28 March 2012
YJA/Corres/3/12/
Dr C.P. Joshi
Hon'ble Union Minister of Road Transport and Highways
Transport Bhawan
1, Sansad Marg
New Delhi - 1
Sub: Storm water drains are city's critical life lines and not pathways waiting to be covered - Please do not permit / promote conversion of drains into roads
Respected Dr Joshi,
Greetings from Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, a civil society consortium working since 2006 for the restoration of river Yamuna and its various tributaries as ecological systems and critical life lines for the cities through which they pass.
Sir, it is well known that Delhi is not only an ancient city but also the first city on the river Yamuna. Moreover it is a city with undulating terrain as a result of which many natural storm water drains lie both in west and east Delhi. It is also no secret that Delhi is today known for rampant flooding in its low lying areas resulting from poorly planned and laid roads many of which have cut the natural drainage system of the city.
In a scenario like the above these are only the remaining storm water drains in the city that manages to keep the city safe from flooding during the monsoon season. Accordingly these drains play a life line role for the city.
In countries all over the world, the natural storm water drains are treated with much care and their integrity maintained through laws and regulations. Unfortunately no such mechanism is in place in our country and it is left to the municipalities to deal with them. In many places most unfortunately these drains have been covered and turned into roads without realising that such an action is no less than an invitation to double disaster. One is that by such covering you increase the risk of flooding and the other is that there remains a strong possibility of such roads subsiding in due course. In addition where ever these drains also carry sewage and waste water as many drains in Delhi (for want of an efficient and total sewage coverage) currently do any covering of these drains would turn these drains into a gas chamber (no matter how many gas outlets one may create) and increase the toxic concentration (in absence of adequate oxygenation of the water in the drain) of the water flowing therein.
What has been mentioned above are just few of the dangers involved in covering of remaining drains in the city.
So, against the above we have learnt with great alarm the fact that your Ministry has recently sanctioned proposals from the government of Delhi to turn few of the drains in the city into roads. A case in point is a sanction at a cost of Rs 4523 lakhs to construct road over 52 cusec drain from Mandoli Road to Drain No 1 near Jafarabad in Shahdara North Zone.
Sir, if we really wish to address these drains than the only way to do so is to first secure them by law against encroachment and waste dumping and then convert these into green and blue spaces in form of secure open waterways enclosed with greenery in their flood zones.
Sir, while we realise that in the short term such covering of drains into roads provide a cleaner and sanitised look and might improve some connectivity in the city let us not forget that all this is fraught with not just ecological damage but grave dangers of avoidable flooding and structural collapse. All these have been experienced in the past in the so called developed world of US and Canada.(we enclose a thesis from Philadelphia city with many parallels with Delhi). And not just the west there is a much known example from Seoul in S. Korea where a lost stream (Cheonggyecheon stream) through the city was restored at huge cost including removal of a highway built on it. The west has even a name for such restoration of lost streams / waterways namely "day lighting". But Sir, all this restoration is hugely expansive. So while we still have our drains, why should be cover them now to repent and restore later?
We hope that your honour would provide due attention to our appeal and direct a reconsideration and recall of any sanctions that permit covering of drains in the city and elsewhere.
With regards,
Manoj Misra
Convener
CC:
Sri Tejendra Khanna, Hon'ble Lt Governor of Delhi - For your kind information and necessary action please.
Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi - For your kind information and necessary action please.
Smt. Sheila Dixit, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Delhi - For your kind information and necessary action please.
Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi - For your kind information and necessary action please.
Sri T. Chatterjee, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests - For your kind information and necessary action please.
Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan, Hon’ble Minister of State (Independent Charge), Ministry of Environment and Forests - For your kind information and necessary action please.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Proposal to turn drains into roads opposed (The Hindu 30 March 2012)
Members of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan write to Union Minister for Road Transport & Highways
Members of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, a civil society consortium working in the area of restoration of the Yamuna and its various tributaries, has written to Union Minister for Road Transport & Highways Dr. C. P. Joshi stating that “they were alarmed by the fact that the Ministry had recently sanctioned proposals from the Delhi Government to turn a few of the city drains into roads''.
“A case in point is a sanction of Rs.4,523 lakh to construct a road over 52 cusec drain from Mandoli Road to Drain No. 1 near Jafarabad in Shahdara (North) Zone. It is also no secret that Delhi is today known for rampant flooding in its low lying areas resulting from poorly planned and laid roads many of which have cut the natural drainage system of the city. In such a scenario the storm water drains in the city manage to keep it safe from flooding during the monsoon season. Accordingly these drains play a life line role for the city and closing them would mean trouble for the Capital,'' said Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan convener Manoj Misra.
The group has suggested that the drains be secured by law against encroachment and waste dumping and then converted into green and blue spaces in the form of secure open waterways enclosed with greenery in their flood zones.
“Delhi is the first city on the Yamuna and it is a city with an undulating terrain as a result of which both West and East Delhi have many natural storm water drains. In countries all over the world, the natural storm water drains are treated with much care and their integrity maintained through laws and regulations. Unfortunately no such mechanism is in place in our country and it is left to the municipalities to deal with them. In many places, most unfortunately, these drains have been covered and turned into roads without realising that such an action is no less than an invitation to double disaster,'' noted the letter.
Noting that covering of these drain increases the risk of flooding and the other is that there remains a strong possibility of such roads subsiding in due course, Mr. Misra said: “Wherever these drains are they also carry sewage and waste water and covering them would turn these drains into a gas chamber (no matter how many gas outlets one may create) and increase the toxic concentration (in absence of adequate oxygenation of the water in the drain) of the water flowing therein.''
Members of the Abhiyaan also noted that in the short term such covering of drains into roads provide a cleaner and sanitised look and might improve some connectivity in the city. “But let us not forget that all this is a short term solution with long term ecological damage and grave dangers of avoidable flooding and structural collapse. We hope that due attention will be awarded to the concerns of the environmentalists,'' noted the letter.
Members of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, a civil society consortium working in the area of restoration of the Yamuna and its various tributaries, has written to Union Minister for Road Transport & Highways Dr. C. P. Joshi stating that “they were alarmed by the fact that the Ministry had recently sanctioned proposals from the Delhi Government to turn a few of the city drains into roads''.
“A case in point is a sanction of Rs.4,523 lakh to construct a road over 52 cusec drain from Mandoli Road to Drain No. 1 near Jafarabad in Shahdara (North) Zone. It is also no secret that Delhi is today known for rampant flooding in its low lying areas resulting from poorly planned and laid roads many of which have cut the natural drainage system of the city. In such a scenario the storm water drains in the city manage to keep it safe from flooding during the monsoon season. Accordingly these drains play a life line role for the city and closing them would mean trouble for the Capital,'' said Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan convener Manoj Misra.
