was approved by the CWC Chairman. But this agreement was not carried forward to its logical conclusion. Why is Tamil Nadu objecting to a new dam now?
Kerala has always respected the judiciary and unflinchingly abided by its verdicts. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of February 27, 2006, allowed the raising of the water level to 142 feet, and thereafter to 152 feet upon the baby dam being strengthened. This verdict was based entirely on the recommendations of an Expert Committee constituted by the CWC, which had concluded that the dam is safe, on the basis of erroneous values and insufficient data.
In March 2006, the Kerala Assembly amended the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003, fixing the full reservoir level (FRL) of 22 dams in the State. In the case of the Mullaperiyar dam, the FRL was fixed at 136 feet. Through an Original Suit before the Supreme Court, pending final verdict, Tamil Nadu has questioned the Kerala Legislature's competence to enact such an amendment.
The Supreme Court has so far not stayed the legislation fixing the water level at 136 feet, and has only ordered that no dam-strengthening measures be taken up, and that the status quo be maintained on the water level issue. Kerala has the right to object to any cosmetic strengthening measures proposed by Tamil Nadu in the interregnum. It is not true that Kerala has displayed scant regard for a judgment of the Supreme Court.
A study on the “Probable Maximum Flood Estimation and Flood Routing of Mullaperiyar Dam,” by Dr. A.K. Gosain of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, concluded that the dam is hydrologically unsafe. At no point have the findings been disputed. A study on the “Structural Stability of Mullaperiyar Dam with regard to Seismic Effect,” by a team with Dr. Arun Bapat as Chairman, and Dr. D.K. Paul, Head of the Earthquake Engineering Department of the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, as member, predicted that the structure would collapse in the event of a Magnitude-6 earthquake.
These studies point to the fact that the dam is a disaster waiting to happen. In the past few months, the area proximate to the dam has experienced over two dozen tremors of varying magnitudes. The argument that the Idukki dam also lies in this zone and is equally vulnerable is again ingenuous. The Idukki dam has been designed and built to withstand earthquakes of Magnitude-8.
The claim that the Idukki dam can contain the flood water in the event of the Mullaperiyar dam collapsing is contrary to the truth. The combined storage of the Mullaperiyar and Idukki reservoirs had crossed the FRL in 1981, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2005 and 2007. In the event of such a situation arising again and the Mullaperiyar dam collapsing, Idukki would overflow, thereby putting its stability under serious jeopardy. There are more than 1.5 lakh people living downstream between the Mullaperiyar structure and the Idukki dam. What happens to them in the event of damage to the Mullaperiyar dam? Kerala stares at the prospect of a 30-feet tall column of water surging down at a speed of 50 kmph upon the Idukki and Kulamavu dams, thereby overwhelming them and setting off a chain of events that have the makings of an apocalypse for the 35 lakh people living in four districts. The Government of Kerala has to protect its people. There is ample scope to invoke the “precautionary principle of action” in this case, and Kerala is duty-bound to raise it.
It is against this background that Kerala decided to construct a dam downstream of the existing dam to ensure the safety of its citizens and ensure continued supply of water to Tamil Nadu. Contrary to Mr. Durai Murugan's contention, the dam is proposed to be built leaving the present dam intact and without disrupting water supply to Tamil Nadu. It is only on completion of the structure that the old dam is to be decommissioned. Problems pertaining to environmental clearances have been cited in the article as an impediment to the construction of a new dam. The environmental catastrophe that would be unleashed by the collapse of the Mullaperiyar dam, not to mention the cost in terms of human lives lost, needs to be factored in at that stage.
Kerala's commitment to supply the same quantum of water to Tamil Nadu has been endorsed by the Kerala Assembly through a unanimous resolution. Therefore, it is hard to fathom Tamil Nadu's objections against Kerala building a dam on its territory, across a State-river with its own funds. Moreover, is the Tamil Nadu Government — or indeed Mr. Durai Murugan — willing to guarantee that the present structure would withstand the shortcomings in its construction technology and the ravages of nature for the 863 years of the residual period of the lease agreement?
Mr. Durai Murugan contends that there is no scope for further dialogue between the States. Our democracy and the Constitution provide ample opportunity for sustained and purposeful discussions to resolve even the most vexed of issues. Kerala has immense faith in this mechanism to resolve the Mullaperiyar issue to mutual satisfaction. But apparently, Tamil Nadu has been in a state of denial and reluctant to reciprocate, even at the bidding of the Government of India.
The need is for a “new dam,” and not “as good as new dam” as advocated by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister. In Kerala, we hope the government and the people of Tamil Nadu, and indeed the whole nation, would accept this reality and recognise the need for a dam to replace the existing Mullaperiyar dam.
(The author was Minister for Water Resources in the Left Democratic Front government that preceded the present one in Kerala.)
