यमुना के पारिस्थितीयतंत्र के बारे में जाना
विकासनगर: राजकीय उच्चतर माध्यमिक विद्यालय कटापत्थर में गठित यमुना ईको स्कोलर के छात्र-छात्राओं के दल ने कटापत्थर क्षेत्र का शैशिक भ्रमण किया।
इस दौरान छात्रों को यमुना स्वच्छता समिति के पदाधिकारियों ने यमुना के पारिस्थितीय तंत्र के बारे में बताया। समिति के पदाधिकारी रघुवीर सिंह तोमर ने छात्रों को नदी के घटकों जलागम क्षेत्र, सहायक नदी, बाढ़ क्षेत्र, लहराव, जलीय-स्थलीय पेड़-पौधों और जीव-जंतुओं के बारे में बताया। उन्होंने छात्रों को बताया कि कोई भी नदी तब तक स्वच्छ व स्वस्थ नहीं हो सकती जब तक नदी के सभी घटकों की स्थिति ठीक न हो। उन्होंने बताया कि यमुना नदी के संकट के पीछे नदी पारिस्थितीय तंत्र को समग्र तौर पर नहीं देखना है। बच्चों को घराट के बारे भी बताया गया। शिक्षक गंभीर सिंह और पुष्पा कोठियाल के नेतृत्व में बच्चों ने शैक्षिक भ्रमण किया। दल में सागर तोमर, बिट्टू थापा, दिनेश बिष्ट, अनिल कुमार, विपिन, संजय कुमार, विनीता, पूनम, अनीता व प्रभा शामिल थीं।
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Ammonia level rises in Yamuna, 2 plants shut down (Times of India 14 March 2012)
NEW DELHI: Chandrawal and Wazirabad water treatment plants were shut for production in the early hours of Tuesday due to a high level of pollution in the water. A rise in the level of ammonia from a permissible 0.5 mg to 1 mg prompted Delhi Jal Board to ask residents to boil drinking water.
"At 6am, we had to shut down both plants that supply water to north, northwest, south and NDMC areas. However, the situation had improved significantly by 5pm when partial operations were resumed. Supply will be normalized by Wednesday morning," said a DJB official.
The problem started when Haryana released water for Delhi into the Yamuna where water levels had been quite low. "Usually Haryana supplies water up to the Wazirabad Barrage through drain no 8 and not the main river channel. However,Haryana had not been maintaining the channel properly and due to a possible plant growth inside, the amount of water coming to Delhi had reduced. When we brought this to Haryana's notice, it took up maintenance of the drain but since it has to maintain a certain level of water at the Wazirabad pond, it started releasing water into the main river," said an official.
The sudden flow dislodged industrial pollutants that had been collecting in the dry river for the past few months. These pollutants travelled to Delhi with the water and their levels were too high to be treated by DJB. "Haryana Irrigation Department was requested to release additional quantity of water at Munak to dilute the concentration of pollutants," said an official.
"At 6am, we had to shut down both plants that supply water to north, northwest, south and NDMC areas. However, the situation had improved significantly by 5pm when partial operations were resumed. Supply will be normalized by Wednesday morning," said a DJB official.
The problem started when Haryana released water for Delhi into the Yamuna where water levels had been quite low. "Usually Haryana supplies water up to the Wazirabad Barrage through drain no 8 and not the main river channel. However,Haryana had not been maintaining the channel properly and due to a possible plant growth inside, the amount of water coming to Delhi had reduced. When we brought this to Haryana's notice, it took up maintenance of the drain but since it has to maintain a certain level of water at the Wazirabad pond, it started releasing water into the main river," said an official.
The sudden flow dislodged industrial pollutants that had been collecting in the dry river for the past few months. These pollutants travelled to Delhi with the water and their levels were too high to be treated by DJB. "Haryana Irrigation Department was requested to release additional quantity of water at Munak to dilute the concentration of pollutants," said an official.
Make a drain of a river, throw crores down it (Hindustan Times 12 March 2012)
Shivani Singh
Eighteen years ago, the Supreme Court took note of a news report published in Hindustan Times on the dirty Yamuna. Two weeks back, a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India spoke of its intention to pass orders to stop discharge of untreated sewage into the river. But before that, the court
wanted an update on the case and asked the agencies involved to file status reports.
One cannot fault the court if it has struggled to keep pace with the developments in this 18-year-long fiasco. Much of Delhi’s population was born after the death of the river. I probably belong to the last of the generations that saw Yamuna flowing. In the early ’80s, when my family stayed in east Delhi for a year, I used to take the ITO Bridge to school and watch the river ripple.
I moved to Indirapuram five years ago. My car windows are usually rolled up as I cross two kilometres of Nizamuddin Bridge on my daily commute to work and back. You can barely see the river but it stinks. In fact, most new residents of Delhi have known Yamuna as a large toxic sewer. Thanks to hyperventilating TV reports, they also fear a deluge of the Waterworld variety every monsoon when the riverbed fills up with rainwater.