The group has suggested that the drains be secured by law against encroachment and waste dumping and then converted into green and blue spaces in the form of secure open waterways enclosed with greenery in their flood zones.
“Delhi is the first city on the Yamuna and it is a city with an undulating terrain as a result of which both West and East Delhi have many natural storm water drains. In countries all over the world, the natural storm water drains are treated with much care and their integrity maintained through laws and regulations. Unfortunately no such mechanism is in place in our country and it is left to the municipalities to deal with them. In many places, most unfortunately, these drains have been covered and turned into roads without realising that such an action is no less than an invitation to double disaster,'' noted the letter.
Noting that covering of these drain increases the risk of flooding and the other is that there remains a strong possibility of such roads subsiding in due course, Mr. Misra said: “Wherever these drains are they also carry sewage and waste water and covering them would turn these drains into a gas chamber (no matter how many gas outlets one may create) and increase the toxic concentration (in absence of adequate oxygenation of the water in the drain) of the water flowing therein.''
Members of the Abhiyaan also noted that in the short term such covering of drains into roads provide a cleaner and sanitised look and might improve some connectivity in the city. “But let us not forget that all this is a short term solution with long term ecological damage and grave dangers of avoidable flooding and structural collapse. We hope that due attention will be awarded to the concerns of the environmentalists,'' noted the letter.
Sir, no amount of additional falsehoods can correct an initial 'wrong' - river bed is no place for a bus depot
22 March 2012
YJA/CORRES/3/12
Sri Tejendra Khanna
Hon'ble Lt Governor of Delhi
Raj Niwas
DELHI
Sub: Sir, no amount of additional falsehoods can correct an initial 'wrong' - river bed is no place for a bus depot
Respected Sir,
Greetings from Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan on the "World Water Day, 2012".
Sir, kindly recall your words when we first, in the company of Sri Kuldip Nayar, the veteran journalist, met your honour, that 'the train had already left the station' before you took up the reigns of the office of LG and hence your hands were tight in the matter of both the CWG village and the DMRC depot at Yamuna bank but you were fully aware and appreciative of the importance of the Yamuna flood plains in the city.
And true to your words a moratorium was promulgated on any new construction in the river bed. Later in the instant case of bus depot in the river bed, when you permitted in light of the urgency of CWG 2010, a temporary use of a part of the river bed with strict conditions and only for 15 days duration, and when we were informed on two different occasions from your honour's office that the occupation of the river bed for a temporary bus depot by the DTC was meant to be vacated post the CWG 2010 we were reassured of the safety of the river and the river bed, at least, as long as your good self remained the LG of Delhi.
But, please pardon us for now observing with reluctance and deep regret that this belief of ours has been shattered from a perusal of the minutes of a recent meeting held at Raj Bhawan on 31 January, 2012, under your honour's chairmanship. Please allow us to elaborate as to why we hold so.
A perusal of the said minutes informs that:
a) The said meet was held at the request of the Chief Secretary, GNCTD to consider the issues raised in the PIL No. 5481 of 2011 relating to DTC bus parking site at Millennium Park.
b) That it is not possible to allot an alternative site of similar size anywhere else in Delhi and that alternative sites would lead to comparatively greater environmental degradation.
c) Your honour holds that since the site has been protected from floods by construction of a bund since 1960s, so the site in question has no longer a character of river bed / flood plains.
d) Department of Irrigation and Flood Control, GNCTD has strengthened the said bund at the time of CWG 2010 and had taken clearance of the Yamuna Standing Committee as well as Usha Mehra Committee in the matter.
e) DDA which proposed to inform the Hon'ble High Court that the land use of the said Bus parking site as per the MPD 2021 is "River & Water body and in the zonal Development Plan and "Recreational", but it shall be asked to change the said stand before the Hon'ble Court in the light of the decisions taken at the said meeting.
f) DDA to take up the matter of change of land use of the site in the ongoing Master Plan review exercise.
Sir, the actual facts of the matter are as under:
a) DDA and DUAC as statutory authorities are the key regulators and have a mandate under their respective Acts to take necessary action against any person or agency (government or private) when any provision of the said Acts are violated. And hence your honour as the ex-officio Chairman of the DDA, becomes the 'key regulator' in the matter. That your honour also chairs the PM appointed Yamuna River Development Authority, YRDA is an added layer of regulatory role.
b) GNCTD and in particular the DTC and the PWD having willfully and malafide disobeyed your instructions and continued to occupy the said site much beyond the period permitted; remained at the site in clear defiance of directives of DUAC, are actually the defaulters in the matter. And the Principal Secretary (Tpt.) in his capacity as GNCTD representative is the "key alleged offender".
c) The DDA while preparing the MPD 2021 and the Zonal Development Plan for Zone O, was fully aware of the current use of the site as a fly ash dump and the presence there of a retaining wall (which is now being presented as a bund) for the fly ash dump and yet it (DDA) with full knowledge planned this site for existing land use as "River bed & water body" which it actually is and proposed it to be developed as a recreational site. It is also notable that the zonal plan map of zone O (river Yamuna) has marked as 'green' exactly the site under consideration. Clearly the planners were fully in the know of the site realities and had planned accordingly. It was also as well since it had been an earlier mistake to use the site for dumping polluting fly ash from the power plant that the planners at DDA had now decided to rectify following closure of the Power Plant by developing it as a 'green' recreational site.
d) While the said bus depot over 61 acres in zone O (river Yamuna) has no clearance from the Yamuna Standing Committee, YSC of CWC, the latter had indeed given clearance to the reinforcement of the said bund in July 2008 at its 74th meet, to the department of I&FC, but only after taking a prior approval of the Hon'ble High Court as the site lie within 300 m of the river. To our best knowledge such approval from the HC of Delhi was never taken.
e) It is notable that any clearance, as claimed, from the HC of Delhi created Justice (rtd) Usha Mehra Committee has no meaning as the mandate of the same was removal (and not permission) of any activity within 300 m of the river. It is also a fact that the site in question lies right next to the river, well within the prohibited 300 m mark and deep flood waters stood right next to it during the floods in September 2010.
f) The EIA notification, 2006 stipulates that any construction of a facility which is open to sky (as the bus depot is) and where the area of activity is over 20,000 sq m (around 5 acres) requires a prior approval from the competent authority. Clearly the impugned development is also in the teeth of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 as it violates the EIA notification of 2006.
Sir, with so many illegalities and irregularities as above we find it extremely odd and unfortunate that a meeting was held under your honour's chairman ship, between the representatives of the DDA (the regulator) and that of the GNCTD (the defaulters) to determine ways and means of bringing about a post facto regularisation/legalising of a brazen act of illegality and ill intent.