New dam is the only solution, says Kerala ( Hindu 03 January 2012)
The Mullaperiyar Dam
Kerala's offer is not bona fide: Tamil Nadu
Kerala on Monday asserted before the Supreme Court-appointed Empowered Committee that the “construction of a new dam is the only solution to the complex Mullaperiyar dam issue” and that it would give more water to Tamil Nadu.
Appearing for Kerala, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan and counsel Mohan Katarki said: “If the new dam is feasible and the proposal of Kerala is found… reasonable by the Empowered Committee, there is no need for addressing the issue of safety of the old dam.”
Counsel submitted that the question whether the dam was safe or not could not be decided with certainty as there was no sign or scientific method. “The ownership of the new dam would vest with Kerala as it is funding the dam entirely from its pocket. However, the operation of the reservoir shall be by a joint committee of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.”
At this juncture, the panel, headed by the former Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand, wanted to know whether an independent committee could be constituted to manage/regulate/operate the new dam. Both counsel for Kerala and Tamil Nadu said they would get instructions and file their response.
Kerala argued that it had the right to construct a new dam, and no clearance was required from the Centre. However, for obtaining statutory clearances from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, technical clearance from the Central Water Commission would become necessary. Hence, Kerala would approach the Commission for clearance of its detailed project report.
Kerala made it clear that it was open to any suggestion from Tamil Nadu with regard to the new dam. “Kerala would dig 21 new boreholes as suggested by the Geological Survey of India, and the results… would form part of the supplementary detailed project report. The entire water generated in the catchment area up to the new dam would be available to Tamil Nadu for diversion (20.5 TMC at 75 per cent dependability), except 1.1 TMC reserved by Kerala for meeting environmental flows in the summer months, which comes to hardly 5 per cent of the total flow. “The new dam would give more water to Tamil Nadu. At present, Tamil Nadu is drawing 17.7 TMC. The new dam would provide 20.5 TMC. The proposal of Kerala is bona fide. None should be happier than Tamil Nadu if the new dam is constructed. The new dam is part of precautionary principle.”
Tamil Nadu's Additional Advocate-General Guru Krishna Kumar and counsel G. Umpathy said in their response: “Kerala's offer of [a] new dam is not bona fide, and it is an attempt to defeat the existing regime. The existing dam, after the lowering of its height to 136 feet, has fully been strengthened and is as good as a new dam with a long life. The so-called offer of new dam was only made in 2007 in the written statement filed, and the… offer has to be considered only if the Empowered Committee/the Supreme Court finds the existing dam… unsafe.”
They submitted that Mullaperiyar, being a gravity dam, would never burst in the unlikely event of a severe earthquake; it would only develop cracks. Therefore, Kerala's apprehension was misplaced.
With regard to the Empowered Committee's question about joint management of a new dam built by Kerala or other alternatives and the assurance of water to Tamil Nadu, counsel said such issues did not warrant consideration when the dam was safe. The apprehension was really about the Idukki dam component, but was being covered up through doubts raised about the Mullaperiyar dam.
Counsel said Kerala's insistence on maintaining the water level at 136 feet was only to protect the settlements/encroachments on the water spread upstream the dam, in light of evidence that new settlements and activities had developed since the water level was lowered in 1979.
Kerala's offer is not bona fide: Tamil Nadu
Kerala on Monday asserted before the Supreme Court-appointed Empowered Committee that the “construction of a new dam is the only solution to the complex Mullaperiyar dam issue” and that it would give more water to Tamil Nadu.
Appearing for Kerala, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan and counsel Mohan Katarki said: “If the new dam is feasible and the proposal of Kerala is found… reasonable by the Empowered Committee, there is no need for addressing the issue of safety of the old dam.”
Counsel submitted that the question whether the dam was safe or not could not be decided with certainty as there was no sign or scientific method. “The ownership of the new dam would vest with Kerala as it is funding the dam entirely from its pocket. However, the operation of the reservoir shall be by a joint committee of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.”
At this juncture, the panel, headed by the former Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand, wanted to know whether an independent committee could be constituted to manage/regulate/operate the new dam. Both counsel for Kerala and Tamil Nadu said they would get instructions and file their response.
Kerala argued that it had the right to construct a new dam, and no clearance was required from the Centre. However, for obtaining statutory clearances from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, technical clearance from the Central Water Commission would become necessary. Hence, Kerala would approach the Commission for clearance of its detailed project report.
Kerala made it clear that it was open to any suggestion from Tamil Nadu with regard to the new dam. “Kerala would dig 21 new boreholes as suggested by the Geological Survey of India, and the results… would form part of the supplementary detailed project report. The entire water generated in the catchment area up to the new dam would be available to Tamil Nadu for diversion (20.5 TMC at 75 per cent dependability), except 1.1 TMC reserved by Kerala for meeting environmental flows in the summer months, which comes to hardly 5 per cent of the total flow. “The new dam would give more water to Tamil Nadu. At present, Tamil Nadu is drawing 17.7 TMC. The new dam would provide 20.5 TMC. The proposal of Kerala is bona fide. None should be happier than Tamil Nadu if the new dam is constructed. The new dam is part of precautionary principle.”