The Yamuna fiasco tells a damning story of inept administration and blinkered policies. In the last 20 years, the government has spent more than Rs1,300 crore to clean the river. There was little accountability since there was no real deadline. The last time irregularities were pointed out was in 2004 when a CAG report found that Rs800 crore spent on the Yamuna project has gone down the drain.
Hundreds of crores of taxpayers’ money was spent on setting up 17 sewage treatment plants that remained underutilised for years in the absence of pipelines to carry effluents to these centres. The latest solution — an Interceptor Sewer Network, worth another Rs1,900 crore, to tap and transport the sewage generated in Delhi to the STPs — has been questioned by experts on many counts.
They claim that the entire exercise and expense incurred will be futile since the network will transport not more than 65 per cent of the waste generated in Delhi. Presence of the 35 per cent untreated waste in the water means it will be fit only for horticulture and, contrary to the government’s promise before the apex court in 2001, not for bathing.
Experts say that the river cannot be restored to bathing quality without releasing fresh water in it. Yamuna is already dead when it reaches Delhi, drained of all its fresh water stored upstream. In Delhi, the river receives only sewage except the excess water released from dams upstream during the monsoon.
To channel more fresh water in the river, the water-sharing agreement between Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh will need a renegotiation. It would also require Delhi residents to ration their water use and leave some for the river. All of this requires political will. But poll promises have not gone beyond setting up of tourist spots on the riverfront.
The lessons from the Thames clean-up project seem lost on our bureaucrats who frequently visit London to “study” the model.
While we missed one deadline after another, the UK authorities dredged a 3.5-km stretch of the river Lea, a Thames tributary, in 2009 in just three months. To tackle sewer overflow, London has started boring a four-mile-long underground tunnel this January. The deadline it set? 2013.
In Delhi, Commonwealth Games 2010 was set as a working deadline for cleaning up the Yamuna. All we got was still more construction on the riverbed.
Eighteen years ago, the Supreme Court took note of a news report published in Hindustan Times on the dirty Yamuna. Two weeks back, a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India spoke of its intention to pass orders to stop discharge of untreated sewage into the river. But before that, the court
wanted an update on the case and asked the agencies involved to file status reports.
One cannot fault the court if it has struggled to keep pace with the developments in this 18-year-long fiasco. Much of Delhi’s population was born after the death of the river. I probably belong to the last of the generations that saw Yamuna flowing. In the early ’80s, when my family stayed in east Delhi for a year, I used to take the ITO Bridge to school and watch the river ripple.
I moved to Indirapuram five years ago. My car windows are usually rolled up as I cross two kilometres of Nizamuddin Bridge on my daily commute to work and back. You can barely see the river but it stinks. In fact, most new residents of Delhi have known Yamuna as a large toxic sewer. Thanks to hyperventilating TV reports, they also fear a deluge of the Waterworld variety every monsoon when the riverbed fills up with rainwater.
The Yamuna fiasco tells a damning story of inept administration and blinkered policies. In the last 20 years, the government has spent more than Rs1,300 crore to clean the river. There was little accountability since there was no real deadline. The last time irregularities were pointed out was in 2004 when a CAG report found that Rs800 crore spent on the Yamuna project has gone down the drain.
Hundreds of crores of taxpayers’ money was spent on setting up 17 sewage treatment plants that remained underutilised for years in the absence of pipelines to carry effluents to these centres. The latest solution — an Interceptor Sewer Network, worth another Rs1,900 crore, to tap and transport the sewage generated in Delhi to the STPs — has been questioned by experts on many counts.
They claim that the entire exercise and expense incurred will be futile since the network will transport not more than 65 per cent of the waste generated in Delhi. Presence of the 35 per cent untreated waste in the water means it will be fit only for horticulture and, contrary to the government’s promise before the apex court in 2001, not for bathing.
Experts say that the river cannot be restored to bathing quality without releasing fresh water in it. Yamuna is already dead when it reaches Delhi, drained of all its fresh water stored upstream. In Delhi, the river receives only sewage except the excess water released from dams upstream during the monsoon.
To channel more fresh water in the river, the water-sharing agreement between Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh will need a renegotiation. It would also require Delhi residents to ration their water use and leave some for the river. All of this requires political will. But poll promises have not gone beyond setting up of tourist spots on the riverfront.
The lessons from the Thames clean-up project seem lost on our bureaucrats who frequently visit London to “study” the model.
While we missed one deadline after another, the UK authorities dredged a 3.5-km stretch of the river Lea, a Thames tributary, in 2009 in just three months. To tackle sewer overflow, London has started boring a four-mile-long underground tunnel this January. The deadline it set? 2013.
In Delhi, Commonwealth Games 2010 was set as a working deadline for cleaning up the Yamuna. All we got was still more construction on the riverbed.