Sir, isn't it strange that an illegality/irregularity and that too in the river bed / flood plain, is being discussed and decided together between regulators and violators?
It also amazes us that under what motivation/pressures is the DDA making an obviously 'contradictory claim' of first finding no alternate site for the bus depot in the city and later stating that the alternative site would mean greater environmental degradation? Clearly the DDA has made no attempt whatsoever in the matter and it is just presumptive statements that it is making in the matter. In this context we request you to kindly give us an opportunity of personal hearing, where we could present to you suggestions on alternate sites already existing in the city.
Sir, finally permit us to state that this is a case where as the facts reveal that the authority of your honour's august office has been ignored / challenged with impunity, time and again by the defaulters (GNCTD) and yet we find that it is again your very office that is being used (pardon us for using this term) for cleaning of their 'dirty' and deliberate act of land grab / encroachment in zone O (river Yamuna).
Sir, but what has pained us the most is the position taken by your honour at the meet, which is unfortunately contrary to all your previous stands and statements in the matter of the safety and security of the zone O (river Yamuna) in the city. This is also because the river itself in September 2010 had proved (and your honour is well aware of it) it beyond any doubt whatsoever that no embankment can change a flood plain's basic nature, no matter what any court might have held in the matter. Allow me to also enclose a brief article from Mississippi river that highlights how levees (embankments) are to be seen as being a major culprit in flood devastation. (article enclosed).
Sir, the inquiry report of Justice (rtd) Lokeswar Prasad (covered extensively in the newspapers today) that went into the circumstances of the collapse of a 5 storey building in East Delhi in Nov 2010 resulting in death of 71 persons has clearly indicated that the entire east Delhi is the river bed and hence vulnerable to such mishappenings. This is when it is well know that the Yamuna Pushta (east marginal bund) stands between the river bed and the human habitations.
Sir, we could have still understood the said position at the meeting as taken by your honour, if it had been taken by your successor, as in this case, clearly "the train could not have left the station, without your prior knowledge or sanction" and it still remains within your honour's power and authority to not permit that train to move an inch forward.
Sir, we have time and again in the past, sought a personal audience with your good self but in vain. Can we hope to get it at least now!
With warm regards,
Manoj Misra
Convener
CC:
Chairman, Yamuna Standing Committee, Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – For your kind information please.
Chairman, Delhi Urban Arts Commission, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 – For your kind information please.
Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan, Hon’ble Minister of State (Independent Charge), Ministry of Environment and Forests - For your kind information and necessary action please.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2535649/
Unnatural Disaster: Human Factors in the Mississippi Floods
Harvey Black
Environ Health Perspect. 2008 September; 116(9): A390–A393.
"The Hand of Man"
Many experts point to levees as a major culprit in flood devastation. Levees narrow the flow of the water, preventing it from spreading out into the floodplain and forcing it to move faster, explains geologist Jeffrey Mount, who directs the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California, Davis. As a bolus of floodwater moves down a river, levees can get overwhelmed in their work. “The dark secret that no one wants to share is that there are two kinds of levees: those that have failed and those that will fail,” Mount says. And when that levee fails with a massive wall of water pressing on it, the water rushes with great force onto the land behind the levee. “The power of water is a function of the difference in elevation between the top of the water and the adjacent land,” Mount explains. “So the greater that difference, the more powerful the flow that comes out onto that land in terms of its velocity and its power to erode.”
Wing dams on the river are another factor in exacerbating floods, says Criss. These rock jetties, situated roughly perpendicular to the riverbank, aid shipping by preventing the accumulation of sediment so the river channel stays deeper. Deeper water moves faster, meaning the impact of floods can be greater.
Criss points to another problem: “There are general changes to the land that decrease the permeability of soils. As we convert our forests and prairies and fields to subdivisions, we increase the rate of runoff [into the river]—that’s the ubiquitous footprint of man.”
"Ripe for Disaster?"
Land development in floodplains is a perilous exercise, according to Gerald Galloway, a professor of engineering at the University of Maryland and former commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). For one thing, he says, developers rely heavily on floodplain maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that demarcate where we can expect socalled 100-year floods—the sort of flood that can be expected once every 100 years. People erroneously believe if they are outside that demarcation they are safe. However, Galloway cautions, such maps are estimates only. Moreover, he says, “The records of the past don’t necessarily match the pattern we’re in right now in terms of the weather.”
Criss agrees, saying that the rivers of today are not the rivers of the past, and that there is simply not enough historical information on which to base the notion of a 100-or 500-year flood. Besides, at many places, he argues that what have been called 100-year floods are now 10-year floods due to a combination of changing conditions over time
YJA/CORRES/3/12
Sri Tejendra Khanna
Hon'ble Lt Governor of Delhi
Raj Niwas
DELHI
Sub: Sir, no amount of additional falsehoods can correct an initial 'wrong' - river bed is no place for a bus depot
Respected Sir,
Greetings from Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan on the "World Water Day, 2012".
Sir, kindly recall your words when we first, in the company of Sri Kuldip Nayar, the veteran journalist, met your honour, that 'the train had already left the station' before you took up the reigns of the office of LG and hence your hands were tight in the matter of both the CWG village and the DMRC depot at Yamuna bank but you were fully aware and appreciative of the importance of the Yamuna flood plains in the city.
And true to your words a moratorium was promulgated on any new construction in the river bed. Later in the instant case of bus depot in the river bed, when you permitted in light of the urgency of CWG 2010, a temporary use of a part of the river bed with strict conditions and only for 15 days duration, and when we were informed on two different occasions from your honour's office that the occupation of the river bed for a temporary bus depot by the DTC was meant to be vacated post the CWG 2010 we were reassured of the safety of the river and the river bed, at least, as long as your good self remained the LG of Delhi.
But, please pardon us for now observing with reluctance and deep regret that this belief of ours has been shattered from a perusal of the minutes of a recent meeting held at Raj Bhawan on 31 January, 2012, under your honour's chairmanship. Please allow us to elaborate as to why we hold so.
A perusal of the said minutes informs that:
a) The said meet was held at the request of the Chief Secretary, GNCTD to consider the issues raised in the PIL No. 5481 of 2011 relating to DTC bus parking site at Millennium Park.
b) That it is not possible to allot an alternative site of similar size anywhere else in Delhi and that alternative sites would lead to comparatively greater environmental degradation.
c) Your honour holds that since the site has been protected from floods by construction of a bund since 1960s, so the site in question has no longer a character of river bed / flood plains.
d) Department of Irrigation and Flood Control, GNCTD has strengthened the said bund at the time of CWG 2010 and had taken clearance of the Yamuna Standing Committee as well as Usha Mehra Committee in the matter.
e) DDA which proposed to inform the Hon'ble High Court that the land use of the said Bus parking site as per the MPD 2021 is "River & Water body and in the zonal Development Plan and "Recreational", but it shall be asked to change the said stand before the Hon'ble Court in the light of the decisions taken at the said meeting.
f) DDA to take up the matter of change of land use of the site in the ongoing Master Plan review exercise.
