In its performance audit of Uttarakhand’s hydropower development through private sector participation for 2008-09, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found that the State’s policy was silent on the vital issue of maintaining downstream flow in the diversion reach – the stretch of the river from the point of diversion into tunnel to the point where it is released back into its natural stream.
The State Government’s policy of indiscriminately pursuing hydro-power projects, coupled with the potential cumulative effect of multiple run-of-river power projects was hazardous, the CAG felt. As many as 42 hydro-power projects are in operation and 203 under construction or clearance stage; and still others are at conceptual stage. Environmental clearances have not been sought properly, the CAG noted. Presently, hydropower projects above 25 MW need environmental clearance from the Government of India, while project less than 25 MW need consent from the Uttarakhand Environment Protection & Pollution Control Board (UEPPCB). The Board issues No Objection Certificate (NOC) on the basis of certain conditions.
During the audit, however, it was found that out of eight projects (Hanuman Ganga, Srinagar; Rajwakti; Debal; Birahiganga; Bhilangana-lll; Agunda Thati, & Loharkhet) in the audit sample and under construction/operation, the UEPPCB had given consent to establish only five, and only Debal had permission to operate. Four projects (75 per cent) were operating without permission, yet no penal action was taken against the developers. It is noteworthy that Chief Minister Vijay Bahuguna had stated that all projects have been cleared by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Physical verification of four (Rajwakti, Debal, Hanumanganga and Loharkhet) out of five operational projects (May 2009 to July 2009) showed that river-beds downstream had virtually dried up, with water flow a mere trickle and inadequate to sustain the ecology and groundwater aquifers. Local residents in the vicinity of the Debal Hydro Power Project told the CAG that natural water resources used for drinking and irrigation purposes have depleted considerably due to the diversion of river waters in the power tunnel. Despite complaints to the project developers and concerned Government Departments, the problems were not addressed.
Diversion of the river for the Rajwakti Hydro Project made Tefina and Gawlla village lose their irrigation facilities completely as the lift irrigation constructed for the purpose failed. This contravenes the impact assessment terms, which clearly state that project authorities must take remedial measures to mitigate any adverse impact on existing facilities of irrigation or water supply.
The diversion of river Kail for the Debal hydro-power project removed the natural water barrier that protected village Kail wild animals from the nearby forest area. Now the animals prey on their livestock and pose a threat to the villagers. The trench-type weir design of Loharkhet and Hanuman Ganga hydro-project completely terminated the downstream flow during the lean season when demand for water is at its peak.
The CAG found that the UEPPCB did not carry out regular inspections, but only did the mandatory inspection necessary for issuing the NOC. It failed to enforce key conditions for certification, such as submission of monthly reports, proper muck disposal and ensuring minimum downstream flow. Thus, in run-of-river projects, from the place where the river is diverted into a tunnel to the point where it is released back into its natural stream, there is very little water left, especially during the lean season. This affects farmer and agriculture downstream. Reduced water affects recharge of groundwater aquifers downstream, and affects groundwater quality and pollutes the streams due to low dilution. Riparian vegetation is hit, along with fisheries.
More pertinently – and this has a bearing also on the reckless deforestation and construction activity in the State as a whole – the Gangetic rivers bring the bulk of their sediment from upstream in the Himalayas and deposit it in the alluvial plains, which makes them fertile. But the trapping of silt at barrage sites deprives downstream areas of the bulk of the sediment. Reduction in sediment load results in increased erosion of riverbanks and riverbeds because the river will behave as ‘hungry waters’ and scour sediments from riverbeds and riverbanks downstream to restore the natural sediment levels of the water.
CAG found that the State hydropower policy was silent on the vital issue of maintaining sufficient discharge of water downstream during the lean period. While Himachal Pradesh has notified (September 2008) a minimum flow of 15 per cent discharge to be maintained by hydroelectric projects in the lean season, Uttarakhand has no norms to mitigate downstream impacts. The State Government said this was because the MoEF and CWC have not arrived at any decision in this matter.
By far the worst pollution of the environment has come from improper disposal of muck from stone crushers and sewage from labour camps, which further degrades the water quality and aquatic biota. While it is mandatory that the muck is dumped in an environmentally sound manner at pre-identified dumping sites, most project sites blatantly ignore the rule and openly dump waste generated from excavation and construction activities into the rivers, increasing the turbidity of water.
The plantation activity was found to be poor; 38 per cent of projects hardly did any plantation at all, posing severe hazards for natural ecology. Afforestation, it needs hardly be stressed, is necessary to avoid soil erosion; rehabilitate degraded forests; counter the effects of quarrying; improve the habitat; and stabilize landslide-prone hillsides.
In the fragile hill state of Uttarakhand, out of eight projects, three reported zero progress in afforestation; one reported half the mandatory requirement; and four fulfilled the target. However, the survival ratio data was not furnished by the concerned forest divisions.
Niticentral.com, 24 June 2013