Monday, March 12, 2012
River-engineering and the courts (Hindu 12 March 2012)
The Hindu THE SPILLOVER: A national debate involving all stakeholders is essential before undertaking the implementation of a national project like river-linking. The picture is of the Krishna at the Prakasam Barrage in Andhra Pradesh. Photo: CH Vijaya Bhaskar
The concept of judicial infallibility is valid, but a legal pronouncement need not always be the last word on a given subject.
The article in The Hindu by Ramaswamy R. Iyer, “With all due respect, My Lords,” on March 2, a critical study of the ruling of the Supreme Court giving certain directions under the authority of Article 141, relating to inter-linking of rivers was noteworthy. And his request to reconsider the decision deserves serious consideration.
What the Supreme Court decides is final not because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is constitutionally final and structurally supreme. If ignorance is made final, governance becomes chaos. That is why the Montesquieuan theory of the trinity of instrumentalities is accepted by many Constitutions across the world, including the Indian Constitution. What is in the realm of the Executive is decided by the Executive. What is legislative, in the shape of law, is decided by the Legislature. When there is a dispute over a fact or law, the decision of the court is final, and all the other branches of the structure are bound by the judicial decision.
From this perspective, river disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. But, for instance, how high an aircraft should fly without the possibility of danger, or how a safe dam should be constructed to store water, are matters highly technical, and hence these do not belong to jurisprudence or judges.
I was once a Minister for Irrigation and Electricity (in Kerala) and started projects on the advice of engineers. The court never interfered, nor could they. There may be some areas where submergence by a river may cause risks — and on the basis of clear technical advice a court may pronounce an order. The jurisdictional borders of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary are fairly clear, and one of them cannot interfere with the other. Viewed from this angle, I agree with Mr. Ramaswamy Iyer's critical observations.
Judges, merely because they wear robes, cannot decide on the course of rivers, whether they should be linked or not, and if at all, how they should be linked — just as they cannot decide on matters to do with the safety of flights or other such technical issues. Judges are not infallible; and they cannot issue executive directions or promulgate legal mandates or punitive impositions in such contexts.
‘Hasten slowly'
The central flaw of the Supreme Court's verdict on the inter-linking issue is the failure to realise that a pan-Indian river project may have dangerous limitations. The Ganga and the Cauvery are two great rivers, but they cannot be linked up without first making a careful and exhaustive study of the various features of the terrain through which they flow over a vast territory of India. Otherwise, it may well end up as a horrendous blunder, irreparable after the decision is operationalised. A national debate involving also the great engineers, especially river engineers, that we have is essential before undertaking the implementation of a national project such as this.
The Supreme Court is indeed infallible, but while in its jural specialties it may well be top of the league, it is largely innocent in matters to do with mighty river-engineering. Therefore, great caution with all the wisdom at our command, must first be used to study the implications and the perils of this Himalayan-scale project before implementing a juristic wonder beyond what the Supreme Court has so lightly directed. Where the implications are too great to grasp and the consequences may be beyond repair, “hasten slowly” will be a good piece advice. Never assume that the robed wisdom that is good for jurisprudence will not land us in dangerous waters.
Therefore, never be in a hurry. Study every dimension of this huge project.
When the project was announced a decade ago in 2002, one section of public opinion supported it, and another opposed its implementation. It is without taking any note of the conflicting public opinion that the present binding directions have been issued by the court.
(V.R. Krishna Iyer was a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.)
The concept of judicial infallibility is valid, but a legal pronouncement need not always be the last word on a given subject.
The article in The Hindu by Ramaswamy R. Iyer, “With all due respect, My Lords,” on March 2, a critical study of the ruling of the Supreme Court giving certain directions under the authority of Article 141, relating to inter-linking of rivers was noteworthy. And his request to reconsider the decision deserves serious consideration.
What the Supreme Court decides is final not because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is constitutionally final and structurally supreme. If ignorance is made final, governance becomes chaos. That is why the Montesquieuan theory of the trinity of instrumentalities is accepted by many Constitutions across the world, including the Indian Constitution. What is in the realm of the Executive is decided by the Executive. What is legislative, in the shape of law, is decided by the Legislature. When there is a dispute over a fact or law, the decision of the court is final, and all the other branches of the structure are bound by the judicial decision.
From this perspective, river disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. But, for instance, how high an aircraft should fly without the possibility of danger, or how a safe dam should be constructed to store water, are matters highly technical, and hence these do not belong to jurisprudence or judges.
I was once a Minister for Irrigation and Electricity (in Kerala) and started projects on the advice of engineers. The court never interfered, nor could they. There may be some areas where submergence by a river may cause risks — and on the basis of clear technical advice a court may pronounce an order. The jurisdictional borders of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary are fairly clear, and one of them cannot interfere with the other. Viewed from this angle, I agree with Mr. Ramaswamy Iyer's critical observations.
Judges, merely because they wear robes, cannot decide on the course of rivers, whether they should be linked or not, and if at all, how they should be linked — just as they cannot decide on matters to do with the safety of flights or other such technical issues. Judges are not infallible; and they cannot issue executive directions or promulgate legal mandates or punitive impositions in such contexts.