Sir, the actual facts of the matter are as under:
a) DDA and DUAC as statutory authorities are the key regulators and have a mandate under their respective Acts to take necessary action against any person or agency (government or private) when any provision of the said Acts are violated. And hence your honour as the ex-officio Chairman of the DDA, becomes the 'key regulator' in the matter. That your honour also chairs the PM appointed Yamuna River Development Authority, YRDA is an added layer of regulatory role.
b) GNCTD and in particular the DTC and the PWD having willfully and malafide disobeyed your instructions and continued to occupy the said site much beyond the period permitted; remained at the site in clear defiance of directives of DUAC, are actually the defaulters in the matter. And the Principal Secretary (Tpt.) in his capacity as GNCTD representative is the "key alleged offender".
c) The DDA while preparing the MPD 2021 and the Zonal Development Plan for Zone O, was fully aware of the current use of the site as a fly ash dump and the presence there of a retaining wall (which is now being presented as a bund) for the fly ash dump and yet it (DDA) with full knowledge planned this site for existing land use as "River bed & water body" which it actually is and proposed it to be developed as a recreational site. It is also notable that the zonal plan map of zone O (river Yamuna) has marked as 'green' exactly the site under consideration. Clearly the planners were fully in the know of the site realities and had planned accordingly. It was also as well since it had been an earlier mistake to use the site for dumping polluting fly ash from the power plant that the planners at DDA had now decided to rectify following closure of the Power Plant by developing it as a 'green' recreational site.
d) While the said bus depot over 61 acres in zone O (river Yamuna) has no clearance from the Yamuna Standing Committee, YSC of CWC, the latter had indeed given clearance to the reinforcement of the said bund in July 2008 at its 74th meet, to the department of I&FC, but only after taking a prior approval of the Hon'ble High Court as the site lie within 300 m of the river. To our best knowledge such approval from the HC of Delhi was never taken.
e) It is notable that any clearance, as claimed, from the HC of Delhi created Justice (rtd) Usha Mehra Committee has no meaning as the mandate of the same was removal (and not permission) of any activity within 300 m of the river. It is also a fact that the site in question lies right next to the river, well within the prohibited 300 m mark and deep flood waters stood right next to it during the floods in September 2010.
f) The EIA notification, 2006 stipulates that any construction of a facility which is open to sky (as the bus depot is) and where the area of activity is over 20,000 sq m (around 5 acres) requires a prior approval from the competent authority. Clearly the impugned development is also in the teeth of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 as it violates the EIA notification of 2006.
Sir, with so many illegalities and irregularities as above we find it extremely odd and unfortunate that a meeting was held under your honour's chairman ship, between the representatives of the DDA (the regulator) and that of the GNCTD (the defaulters) to determine ways and means of bringing about a post facto regularisation/legalising of a brazen act of illegality and ill intent.
Sir, isn't it strange that an illegality/irregularity and that too in the river bed / flood plain, is being discussed and decided together between regulators and violators?
It also amazes us that under what motivation/pressures is the DDA making an obviously 'contradictory claim' of first finding no alternate site for the bus depot in the city and later stating that the alternative site would mean greater environmental degradation? Clearly the DDA has made no attempt whatsoever in the matter and it is just presumptive statements that it is making in the matter. In this context we request you to kindly give us an opportunity of personal hearing, where we could present to you suggestions on alternate sites already existing in the city.
Sir, finally permit us to state that this is a case where as the facts reveal that the authority of your honour's august office has been ignored / challenged with impunity, time and again by the defaulters (GNCTD) and yet we find that it is again your very office that is being used (pardon us for using this term) for cleaning of their 'dirty' and deliberate act of land grab / encroachment in zone O (river Yamuna).
Sir, but what has pained us the most is the position taken by your honour at the meet, which is unfortunately contrary to all your previous stands and statements in the matter of the safety and security of the zone O (river Yamuna) in the city. This is also because the river itself in September 2010 had proved (and your honour is well aware of it) it beyond any doubt whatsoever that no embankment can change a flood plain's basic nature, no matter what any court might have held in the matter. Allow me to also enclose a brief article from Mississippi river that highlights how levees (embankments) are to be seen as being a major culprit in flood devastation. (article enclosed).
Sir, the inquiry report of Justice (rtd) Lokeswar Prasad (covered extensively in the newspapers today) that went into the circumstances of the collapse of a 5 storey building in East Delhi in Nov 2010 resulting in death of 71 persons has clearly indicated that the entire east Delhi is the river bed and hence vulnerable to such mishappenings. This is when it is well know that the Yamuna Pushta (east marginal bund) stands between the river bed and the human habitations.
Sir, we could have still understood the said position at the meeting as taken by your honour, if it had been taken by your successor, as in this case, clearly "the train could not have left the station, without your prior knowledge or sanction" and it still remains within your honour's power and authority to not permit that train to move an inch forward.
Sir, we have time and again in the past, sought a personal audience with your good self but in vain. Can we hope to get it at least now!
With warm regards,
Manoj Misra
Convener
CC:
Chairman, Yamuna Standing Committee, Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – For your kind information please.
Chairman, Delhi Urban Arts Commission, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 – For your kind information please.
Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan, Hon’ble Minister of State (Independent Charge), Ministry of Environment and Forests - For your kind information and necessary action please.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2535649/
Unnatural Disaster: Human Factors in the Mississippi Floods
Harvey Black
Environ Health Perspect. 2008 September; 116(9): A390–A393.
"The Hand of Man"
Many experts point to levees as a major culprit in flood devastation. Levees narrow the flow of the water, preventing it from spreading out into the floodplain and forcing it to move faster, explains geologist Jeffrey Mount, who directs the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California, Davis. As a bolus of floodwater moves down a river, levees can get overwhelmed in their work. “The dark secret that no one wants to share is that there are two kinds of levees: those that have failed and those that will fail,” Mount says. And when that levee fails with a massive wall of water pressing on it, the water rushes with great force onto the land behind the levee. “The power of water is a function of the difference in elevation between the top of the water and the adjacent land,” Mount explains. “So the greater that difference, the more powerful the flow that comes out onto that land in terms of its velocity and its power to erode.”
Wing dams on the river are another factor in exacerbating floods, says Criss. These rock jetties, situated roughly perpendicular to the riverbank, aid shipping by preventing the accumulation of sediment so the river channel stays deeper. Deeper water moves faster, meaning the impact of floods can be greater.