Tamil Nadu's Additional Advocate-General Guru Krishna Kumar and counsel G. Umpathy said in their response: “Kerala's offer of [a] new dam is not bona fide, and it is an attempt to defeat the existing regime. The existing dam, after the lowering of its height to 136 feet, has fully been strengthened and is as good as a new dam with a long life. The so-called offer of new dam was only made in 2007 in the written statement filed, and the… offer has to be considered only if the Empowered Committee/the Supreme Court finds the existing dam… unsafe.”
They submitted that Mullaperiyar, being a gravity dam, would never burst in the unlikely event of a severe earthquake; it would only develop cracks. Therefore, Kerala's apprehension was misplaced.
With regard to the Empowered Committee's question about joint management of a new dam built by Kerala or other alternatives and the assurance of water to Tamil Nadu, counsel said such issues did not warrant consideration when the dam was safe. The apprehension was really about the Idukki dam component, but was being covered up through doubts raised about the Mullaperiyar dam.
Counsel said Kerala's insistence on maintaining the water level at 136 feet was only to protect the settlements/encroachments on the water spread upstream the dam, in light of evidence that new settlements and activities had developed since the water level was lowered in 1979.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Projects fail to control pollution in Yamuna: CAG (Hindistan Times 02 January 2012)
Environment experts had been saying it all through, activists had been pointing it out for a long time and Delhiites knew it better as they see the polluted Yamuna day in and day out. The Performance Audit of Water Pollution in India by the Comptroller and Auditor General (Report 21 of 2011-12)
has confirmed it.
None of the projects to control pollution in the Yamuna, which were checked by the CAG audit team, has achieved their objective, the report concluded. The pollution control mechanism was not functional and no details were available for monitoring the projects sanctioned under the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) for the control of pollution in the Yamuna for all projects, the report pointed out.
In Delhi, 10 projects, all related to control of pollution in the Yamuna, were tested. The nodal agency for the NRCP is the Delhi government, while the implementing agencies are the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
According to the report, four sewage treatment plants (STPs) were built for a certain capacity, but the actual sewage generated in respective areas was much more, resulting in several million litres of untreated sewage flowing directly into the river.
One STP was constructed for treating 2 MLD (million litres per day), but the plant is shut since 2007, leading to discharge of untreated sewage in Yamuna. One test-checked STP of 135 MLD capacity was sanctioned in June 2006 and was scheduled to be completed in June 2010. But it was incomplete by the time the report was prepared. Delhi STP projects also topped the list of cost overruns and not meeting the list of deadlines.
“It is not about creation of (right) capacity. There is so much of unplanned growth,” said Ramesh Negi, CEO of DJB, defending the low capacity for an STP unit. “Only 60% of Delhi has sewer network, while 40% is un-serviced. The unauthorised colonies are bound to add to sewage at any STP,” he said, adding, “The trunk sewers, too, are almost 40 years old. Work for its rehabilitation is going on.”
Negi assured that the interceptor sewer programme under the Yamuna Action Plan would help in improving the situation.
Delhi generates approximately 600 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage, while it has an installed capacity to treat approximately 512.4 MGD wastewater. DJB is in the final stage of preparing the Delhi Sewerage Masterplan (SMP) 2031.
has confirmed it.
None of the projects to control pollution in the Yamuna, which were checked by the CAG audit team, has achieved their objective, the report concluded. The pollution control mechanism was not functional and no details were available for monitoring the projects sanctioned under the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) for the control of pollution in the Yamuna for all projects, the report pointed out.
In Delhi, 10 projects, all related to control of pollution in the Yamuna, were tested. The nodal agency for the NRCP is the Delhi government, while the implementing agencies are the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
According to the report, four sewage treatment plants (STPs) were built for a certain capacity, but the actual sewage generated in respective areas was much more, resulting in several million litres of untreated sewage flowing directly into the river.
One STP was constructed for treating 2 MLD (million litres per day), but the plant is shut since 2007, leading to discharge of untreated sewage in Yamuna. One test-checked STP of 135 MLD capacity was sanctioned in June 2006 and was scheduled to be completed in June 2010. But it was incomplete by the time the report was prepared. Delhi STP projects also topped the list of cost overruns and not meeting the list of deadlines.
“It is not about creation of (right) capacity. There is so much of unplanned growth,” said Ramesh Negi, CEO of DJB, defending the low capacity for an STP unit. “Only 60% of Delhi has sewer network, while 40% is un-serviced. The unauthorised colonies are bound to add to sewage at any STP,” he said, adding, “The trunk sewers, too, are almost 40 years old. Work for its rehabilitation is going on.”
Negi assured that the interceptor sewer programme under the Yamuna Action Plan would help in improving the situation.
Delhi generates approximately 600 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage, while it has an installed capacity to treat approximately 512.4 MGD wastewater. DJB is in the final stage of preparing the Delhi Sewerage Masterplan (SMP) 2031.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)