‘Hasten slowly'
The central flaw of the Supreme Court's verdict on the inter-linking issue is the failure to realise that a pan-Indian river project may have dangerous limitations. The Ganga and the Cauvery are two great rivers, but they cannot be linked up without first making a careful and exhaustive study of the various features of the terrain through which they flow over a vast territory of India. Otherwise, it may well end up as a horrendous blunder, irreparable after the decision is operationalised. A national debate involving also the great engineers, especially river engineers, that we have is essential before undertaking the implementation of a national project such as this.
The Supreme Court is indeed infallible, but while in its jural specialties it may well be top of the league, it is largely innocent in matters to do with mighty river-engineering. Therefore, great caution with all the wisdom at our command, must first be used to study the implications and the perils of this Himalayan-scale project before implementing a juristic wonder beyond what the Supreme Court has so lightly directed. Where the implications are too great to grasp and the consequences may be beyond repair, “hasten slowly” will be a good piece advice. Never assume that the robed wisdom that is good for jurisprudence will not land us in dangerous waters.
Therefore, never be in a hurry. Study every dimension of this huge project.
When the project was announced a decade ago in 2002, one section of public opinion supported it, and another opposed its implementation. It is without taking any note of the conflicting public opinion that the present binding directions have been issued by the court.
(V.R. Krishna Iyer was a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.)
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The river Yamuna can be revived - if only the ills facing it were well understood and tackled
7 March 2012
YJA/CORRES/3/12
Ms Shiela Dixit,
Hon'ble Chief Minister
GNCT of Delhi
DELHI
Sub: The river Yamuna can be revived - if only the ills facing it were well understood and tackled
Respected Ms Dixit,
Greetings from Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, YJA.
Ma'm, it is your statement made on 5 March 2012 at an International Conference on Green Urban Spaces at the India International Centre, IIC that "no one has yet suggested to me the way forward in successfully reviving the river", that has prompted us to send this to your honour.
We at the YJA in association with many others, have been attempting since late 2006, to understand - through research, documentation, first hand visits as well as close interactions with people in cities and villages along it - the river Yamuna for almost five years now. This has taken us to various places, big and small, all along its almost 1400 km length from Yamunotri till its confluence with Ganga at Prayag. So this communication rides on the experience and understanding as above regards the river.
Could we first draw your honour's kind attention to our publication from 2009 titled ' Reviving River Yamuna.....' which as its title suggests has tried to visualize a doable blue print for the river's restoration. We had submitted a copy of it to your office back then and we enclose another copy with the hard copy of this letter.
As we understand, the key ills facing the river are mainly the following three:
a) Almost a total absence of lean season flow
b) Unrelenting pollution of its waters
c) Unfortunate and self defeating invasion of its flood plains
Please allow us to elaborate on each of the above with solutions weaved into it.
Absence of lean season flow
Ma'm, It is the lean season flow that truly determines the health of any river. And in that sense river Yamuna is a 'dead' river just 15 - 20 km downstream of its damming at Hathnikund in form of a barrage. (Please see the enclosed google image from 2009).
Clearly if there is no river almost 200 km upstream of the city of Delhi, then how can there be a river in Delhi? We are sure that your honour is aware that the chimera of a river at Wazirabad barrage in the city is actually the accumulated waters (meant only for the domestic supply to the city) put back into the river at Palla village in Delhi from the Western Yamuna canal through the drain number 8.
The only solution to this most unfortunate state of affairs lies in bringing the upper riparian states of Haryana and UP to account on their total diversion of the river water at Hathnikund. If this means re-opening and negotiating the water sharing agreement of 1994, then so be it. But let this be targetted first at making adequate allowance for the river and anything else be subject to it.
We hope that your honour would agree with us that no such agreement can be valid if it results in the killing of a river for the larger part of the year. In addition, the government of Delhi is mandated by the MPD 2021 to work towards improving the lean season flow in the river, a mandate that to our best knowledge has never been pursued with any seriousness by the state.
This is not to say that we are not aware of plans to build dams upstream on a tributary and the very river Yamuna, in the name of reviving the river. Ma'm, such a misplaced solution (sic) is we believe, like offering poison in the name of medicine to a person already battling for life.
Unrelenting pollution of the river
Undisputably this has remained the most pursued (with little results) ill facing the river. But as we understand, this should have been the least of the state's worries as it is a matter largely of technological and administrative tightening.
Also it is as we believe the easiest to tackle.
It is often lamented that the STPs / ETPs do not work and hence the problem. To address this, if first if we could get all our waste water to a STP / ETP. Second if the treated water/effluent from a STP or ETP was seen as a useful resource (and not something to be dumped back into the river or the nearest water body) and thus make by law or otherwise a definite stakeholder (for non potable use) on that effluent water, with that person / agency getting water (for irrigation, non potable use or industrial use) from no other source as long as there is water to supply from a STP/ETP. This may apply as much to industry as to horticulture/agriculture. Once this is made mandatory then we are sure that it is these very stakeholders that would ensure that STPs and ETPs work and continue to meet their water needs and the river remains largely unpolluted as no waste water from such a point source shall then be allowed to find its way to the river.
