1 / 21

Alternative Proposal for Polavaram Project

This proposal by Vivekananda Seva Samithi suggests an alternative approach to the Polavaram Project, addressing key deficiencies, environmental concerns, displacement issues, and inter-regional disputes. The proposal aims to provide a win-win solution for all stakeholders involved.

pfrench
Download Presentation

Alternative Proposal for Polavaram Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Vivekananda Seva Samithi (VIKASA) Karimnagar Hyderabad Alternative Proposal for Polavaram Project WIN – WIN SOLUTION for all stakeholders M Dharma Rao Chief Engineer (Retd) December, 2010

  2. VIKASA • Polavaram (Indira Sagar) Multi-Purpose Project • …a brief background

  3. Key features of Polavaram Project Cotton Barrage VIKASA

  4. Key features of Polavaram Project…(contd.) VIKASA • A dam across R. Godavari near Polavaram Vill. (WG Dist.) • Would create 75.2 TMC Reservoir • Irrigation for 7.2 lakh acres (projected) • Left flank : irrigation + drinking water en route to Visakhapatnam (25 TMC) & ors • Right flank : irrigation - diversion of 80 TMC to Krishna Barrage (linking of Krishna & Godavari Rivers) • Downstream : supplementing Godavari delta in case of shortfall • Hydropower generation capacity 960 MW (= 12 x 80 MW)

  5. VIKASA II. Polavaram Project suffering from several key deficiencies

  6. Deficiencies of Polavaram Project VIKASA • Current status: full project clearances not yet obtained! Main dam and storage structures not yet constructed. • Submergence & environmental degradation: 2 lakh acres (1.5 lakh acres farm land & 0.5 lakh acres forest land); massive loss of rare flora & fauna; major loss to Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Tiger habitat); loss of heritage and sacred structures • Relocation and ‘forced impoverishment’ a snowballing issue: more than 2 lakh people (65% tribals & dalits) in over 300 villages; forced to migrate and lose assured livelihoods • High and rising project cost estimates – a serious concern: capital (Rs. 16,000 crores and counting!) and recurring (due to lift component); sanctions withheld on financial grounds • Inter-regional disputes (“Telangana vs. Coastal Andhra”) • Inter-state disputes (Chattisgarh, Orissa vs. AP) – recent MoEF notices; CWC’s approval after OK by other States under GWDT

  7. Deficiencies of Polavaram Project (contd.) VIKASA • Violating Draft National Tribal Policy: mandatory principle of least displacement; any project which displaces more than 50,000 tribal people would not be taken up or be subject to more stringent norms • Violating Environment Protection Act (1986) & EIA Notifications (1994, 1997 & 2004) : • - project should not deprive livelihoods of poor and tribal people • - mandatory to find out alternatives…to protect the environment • Against National Water Policy: does not permit state-induced impoverishment due to forced displacement, acquisition of lands • Against recommendations of Prof. Jayati Ghosh Commission, National and State Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy (2003 & 2005), etc.

  8. Deficiencies of Polavaram Project (contd.) VIKASA • Outdated Model of Development? Priorities seen to be skewed • project’s primary beneficiaries (relatively better-developed plain and delta) vs. primary losers (underdeveloped tribals and dalits in more backward regions) • Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on Polavaram: • submergence of villages and forced displacement of large populations • irreparable loss of invaluable wildlife zones & tiger habitat • ‘a fresh appraisal’ & ‘a second thought required before sanctioning project’ • ‘a strong case for exploring alternative location and design’ • Ref: CEC’s Report dated 9-11-2006 (vide F. No. 1-19/CEC/SCA/2006 – PT XII dated 15-11-2006) in I.A. No. 1572 and 1578 in the Supreme Court of India

  9. Deficiencies of Polavaram Project (contd.) VIKASA • Actual gains much lower than claimed ! Duplication of Polavaram Ayacut: • Claimed area – 7.2 lakh acres • But, 5.2 lakh acres of this area shown as covered under other projects: Yeleru, Torigedda LIS, Chagalnadu LIS, Tadipudi LIS, Pushkaram LIS! • Tadipudi and Pushkaram LIS alone cover 3.92 lakh acres of same area ! • Polavaram ayacut to be much lower

  10. Deficiencies of Polavaram Project (contd.) VIKASA • Dam design & safety issues - underestimated submergence area? • Design assumption: 36 lakh cusecs flood would submerge 276 villages in AP • But, in Aug. 2006, only 28.5 lakh cusecs flood submerged 369 villages • Design max. flood of 50 lakh cusecs - likely submergence of 400 villages and affecting 2.5 lakh population • Sedimentation problem in Godavari River • likely significant reduction in projected storage capacity • Nizam Sagar and Sriram Sagar Projects lost 60% of live capacity in 50 years Therefore, need to consider suitable alternatives…