Criss points to another problem: “There are general changes to the land that decrease the permeability of soils. As we convert our forests and prairies and fields to subdivisions, we increase the rate of runoff [into the river]—that’s the ubiquitous footprint of man.”
"Ripe for Disaster?"
Land development in floodplains is a perilous exercise, according to Gerald Galloway, a professor of engineering at the University of Maryland and former commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). For one thing, he says, developers rely heavily on floodplain maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that demarcate where we can expect socalled 100-year floods—the sort of flood that can be expected once every 100 years. People erroneously believe if they are outside that demarcation they are safe. However, Galloway cautions, such maps are estimates only. Moreover, he says, “The records of the past don’t necessarily match the pattern we’re in right now in terms of the weather.”
Criss agrees, saying that the rivers of today are not the rivers of the past, and that there is simply not enough historical information on which to base the notion of a 100-or 500-year flood. Besides, at many places, he argues that what have been called 100-year floods are now 10-year floods due to a combination of changing conditions over time
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Activists to highlight cause of ‘lost river’ on Yamuna Jayanti (Hindustan Times 28 March 2012)
Nivedita Khandekar
Religio-environmentalists of the Braj region are planning to assemble on the banks of the Yamuna in Hathnikund, 200km north of Delhi, for the cause of the ‘lost river’ on the occasion of Yamuna Jayanti on Wednesday. There will also be silent demonstrations at various locations in Delhi to
draw the attention of the authorities to the plight of the river.
Braj, whose area is approximately 3,800 sq km, lies along the Yamuna in Uttar Pradesh and comprises important pilgrimages such as Vrindavan, Barsana, Nandgaon, Govardhan and Kosi, all associated with Lord Krishna. Approximately 40 million pilgrims visit these places annually.
“The Yamuna is an integral part of Braj and its culture. Brajwasis want to see for themselves how their river has gone missing,” said Ravi Monga, who belongs to a hermitage in Barsana, near Mathura.
Immediately downstream of the Wazirabad barrage, sewer drains empty into the Yamuna, turning it into a drain for a large part of the year.
The official statistics show Delhi has only 2% of the length of the Yamuna but contributes to 90% of its pollution.
The Yamuna Jayanti is on the sixth day of the waxing phase of the moon of the Indian month of Chaitra (mid-March to mid-April). After celebrations in Vrindavan, the devotees will reach Hathnikund near Yamunanagar in Haryana, Monga said.
They will perform puja and other rituals at the Hathnikund barrage and reach Delhi by Thursday to stage silent protests at ISBT, ITO, Nizamuddin and DND bridges.
“Shall this be a wake-up call for the relevant authorities? Let no one remain in doubt … for the thunder may today be distant but it is approaching,” warned Manoj Mishra, convener of the Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan.
Religio-environmentalists of the Braj region are planning to assemble on the banks of the Yamuna in Hathnikund, 200km north of Delhi, for the cause of the ‘lost river’ on the occasion of Yamuna Jayanti on Wednesday. There will also be silent demonstrations at various locations in Delhi to
draw the attention of the authorities to the plight of the river.
Braj, whose area is approximately 3,800 sq km, lies along the Yamuna in Uttar Pradesh and comprises important pilgrimages such as Vrindavan, Barsana, Nandgaon, Govardhan and Kosi, all associated with Lord Krishna. Approximately 40 million pilgrims visit these places annually.
“The Yamuna is an integral part of Braj and its culture. Brajwasis want to see for themselves how their river has gone missing,” said Ravi Monga, who belongs to a hermitage in Barsana, near Mathura.
Immediately downstream of the Wazirabad barrage, sewer drains empty into the Yamuna, turning it into a drain for a large part of the year.
The official statistics show Delhi has only 2% of the length of the Yamuna but contributes to 90% of its pollution.
The Yamuna Jayanti is on the sixth day of the waxing phase of the moon of the Indian month of Chaitra (mid-March to mid-April). After celebrations in Vrindavan, the devotees will reach Hathnikund near Yamunanagar in Haryana, Monga said.
They will perform puja and other rituals at the Hathnikund barrage and reach Delhi by Thursday to stage silent protests at ISBT, ITO, Nizamuddin and DND bridges.
“Shall this be a wake-up call for the relevant authorities? Let no one remain in doubt … for the thunder may today be distant but it is approaching,” warned Manoj Mishra, convener of the Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
यमुना के पारिस्थितीयतंत्र के बारे में जाना (Dainik Jagran 15 March 2012)
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।
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।
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.)
Haryana to pursue water issue at all levels (Hindu 24 February 2012)
State is not getting its due share, says Governor
Haryana Governor Jagannath Pahadia delivering the customary address on the first day of the Budget session of the Vidhan Sabha in Chandigarh on Thursday.Photo: Akhilesh Kumar
Haryana Governor Jagannath Pahadia on Thursday expressed concern over the issue of the State's legitimate share of water.
Describing Haryana as a water-deficit State, he said the situation had been further compounded as it was not getting its due share of river water.
Delivering the customary address on the first day of the Budget session of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha here, he asserted that the State Government was committed to securing its “legitimate share of water by pursuing the matter at all levels”.
The focus was on efficient use of water through improved agriculture practices and use of technological interventions. It was proposed to line the sides of Western Yamuna Canal (Main Line Lower) and Western Yamuna Canal, Main Branch from Dadupur to Karnal, he added.
The project to repair, restore and renovate the Bibipur Lake in Kurukshetra district has been submitted to the Union Ministry of Water Resources and the State Government is actively pursuing the construction of up-stream storages on the Yamuna.
The Detailed Project Report of Mewat Feeder Canal for providing irrigation and drinking water facilities would be submitted to the NCR Planning Board for funding after its approval by the Central Water Commission.
Stating that agriculture was the foremost priority of the Government, he said that foodgrain production had reached 166.29 lakh tonnes during 2010-11 and Haryana was the second largest contributor to the national food basket.
New fish markets would be set up in Bahadurgarh and Gurgaon to strengthen the post-harvest infrastructure.
He further said that climate change concerns had added a new dimension to the energy sector. A nuclear power plant was being set up at village Gorakhpur in district Fatehabad for which land acquisition proceedings were on. The power generation projects are progressing well and the third unit of the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project at Jhajjar is expected to be commissioned by March. And the second unit of the Mahatma Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project is expected to be commissioned by July.