But the above should apply on a national scale (here comes the role of MOEF and NRCD) as such a policy would need to be made applicable as much to STPs / ETPs in the city of Delhi as upstream in the cities of Yamunanagar, Karnal, Panipat, Sonepat, Saharanpur, and downstream Faridabad, NOIDA, Mathura and Agra, to name but few. A visual example from dangerous state at Panipat (enclosed) might suffice to point towards an urgent need for such a step.
Invasion of flood plains
Just like flow, it is flood plains that form an integral part of a river system as they on one hand convey safely the flood waters downstream, on the other act as the key source of recharge of ground water (aquifers) up to several kms on either side of the river. They also provide the necessary habitat to a myriad form of aquatic and riparian life forms.
So, it is a matter of deep regret that the city of Delhi has set perhaps the most unsavory example of invading its flood plains in the city.
In this context we heard you with great relief at the same conference, eulogising the virtues of not just the Okhla Bird park but also the Yamuna Biodiversity Park, which we believe (without its avoidable bits of concrete and manicured lawns) is the model to follow for the large part of river flood plain in the city.
But for that Ma'm to effectively happen, the large part of the flood plain (with notable exceptions for sustainable agriculture) would need to be provided a statutory status, under either the Wildlife (Protection) Act or the Biodiversity Act.
Ma'm, not many in the city, appreciate the fact that Delhi is not only the nation's capital city but also the first major city on the river Yamuna. Thus how it restores or fails its life-line river has clear implications for delhiites as well as for the people, cities and lands downstream of the city, and other cities thus situated on a river.
So, when Delhi thinks of its river it cannot think of it in isolation of what happens to it (the river) upstream or downstream of it. And here we believe lies perhaps the secret to it's revival/restoration. AMEN !
With warm regards,
Manoj Misra
Convener
CC:
Sri Tejender Khanna, Hon'ble Lt Governor of Delhi – For your kind information and necessary action please.
Smt Jayanthi Natarajan, Hon’ble MOS (I/C), Ministry of Environment and Forests – For your kind information and necessary action please.
Sri T. Chatterjee, Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests – For your kind information and necessary action please.
Chairman, Delhi Urban Arts Commission, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 – For your kind information and necessary action please.
Chairman, Yamuna Standing Committee, Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – For your kind information and necessary action please.
YJA/CORRES/3/12
Ms Shiela Dixit,
Hon'ble Chief Minister
GNCT of Delhi
DELHI
Sub: The river Yamuna can be revived - if only the ills facing it were well understood and tackled
Respected Ms Dixit,
Greetings from Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, YJA.
Ma'm, it is your statement made on 5 March 2012 at an International Conference on Green Urban Spaces at the India International Centre, IIC that "no one has yet suggested to me the way forward in successfully reviving the river", that has prompted us to send this to your honour.
We at the YJA in association with many others, have been attempting since late 2006, to understand - through research, documentation, first hand visits as well as close interactions with people in cities and villages along it - the river Yamuna for almost five years now. This has taken us to various places, big and small, all along its almost 1400 km length from Yamunotri till its confluence with Ganga at Prayag. So this communication rides on the experience and understanding as above regards the river.
Could we first draw your honour's kind attention to our publication from 2009 titled ' Reviving River Yamuna.....' which as its title suggests has tried to visualize a doable blue print for the river's restoration. We had submitted a copy of it to your office back then and we enclose another copy with the hard copy of this letter.
As we understand, the key ills facing the river are mainly the following three:
a) Almost a total absence of lean season flow
b) Unrelenting pollution of its waters
c) Unfortunate and self defeating invasion of its flood plains
Please allow us to elaborate on each of the above with solutions weaved into it.
Absence of lean season flow
Ma'm, It is the lean season flow that truly determines the health of any river. And in that sense river Yamuna is a 'dead' river just 15 - 20 km downstream of its damming at Hathnikund in form of a barrage. (Please see the enclosed google image from 2009).
Clearly if there is no river almost 200 km upstream of the city of Delhi, then how can there be a river in Delhi? We are sure that your honour is aware that the chimera of a river at Wazirabad barrage in the city is actually the accumulated waters (meant only for the domestic supply to the city) put back into the river at Palla village in Delhi from the Western Yamuna canal through the drain number 8.
The only solution to this most unfortunate state of affairs lies in bringing the upper riparian states of Haryana and UP to account on their total diversion of the river water at Hathnikund. If this means re-opening and negotiating the water sharing agreement of 1994, then so be it. But let this be targetted first at making adequate allowance for the river and anything else be subject to it.
We hope that your honour would agree with us that no such agreement can be valid if it results in the killing of a river for the larger part of the year. In addition, the government of Delhi is mandated by the MPD 2021 to work towards improving the lean season flow in the river, a mandate that to our best knowledge has never been pursued with any seriousness by the state.