  11. VIKASA III. The Alternative Proposal

  12. First Principles of the Alternative Proposal VIKASA • Diversion of water from higher elevations feasible • Sabari, Sileru, Sokuleru, Pamuleru ( on left flank) • at Dummugudem Anicut (on right flank) • Water needs met through gravity only – no need for lift • Capturing reliable water sources feasible - perennial flow (regulated discharge) from hydroelectric schemes • Protecting stakeholder interest & meeting the water needs of all sides • Resource optimization & environment protection – lowering costs; minimizing social and environmental costs; utilizing existing canal network • Tunneling technology – recent advances • Overall approach for win-win solution: adhering to the Constitutional mandate - Directive Principles of State Policy and statutory/regulatory requirements

  13. A • Left Flank : • through Tunnel + Canal from Sileru R. into Yeleru R. A B B • Right Flank : • Major Canal + Tunnel from Dummugudem Anicut. Balancing/Carryover Reservoirs (Storage) - on Sokuleru R. and Pamuleru R. C VIKASA Alternative Proposal to Polavaram

  14. The Alternative Proposal (details) VIKASA • Left Flank : Proposed Scheme • 5,000 cusecs regulated flow available for 9 months at 700 ft MSL in Sileru R. - below Lower Sileru Hydroelectric Scheme • Flow can be diverted through Tunnel (20 km) + Canal from Sileru R. into Yeleru R. – linked to main canal • Yeleru Project can serve as storage reservoir • Will fully meet irrigation and water supply requirements of Visakhapatnam & ors. (100 TMC water) – by gravity only • Hydropower generation possible by harnessing fall of 500 ft A

  15. The Alternative Proposal (details) VIKASA B • Right Flank : Proposed Scheme • Diversion fromDummugudem Anicut at + 165 ft FRL • 35,000 cusecs flow for 9 months i.e. 600 TMC available at 75% dependability at Dummugudem • Can divert 100 TMC for right flank irrigation + 80 TMC for transfer to Krishna basin • Entire water available through gravity only • Major Canal + Tunnel (approx. 40 km) to cross Godavari-Krishna ridge

  16. The Alternative Proposal (details) VIKASA • Downstream : Supplementing Godavari Delta in case of shortfall • - Balancing/Carryover Reservoirs (Storage) - on Sokuleru R, Pamuleru R & other minor basins • - Total storage up to 25 TMC for exigencies of delta, drinking water requirements • Projected downward trend in irrigation water demand for delta - conservation of water through modern irrigation, cropping methods (eg: ‘Sri’ paddy cultivation) • These reservoirs actually serve as water bodieswildlife requirements C

  17. Benefits of Alternative Proposal - Summary VIKASA • Sustainable model for development; Win-Win Solution for all stakeholders • Necessity of Polavaram Reservoir dispensed with • Submergence of forest and tribal lands avoided • Displacement of people avoided • Assured water for all sides : left flank, right flank & delta/downstream • Entire scheme based on gravity flow only – no need for lift; significant cost savings • Hydropower generation feasible • In conformity with all environmental and project norms • Inter-region, inter-state disputes avoided Harmonious and optimal reconciliation of needs of various stakeholders + protecting the environment

  18. Alternative to Polavaram - at this stage? VIKASA Yes, Alternative to Polavaram Project can be adopted even now.  Mandatory project clearances not yet obtained!Main dam structure and storage structure not constructed anyway – are not inevitable  SC’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC): “…there is a strong case for a second thought…CWC should take into consideration suitable alternatives…”  On previous occasions too India dropped projects for better alternatives: • Silent Valley Project, Kerala - proposal in 1928, project initiation in 1958, dropped in 1983); eco-friendly alternatives taken up • Heran Reservoir in Gujarat

  19. Summary of major arguments VIKASA

  20. Why consider Alternative Proposal to Polavaram? from… to… It is time for a WIN – WIN SOLUTION for all Stakeholders VIKASA

  21. VIKASA THANK YOU ! Contact : Vivekananda Seva Samithi (VIKASA) HNo 1-9-312/C, Vidya Nagar Hyderabad - 500044 Phone: 040- 27617691; Mobile: 9440501333 Email: mdharmarao.water@gmail.com

More Related