So far as industrialisation was concerned, the rate of implementation of the pledged investment in Haryana is the highest in the country. An investment of Rs.59,000 crore has been catalysed in the State since 2005 while investment of about Rs.96,000 crore is in the pipeline. The State has so far received foreign direct investment of Rs.13,128 crore while the total exports have increased from Rs.43,679 crore during 2009-10 to Rs.48,530 crore in 2010-11. A dialogue is on with NASSCOM for widening the base of IT industry by integrating IMT Manesar as an extension of Gurgaon, opening new areas as potential IT destinations within the National Capital Region and elsewhere in the State.
The Government is committed to improving and upgrading health services, he said, adding that the declining sex ratio and the status of girl child is an area of concern.
A total of six private universities have already been established and many more are in the pipeline. The State economy, the Governor added, has achieved a growth rate of 9.6 per cent in Gross State Domestic Product during 2010-11.Also, as per the advance estimates for the 2011-12, the per capita income is expected to be Rs. 1,09,227 at current prices.
Haryana Governor Jagannath Pahadia delivering the customary address on the first day of the Budget session of the Vidhan Sabha in Chandigarh on Thursday.Photo: Akhilesh Kumar
Haryana Governor Jagannath Pahadia on Thursday expressed concern over the issue of the State's legitimate share of water.
Describing Haryana as a water-deficit State, he said the situation had been further compounded as it was not getting its due share of river water.
Delivering the customary address on the first day of the Budget session of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha here, he asserted that the State Government was committed to securing its “legitimate share of water by pursuing the matter at all levels”.
The focus was on efficient use of water through improved agriculture practices and use of technological interventions. It was proposed to line the sides of Western Yamuna Canal (Main Line Lower) and Western Yamuna Canal, Main Branch from Dadupur to Karnal, he added.
The project to repair, restore and renovate the Bibipur Lake in Kurukshetra district has been submitted to the Union Ministry of Water Resources and the State Government is actively pursuing the construction of up-stream storages on the Yamuna.
The Detailed Project Report of Mewat Feeder Canal for providing irrigation and drinking water facilities would be submitted to the NCR Planning Board for funding after its approval by the Central Water Commission.
Stating that agriculture was the foremost priority of the Government, he said that foodgrain production had reached 166.29 lakh tonnes during 2010-11 and Haryana was the second largest contributor to the national food basket.
New fish markets would be set up in Bahadurgarh and Gurgaon to strengthen the post-harvest infrastructure.
He further said that climate change concerns had added a new dimension to the energy sector. A nuclear power plant was being set up at village Gorakhpur in district Fatehabad for which land acquisition proceedings were on. The power generation projects are progressing well and the third unit of the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project at Jhajjar is expected to be commissioned by March. And the second unit of the Mahatma Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project is expected to be commissioned by July.
So far as industrialisation was concerned, the rate of implementation of the pledged investment in Haryana is the highest in the country. An investment of Rs.59,000 crore has been catalysed in the State since 2005 while investment of about Rs.96,000 crore is in the pipeline. The State has so far received foreign direct investment of Rs.13,128 crore while the total exports have increased from Rs.43,679 crore during 2009-10 to Rs.48,530 crore in 2010-11. A dialogue is on with NASSCOM for widening the base of IT industry by integrating IMT Manesar as an extension of Gurgaon, opening new areas as potential IT destinations within the National Capital Region and elsewhere in the State.
The Government is committed to improving and upgrading health services, he said, adding that the declining sex ratio and the status of girl child is an area of concern.
A total of six private universities have already been established and many more are in the pipeline. The State economy, the Governor added, has achieved a growth rate of 9.6 per cent in Gross State Domestic Product during 2010-11.Also, as per the advance estimates for the 2011-12, the per capita income is expected to be Rs. 1,09,227 at current prices.
Friday, March 2, 2012
With all due respect, My Lords (The Hindu 2.3.2012)
With all due respect, My Lords
Ramaswamy R. Iyer (2 March 2012)
It is not for the Supreme Court to decide how the government should ensure the right to water; in any case, the connection between this right and the river linking project is tenuous.
In recent times the Supreme Court of India, with a series of remarkable decisions, has earned our admiration, respect and gratitude. Alas, it has now come out with an extraordinary order on the Inter-Linking of Rivers (ILR) Project, which has caused consternation and dismay to many of us.
In 2002, in a post-retirement explanation, a defensive Justice Kirpal had said that his order on the river-linking project was not a direction but merely a recommendation. That defensiveness has now been abandoned. In the present order, the Supreme Court explicitly directs the Executive Government to implement the project and to set up a Special Committee to carry out that implementation; it lays down that the committee's decisions shall take precedence over all administrative bodies created under the orders of this court or otherwise; it (graciously) authorises the Cabinet to take all final and appropriate decisions, and lays down a time-limit of 30 days for such decision-making (though it has the saving grace to say “preferably”); and it grants “liberty to the learned Amicus Curiae to file contempt petition in this court, in the event of default or non-compliance of the directions contained in this order”.
The normal course
In the normal course, a project goes through certain stages and procedures: formulation; examination from various angles by the appropriate agencies, Committees, and Ministries; statutory clearances under the Environment Protection Act and the Forest Conservation Act; compliance with the procedures prescribed in the National Rehabilitation Policy; acceptance of the project by the Planning Commission from the national planning point of view; and finally a decision by the Cabinet. The Supreme Court rides roughshod over all this and orders not quick consideration and decision-making by the government, but implementation.
Are the proposed Special Committee and the Cabinet free to examine the project and come to the conclusion that it is unacceptable and must be rejected? No, they are under the Supreme Court's order to implement the project and may face contempt proceedings if they fail to do so. The project decision has been taken away from the hands of the government; it has been exercised by the Supreme Court; the government and the Planning Commission have been reduced to the position of subordinate offices or implementing agencies of the Supreme Court.
It could be argued that the above is a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court has done, and that the learned judges are only concerned at the delay in the implementation of an approved project and asking for early implementation. In fact, there is no approved, sanctioned project called “the inter-linking of rivers project”. In 2003, when there was a raging controversy about this idea, an important defence by its supporters was that it was not a project but a grand concept; that it will consist of 30 links, each of which will be a project that will go through all the usual examinations and procedures; and that the critics are needlessly raising the bogey of gigantism. If it is a concept, how can it be ‘implemented'? It has first to be translated into projects, and each of those projects has to be properly approved or rejected, as the case may be. Thereafter we can talk about implementation.
How many of those 30 projects have been actually approved? None. Three — Ken-Betwa, Damanganga-Pinjal, Par-Tapi-Narmada — have reached the stage of preparation of Detailed Project Reports, and one (Polavaram), though included in the ILR Project, was separately taken up by the Andhra Pradesh government on somewhat different lines, but is mired in controversy. There is not a single case of a project actually sanctioned and ready for implementation.