This is not to say that we are not aware of plans to build dams upstream on a tributary and the very river Yamuna, in the name of reviving the river. Ma'm, such a misplaced solution (sic) is we believe, like offering poison in the name of medicine to a person already battling for life.
Unrelenting pollution of the river
Undisputably this has remained the most pursued (with little results) ill facing the river. But as we understand, this should have been the least of the state's worries as it is a matter largely of technological and administrative tightening.
Also it is as we believe the easiest to tackle.
It is often lamented that the STPs / ETPs do not work and hence the problem. To address this, if first if we could get all our waste water to a STP / ETP. Second if the treated water/effluent from a STP or ETP was seen as a useful resource (and not something to be dumped back into the river or the nearest water body) and thus make by law or otherwise a definite stakeholder (for non potable use) on that effluent water, with that person / agency getting water (for irrigation, non potable use or industrial use) from no other source as long as there is water to supply from a STP/ETP. This may apply as much to industry as to horticulture/agriculture. Once this is made mandatory then we are sure that it is these very stakeholders that would ensure that STPs and ETPs work and continue to meet their water needs and the river remains largely unpolluted as no waste water from such a point source shall then be allowed to find its way to the river.
But the above should apply on a national scale (here comes the role of MOEF and NRCD) as such a policy would need to be made applicable as much to STPs / ETPs in the city of Delhi as upstream in the cities of Yamunanagar, Karnal, Panipat, Sonepat, Saharanpur, and downstream Faridabad, NOIDA, Mathura and Agra, to name but few. A visual example from dangerous state at Panipat (enclosed) might suffice to point towards an urgent need for such a step.
Invasion of flood plains
Just like flow, it is flood plains that form an integral part of a river system as they on one hand convey safely the flood waters downstream, on the other act as the key source of recharge of ground water (aquifers) up to several kms on either side of the river. They also provide the necessary habitat to a myriad form of aquatic and riparian life forms.
So, it is a matter of deep regret that the city of Delhi has set perhaps the most unsavory example of invading its flood plains in the city.
In this context we heard you with great relief at the same conference, eulogising the virtues of not just the Okhla Bird park but also the Yamuna Biodiversity Park, which we believe (without its avoidable bits of concrete and manicured lawns) is the model to follow for the large part of river flood plain in the city.
But for that Ma'm to effectively happen, the large part of the flood plain (with notable exceptions for sustainable agriculture) would need to be provided a statutory status, under either the Wildlife (Protection) Act or the Biodiversity Act.
Ma'm, not many in the city, appreciate the fact that Delhi is not only the nation's capital city but also the first major city on the river Yamuna. Thus how it restores or fails its life-line river has clear implications for delhiites as well as for the people, cities and lands downstream of the city, and other cities thus situated on a river.
So, when Delhi thinks of its river it cannot think of it in isolation of what happens to it (the river) upstream or downstream of it. And here we believe lies perhaps the secret to it's revival/restoration. AMEN !
With warm regards,
Manoj Misra
Convener
CC:
Sri Tejender Khanna, Hon'ble Lt Governor of Delhi – For your kind information and necessary action please.
Smt Jayanthi Natarajan, Hon’ble MOS (I/C), Ministry of Environment and Forests – For your kind information and necessary action please.
Sri T. Chatterjee, Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests – For your kind information and necessary action please.
Chairman, Delhi Urban Arts Commission, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 – For your kind information and necessary action please.
Chairman, Yamuna Standing Committee, Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – For your kind information and necessary action please.
NGO goes to Green Tribunal for preservation of Yamuna - The Hindu (7.3.12)
Smriti Kak Ramachandran
“No response from official agencies despite reminders”
Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan, a non-government organisation fighting for preservation of the Yamuna and its riverbed, has sought intervention of the National Green Tribunal for action against debris being dumped on the floodplains of the river. The NGO claims its repeated reminders to various agencies, including the Delhi Development Authority and the Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh, have met with no response.
The YJA has claimed that despite petitions and evidence of waste choking the natural water body in the floodplains, agencies such as the DDA, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Public Works Department have failed to take action and secure the river and its floodplains.
The NGO has now filed a petition before the National Green Tribunal claiming that waste from households and even building debris is being dumped into “a water body situated in the riverbed of the Yamuna” and has sought an order for “restitution of the environment and compensation commensurate to the damage being done to the ecology”.
It has petitioned the Tribunal to direct the agencies to ensure removal of all debris within a stipulated time frame and to restore the natural water body to its former self. The NGO also wants the agencies to publicise a ban on dumping in the riverbed and monitor the riverbed for encroachment.
The NGO claims that a water body situated in the riverbed, located across the road from the colonies of Krishna Kunj and Vishvakarma Park in East Delhi, is dying because of neglect by the authorities who have failed to stop the dumping of debris into it and allowed it to turn into a “dumping zone”.
An inspection of the site by the NGO also revealed that a few small hutments have also come up on the floodplain.
In its petition the YJA said that on account of “unabated illegal dumping” of solid waste in the water body on the riverbed, the elements of natural water body and the ecology of the area were being “damaged”. The indiscriminate dumping of solid waste on the riverbed and illegal construction of hutments, the YJA has cautioned, will have a long-term negative impact on the eco system.
In December 2011, the YJA had written to Delhi's Lieutenant-Governor Tejendra Khanna complaining against dumping of waste on the riverbed and in the river body.
“No response from official agencies despite reminders”
Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan, a non-government organisation fighting for preservation of the Yamuna and its riverbed, has sought intervention of the National Green Tribunal for action against debris being dumped on the floodplains of the river. The NGO claims its repeated reminders to various agencies, including the Delhi Development Authority and the Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh, have met with no response.
The YJA has claimed that despite petitions and evidence of waste choking the natural water body in the floodplains, agencies such as the DDA, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Public Works Department have failed to take action and secure the river and its floodplains.
The NGO has now filed a petition before the National Green Tribunal claiming that waste from households and even building debris is being dumped into “a water body situated in the riverbed of the Yamuna” and has sought an order for “restitution of the environment and compensation commensurate to the damage being done to the ecology”.
It has petitioned the Tribunal to direct the agencies to ensure removal of all debris within a stipulated time frame and to restore the natural water body to its former self. The NGO also wants the agencies to publicise a ban on dumping in the riverbed and monitor the riverbed for encroachment.
The NGO claims that a water body situated in the riverbed, located across the road from the colonies of Krishna Kunj and Vishvakarma Park in East Delhi, is dying because of neglect by the authorities who have failed to stop the dumping of debris into it and allowed it to turn into a “dumping zone”.
An inspection of the site by the NGO also revealed that a few small hutments have also come up on the floodplain.
In its petition the YJA said that on account of “unabated illegal dumping” of solid waste in the water body on the riverbed, the elements of natural water body and the ecology of the area were being “damaged”. The indiscriminate dumping of solid waste on the riverbed and illegal construction of hutments, the YJA has cautioned, will have a long-term negative impact on the eco system.
In December 2011, the YJA had written to Delhi's Lieutenant-Governor Tejendra Khanna complaining against dumping of waste on the riverbed and in the river body.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
A river sutra, without links (The Hindu 3 March 2012)
See the PDF for a higher resolution of the image.
There are less disruptive and cheaper alternatives than connecting rivers to reduce the misery of floods and droughts.
On February 27 while giving the go-ahead to the controversial project of inter-linking of rivers, the Supreme Court specifically mentioned the benefits — flood control and drought moderation As plans for inter-basin transfers of water across vast distances, from surplus to deficit areas, appear to have got a lot of attraction for a country exposed all too often to droughts and floods, these need to be seriously evaluated and debated. As such while large-scale transfers of water can be expensive, we should also explore whether there are cheaper and better alternatives.
The idea of inter-basin transfers is based on the assumption that certain surplus (flood-prone) and deficit (drought-prone) areas exist so that water is readily available without any objection to transfer from the former to the latter. But in practice, people in so-called surplus areas do not agree that they have spare water which can be transferred to other, faraway areas.
At a time when there are problems relating to the sharing of waters, transfer of water across distant areas can easily aggravate these tensions. This should be avoided.
Issue of climate change
Any neat division between “deficit” and “surplus” areas becomes more of a problem in these times of climate change when erratic weather patterns are more frequently seen. Some time ago we had a curious situation when arid, deficit parts of western India (including Rajasthan) had excess rain and experienced floods while flood-prone parts of eastern India (including Assam) had drought-like conditions. If billions had already been spent to create an infra-structure from transferring surplus water from east to west, just imagine what a difficult situation would have arisen at the time of such erratic weather.
So the basic conditions of problem-free transfer of water from the country's “surplus” to “deficit” areas simply do not exist. The tensions are likely to be much greater when inter-basin transfers also involve neighbouring countries, a reality that cannot be avoided in the existing geography of national-level links as many rivers pass through other countries. As soon as the grand looking river-linking plans are transferred from paper to reality, we enter the real world of shifting rivers bringing enormous siltloads, landslides, hills, plateaus, seismic belts, gorges, ravines, bends and curves which make the task of large-scale transfer of water difficult, enormously expensive, energy-intensive and hazardous. If rivers had been created by engineers and not by nature, they would have flowed along predictable straight paths to suit our needs. But rivers do not generally like to abide by the wishes and commands of engineers. Even when the might of modern technology forces them to do so, they sometimes seek revenge in very destructive ways — breaking free and causing floods.
Of course no one has had the time and inclination to explore how the bio-diversity flourishing in a particular river system will react when it is linked to another river. But the problems faced by the vast majority who are adversely affected by dams and displacements of this gigantic river-linking project have to be faced surely and squarely.