The learned judges may say that this is precisely what worries them; that by now the projects should have been well under way; that a good project or concept or whatever it was, announced in 2002, is languishing; and that the judiciary has to step into the vacant space created by non-action by the Executive and issue the necessary direction. This is the gap-filling theory. However, there is a fallacy here. The “delay” is not the result of executive failure or inefficiency, but a deliberate (though unstated) slowing down of action on the project. The NDA had announced the project in 2002 with fanfare and trumpets. The UPA government which followed in 2004 was not very enthusiastic about the project but at the same time did not want to abandon it; its Common Minimum Programme stated that the project would be comprehensively re-assessed in a fully consultative manner. This was a clear indication of reservations about the project. Thereafter the project has been in the doldrums. Unfortunately, the government's attitude towards the project was never made unambiguously clear to either the general public or the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was clearly entitled to ask the government to state categorically where it stood in this matter: whether it considered the project to be a good (or the only) answer to the country's needs; if so, whether it intended to proceed with it; or alternatively, whether it had decided to drop the whole idea, and if so, on what grounds. What the Supreme Court was not entitled to do was to issue a direction to the government to implement the project.
Why has it done so? It would be wrong to attribute this to a desire for aggrandisement. The Supreme Court is convinced that the project is good and urgently needed; and that a very important national initiative is getting bogged down because of various reasons and needs to be galvanised. It has come to that conclusion because of a report by the National Council for Applied Economic Research.
Two problems
There are two problems here. First, assuming that there is a serious water scarcity problem, it is not the business of the Supreme Court to deal with it; there is an Executive Government to deal with such matters. True, the citizen's right to water is a fundamental right, and therefore the Supreme Court is concerned with it; but while it may direct the government to ensure that the right is not denied, it is not for it to lay down the manner in which or the source from which that right should be ensured. Moreover, the connection between the right to water and the ILR Project is very tenuous; it is the large demand for irrigation water that generally drives major projects and long-distance water transfers. It is true, again, that there are intractable inter-State river-water disputes, and these are of concern to the Supreme Court; but the Supreme Court can at best direct the Executive Government to find early answers to river water disputes, and not recommend a particular answer such as the ILR project, which may in fact generate new conflicts.
Secondly, and finally, we come to the heart of the matter, namely the view that the country faces a looming water crisis; that the answer lies in augmenting supplies; that given the magnitude and distribution of India's future water requirements, the ILR project is the best possible answer; and that it is in the national interest to implement it quickly. It is that conviction that provides, in the Supreme Court's view, the justification for its intervention. If that view of India's water crisis and its solution is challenged, the whole basis for the Supreme Court's order collapses.
This article will not enter into a discussion of this vital question, but will merely point out that there is a diversity of views on it, which the Supreme Court has failed to consider. The NCAER may have taken one view of the matter, but there are other views. The cogent case against the project has been succinctly stated in the editorial in this paper on 1 March 2012. That knocks the bottom out of the Supreme Court's order.
In 2002, when the NDA government announced the ILR Project, a fierce controversy broke out. There were many who hailed the initiative, but there were many others who deplored it as not only uncalled for but as positively disastrous. Many State governments expressed strong reservations on the project. Articles appeared in newspapers and journals. Books were published on the subject. How much of this vast literature have the learned judges read? How could they rely on the NCAER's report without reading other scholarly work? Even if the learned judges did not have time to read all the available material, should they not at least have heard a dozen scholars representing different disciplines and a few social activists before they decided to issue directions to the government?
This article will conclude with an earnest and respectful request to the Supreme Court to withdraw or at least put on hold its order, conduct further hearings, listen to a wider range of opinions, and reflect on the matter before it comes to firm conclusions.
Ramaswamy R. Iyer is a former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India.)
Ramaswamy R. Iyer (2 March 2012)
It is not for the Supreme Court to decide how the government should ensure the right to water; in any case, the connection between this right and the river linking project is tenuous.
In recent times the Supreme Court of India, with a series of remarkable decisions, has earned our admiration, respect and gratitude. Alas, it has now come out with an extraordinary order on the Inter-Linking of Rivers (ILR) Project, which has caused consternation and dismay to many of us.
In 2002, in a post-retirement explanation, a defensive Justice Kirpal had said that his order on the river-linking project was not a direction but merely a recommendation. That defensiveness has now been abandoned. In the present order, the Supreme Court explicitly directs the Executive Government to implement the project and to set up a Special Committee to carry out that implementation; it lays down that the committee's decisions shall take precedence over all administrative bodies created under the orders of this court or otherwise; it (graciously) authorises the Cabinet to take all final and appropriate decisions, and lays down a time-limit of 30 days for such decision-making (though it has the saving grace to say “preferably”); and it grants “liberty to the learned Amicus Curiae to file contempt petition in this court, in the event of default or non-compliance of the directions contained in this order”.
The normal course
In the normal course, a project goes through certain stages and procedures: formulation; examination from various angles by the appropriate agencies, Committees, and Ministries; statutory clearances under the Environment Protection Act and the Forest Conservation Act; compliance with the procedures prescribed in the National Rehabilitation Policy; acceptance of the project by the Planning Commission from the national planning point of view; and finally a decision by the Cabinet. The Supreme Court rides roughshod over all this and orders not quick consideration and decision-making by the government, but implementation.
Are the proposed Special Committee and the Cabinet free to examine the project and come to the conclusion that it is unacceptable and must be rejected? No, they are under the Supreme Court's order to implement the project and may face contempt proceedings if they fail to do so. The project decision has been taken away from the hands of the government; it has been exercised by the Supreme Court; the government and the Planning Commission have been reduced to the position of subordinate offices or implementing agencies of the Supreme Court.
It could be argued that the above is a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court has done, and that the learned judges are only concerned at the delay in the implementation of an approved project and asking for early implementation. In fact, there is no approved, sanctioned project called “the inter-linking of rivers project”. In 2003, when there was a raging controversy about this idea, an important defence by its supporters was that it was not a project but a grand concept; that it will consist of 30 links, each of which will be a project that will go through all the usual examinations and procedures; and that the critics are needlessly raising the bogey of gigantism. If it is a concept, how can it be ‘implemented'? It has first to be translated into projects, and each of those projects has to be properly approved or rejected, as the case may be. Thereafter we can talk about implementation.
How many of those 30 projects have been actually approved? None. Three — Ken-Betwa, Damanganga-Pinjal, Par-Tapi-Narmada — have reached the stage of preparation of Detailed Project Reports, and one (Polavaram), though included in the ILR Project, was separately taken up by the Andhra Pradesh government on somewhat different lines, but is mired in controversy. There is not a single case of a project actually sanctioned and ready for implementation.