This brings us to the question of whether safer, less disruptive and cheaper alternatives are available for reducing the distress of floods and droughts. Evidence suggests that even villages which experience very low rainfall, as in the desert areas of Rajasthan, have evolved a range of local methods of water conservation and collection which, if followed up carefully, take them towards water self-sufficiency to a large extent. It is true that in modern times there is pressure leading to the breakdown or inadequacy of some of these self-reliant systems. Nevertheless it can be said that a combination of traditional water-collection/conservation practices and other drought-proofing methods — which also use modern technology — still provides the best available answer (also the cheapest one) to water scarcity in drought-prone areas.
In the case of flood-prone areas we should not ignore the resilience of local communities where people learnt from early childhood how to cope with rising rivers. Their ability has been adversely affected by increasing drainage obstruction created by thoughtless “development” works because of which floods sometimes become more fierce, creating prolonged water logging. So what people really need is a good drainage plan — so that flood water clears quickly — combined with a package of livelihood, health, education and other support suited to the needs of flood-prone areas and communities. This will work out much cheaper and more effective than all the dams, diversions and embankments put together. So the question of what people of drought-prone areas and flood-prone areas really need should be taken in consultation with them. Do they want huge water diversions and transfers with all their dams and displacements, or do they prefer more funds for trusted, small-scale local solutions?
(The writer is a freelance journalist writing on development issues.)
There are less disruptive and cheaper alternatives than connecting rivers to reduce the misery of floods and droughts.
On February 27 while giving the go-ahead to the controversial project of inter-linking of rivers, the Supreme Court specifically mentioned the benefits — flood control and drought moderation As plans for inter-basin transfers of water across vast distances, from surplus to deficit areas, appear to have got a lot of attraction for a country exposed all too often to droughts and floods, these need to be seriously evaluated and debated. As such while large-scale transfers of water can be expensive, we should also explore whether there are cheaper and better alternatives.
The idea of inter-basin transfers is based on the assumption that certain surplus (flood-prone) and deficit (drought-prone) areas exist so that water is readily available without any objection to transfer from the former to the latter. But in practice, people in so-called surplus areas do not agree that they have spare water which can be transferred to other, faraway areas.
At a time when there are problems relating to the sharing of waters, transfer of water across distant areas can easily aggravate these tensions. This should be avoided.
Issue of climate change
Any neat division between “deficit” and “surplus” areas becomes more of a problem in these times of climate change when erratic weather patterns are more frequently seen. Some time ago we had a curious situation when arid, deficit parts of western India (including Rajasthan) had excess rain and experienced floods while flood-prone parts of eastern India (including Assam) had drought-like conditions. If billions had already been spent to create an infra-structure from transferring surplus water from east to west, just imagine what a difficult situation would have arisen at the time of such erratic weather.
So the basic conditions of problem-free transfer of water from the country's “surplus” to “deficit” areas simply do not exist. The tensions are likely to be much greater when inter-basin transfers also involve neighbouring countries, a reality that cannot be avoided in the existing geography of national-level links as many rivers pass through other countries. As soon as the grand looking river-linking plans are transferred from paper to reality, we enter the real world of shifting rivers bringing enormous siltloads, landslides, hills, plateaus, seismic belts, gorges, ravines, bends and curves which make the task of large-scale transfer of water difficult, enormously expensive, energy-intensive and hazardous. If rivers had been created by engineers and not by nature, they would have flowed along predictable straight paths to suit our needs. But rivers do not generally like to abide by the wishes and commands of engineers. Even when the might of modern technology forces them to do so, they sometimes seek revenge in very destructive ways — breaking free and causing floods.
Of course no one has had the time and inclination to explore how the bio-diversity flourishing in a particular river system will react when it is linked to another river. But the problems faced by the vast majority who are adversely affected by dams and displacements of this gigantic river-linking project have to be faced surely and squarely.
This brings us to the question of whether safer, less disruptive and cheaper alternatives are available for reducing the distress of floods and droughts. Evidence suggests that even villages which experience very low rainfall, as in the desert areas of Rajasthan, have evolved a range of local methods of water conservation and collection which, if followed up carefully, take them towards water self-sufficiency to a large extent. It is true that in modern times there is pressure leading to the breakdown or inadequacy of some of these self-reliant systems. Nevertheless it can be said that a combination of traditional water-collection/conservation practices and other drought-proofing methods — which also use modern technology — still provides the best available answer (also the cheapest one) to water scarcity in drought-prone areas.
In the case of flood-prone areas we should not ignore the resilience of local communities where people learnt from early childhood how to cope with rising rivers. Their ability has been adversely affected by increasing drainage obstruction created by thoughtless “development” works because of which floods sometimes become more fierce, creating prolonged water logging. So what people really need is a good drainage plan — so that flood water clears quickly — combined with a package of livelihood, health, education and other support suited to the needs of flood-prone areas and communities. This will work out much cheaper and more effective than all the dams, diversions and embankments put together. So the question of what people of drought-prone areas and flood-prone areas really need should be taken in consultation with them. Do they want huge water diversions and transfers with all their dams and displacements, or do they prefer more funds for trusted, small-scale local solutions?
(The writer is a freelance journalist writing on development issues.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