The learned judges may say that this is precisely what worries them; that by now the projects should have been well under way; that a good project or concept or whatever it was, announced in 2002, is languishing; and that the judiciary has to step into the vacant space created by non-action by the Executive and issue the necessary direction. This is the gap-filling theory. However, there is a fallacy here. The “delay” is not the result of executive failure or inefficiency, but a deliberate (though unstated) slowing down of action on the project. The NDA had announced the project in 2002 with fanfare and trumpets. The UPA government which followed in 2004 was not very enthusiastic about the project but at the same time did not want to abandon it; its Common Minimum Programme stated that the project would be comprehensively re-assessed in a fully consultative manner. This was a clear indication of reservations about the project. Thereafter the project has been in the doldrums. Unfortunately, the government's attitude towards the project was never made unambiguously clear to either the general public or the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was clearly entitled to ask the government to state categorically where it stood in this matter: whether it considered the project to be a good (or the only) answer to the country's needs; if so, whether it intended to proceed with it; or alternatively, whether it had decided to drop the whole idea, and if so, on what grounds. What the Supreme Court was not entitled to do was to issue a direction to the government to implement the project.
Why has it done so? It would be wrong to attribute this to a desire for aggrandisement. The Supreme Court is convinced that the project is good and urgently needed; and that a very important national initiative is getting bogged down because of various reasons and needs to be galvanised. It has come to that conclusion because of a report by the National Council for Applied Economic Research.
Two problems
There are two problems here. First, assuming that there is a serious water scarcity problem, it is not the business of the Supreme Court to deal with it; there is an Executive Government to deal with such matters. True, the citizen's right to water is a fundamental right, and therefore the Supreme Court is concerned with it; but while it may direct the government to ensure that the right is not denied, it is not for it to lay down the manner in which or the source from which that right should be ensured. Moreover, the connection between the right to water and the ILR Project is very tenuous; it is the large demand for irrigation water that generally drives major projects and long-distance water transfers. It is true, again, that there are intractable inter-State river-water disputes, and these are of concern to the Supreme Court; but the Supreme Court can at best direct the Executive Government to find early answers to river water disputes, and not recommend a particular answer such as the ILR project, which may in fact generate new conflicts.
Secondly, and finally, we come to the heart of the matter, namely the view that the country faces a looming water crisis; that the answer lies in augmenting supplies; that given the magnitude and distribution of India's future water requirements, the ILR project is the best possible answer; and that it is in the national interest to implement it quickly. It is that conviction that provides, in the Supreme Court's view, the justification for its intervention. If that view of India's water crisis and its solution is challenged, the whole basis for the Supreme Court's order collapses.
This article will not enter into a discussion of this vital question, but will merely point out that there is a diversity of views on it, which the Supreme Court has failed to consider. The NCAER may have taken one view of the matter, but there are other views. The cogent case against the project has been succinctly stated in the editorial in this paper on 1 March 2012. That knocks the bottom out of the Supreme Court's order.
In 2002, when the NDA government announced the ILR Project, a fierce controversy broke out. There were many who hailed the initiative, but there were many others who deplored it as not only uncalled for but as positively disastrous. Many State governments expressed strong reservations on the project. Articles appeared in newspapers and journals. Books were published on the subject. How much of this vast literature have the learned judges read? How could they rely on the NCAER's report without reading other scholarly work? Even if the learned judges did not have time to read all the available material, should they not at least have heard a dozen scholars representing different disciplines and a few social activists before they decided to issue directions to the government?
This article will conclude with an earnest and respectful request to the Supreme Court to withdraw or at least put on hold its order, conduct further hearings, listen to a wider range of opinions, and reflect on the matter before it comes to firm conclusions.
Ramaswamy R. Iyer is a former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India.)
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Chasing a mirage (Editorial, The Hindu - 1 March 2012)
However well-intentioned it might be, the Supreme Court direction to the Centre to constitute a special committee to pursue the outdated plan of linking India's rivers is based on a misplaced premise. Achieving huge inter-basin transfer of waters in the Himalayan and peninsular river systems is a complex goal for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the displacement of a large number of people. Even if funds were not a constraint and the inter-linking idea were to be declared technically sound, the national record on resettlement of people displaced by mega dam projects does not inspire confidence. What is equally important is that the 2008 National Council on Applied Economic Research report on the “Economic Impact of Interlinking of Rivers Programme”, which seems to have guided some of the discussions, explicitly did not consider the plan's environmental aspects or cost-benefit calculus. Moving waters across river basins cannot be achieved without energy-intensive heavy lifts and destructive modification of ecologically important landscapes. Also, in the Himalaya plan component, there is the additional challenge of taking along neighbouring countries. It is no surprise then that the National Commission on Integrated Water Resources Development Plan, which went into the proposals a decade ago, favoured development of water resources within river basins over massive inter-basin transfers.
Negative externalities are a concomitant of any big river link project, and the proposals identified by NCAER involve 30 links. Sharing of river waters even under an agreed formula has not been easy, as the Cauvery issue has shown. What is more, the reaction of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala to the Supreme Court direction indicates that they remain unenthusiastic, because of concerns over proposals for the Polavaram and Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar links. A decade ago, when water surpluses in the Mahanadi and Godavari were assessed by the NCIWRDP, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh disagreed. Given this trend, what reason is there to believe that States would be more willing to apportion waters now? As the Supreme Court has pointed out on various occasions, environmental impact assessment must be the cornerstone of any project. In this context, the Ministry of Environment and Forests found no cause to support the Ken-Betwa link and declined to clear it last year. The way forward to improve the prospects of water-deficit basins is to work on more efficient and less destructive options. These include devoting resources for rainwater harvesting programmes of scale, raising irrigation efficiency, curbing pollution and effecting local water transfers for agricultural and municipal use.
Negative externalities are a concomitant of any big river link project, and the proposals identified by NCAER involve 30 links. Sharing of river waters even under an agreed formula has not been easy, as the Cauvery issue has shown. What is more, the reaction of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala to the Supreme Court direction indicates that they remain unenthusiastic, because of concerns over proposals for the Polavaram and Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar links. A decade ago, when water surpluses in the Mahanadi and Godavari were assessed by the NCIWRDP, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh disagreed. Given this trend, what reason is there to believe that States would be more willing to apportion waters now? As the Supreme Court has pointed out on various occasions, environmental impact assessment must be the cornerstone of any project. In this context, the Ministry of Environment and Forests found no cause to support the Ken-Betwa link and declined to clear it last year. The way forward to improve the prospects of water-deficit basins is to work on more efficient and less destructive options. These include devoting resources for rainwater harvesting programmes of scale, raising irrigation efficiency, curbing pollution and effecting local water transfers for agricultural and municipal use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
