ANOTHER DAM ON THE SHARAVATHI - NGOs-MOEF Ensure Observance Of Guidelines
Gudakesh

Jog Falls : The mist plays hide and seek with the members of the expert team of the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF) observing the famed falls which have four distinct ones locally named Raja, Roarer, Rocket, Rani, each according to its distinct characteristic.  On occasion they can see the Raja without his crown, or the Rani with her long flowing tresses, then all is lost to the mist; suddenly it lifts and the four falls can be beheld in their glory.  Much of it vanishes once the flow from the dam (at Linganamakki) upstream of the Sharavathi is reduced, for then the falls become a trickle.  The Linganamakki project was completed in the sixties for the purpose of providing power to the state’s industries.

Another dam is under construction downstream of the falls, at the tail end of the other dams, just before the Sharavathi enters the Arabian sea, hence its name, the Sharavathi Tailrace Project also known as the Gerusoppa project (located at Gerusoppa village, Honnavar taluka, Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka).  The MOEF team is here to examine whether the conditions stipulated by the ministry are being observed so that the forests and its endemic species are not lost to the Tailrace dam, or the wildlife in the region harmed.

The Tailrace is the third dam for generating power that the Karnataka Power Corporation (KPC) is constructing with the concomitant power station.  The other two dams on the Sharavathi are at Linganamakki and Talakalale,  The three power houses are the Linganamakki (two units of 55 MW each), the Sharavathi station (890 MW, the largest in Asia) and the one near the Tailrace dam (4 units of 60 MW).

The Sharavathi Tailrace Project was given the green signal (“conditional  environmental clearance”) by the MOEF on March 25, 1987 subject to the KPC observing eight safeguards noted in its letter.  The clearance was revoked on July  31, 1992 because its stipulations were not being observed by the corporation.  A year and two months later the MOEF re-issued the clearance was revoked on July 31 1992 because its stipulations were not being observed by the corporation.  A year and two months later the MOEF re-issued the clearance while imposing 12 safeguards in addition to the eight listed by it on March 25, 1987.

The team visited the dam site at Gerusoppa where it invited local NGOs for discussion to obtain their perspective on the Tailrace project and the details on the implementation of the safeguards by the KPC.

Some of the safeguards (guidelines) maybe listed:

1. The land capability and vulnerability survey in the catchment of the Sharavathi Tailrace Projects should be carried out to delineate critically degraded areas needing priority treatment.  The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs presently earmarked for the soil conservation work should be accordingly enhanced depending on the nature of work and area to be covered.
2. Even though no population is going to be effected due to the submergence created by the project, since sizeable forest  area is required  to be diverted, measures should be initiated to ensure nistar rights of local people.
3. Detailed survey on aquatic flora and fauna should be carried out to ascertain existence of species like Mahaseer with plans for their salvation.
4. Migratory corridors of elephants should be delineated in consultation with the Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka and vegetation cover in the area  should accordingly be enhanced in the project impact zone.
5. Since 10 lift irrigation schemes providing irrigation to about 750 ha are presently under operation in the downstream stretch of the project, sufficient control measures should be built into the project operations to ensure that adequate water is released even in the lean season.

The Tailrace project was contemplated as far back as the mid-sixties.  The dam height will be 58 metres across the Sharavanthi near Gerusoppa village and the power house will be located “at the toe of the dam”.  The dam will impound water to a full reservoir level submerging 596 hectares of forest land in the valley.  In total 700 hectares of forests will be lost, a little more than a 100 being taken up by roads, houses, quarries.

The forests in the Sharavathi catchment area are evergreen or semi-evergreen type.  The Economics Agriculture and Ecology Consortium (EAEC) study points out that “the project area is covered by southern tropical evergreen forests.  Several biotic factors have considerably reduced the density of these forests over centuries.  The partially closed forests canopy is made up of the confluent crowns of medium size trees.  The dense canopy ensures controlled conditions of light and degree of humidity within the forest.  The banks of the Sharavathi abounds in plants that are specially tolerant to water-logging and yield leaves, flower and fruit during the late winter season.”  Besides, treeless, shrubs are found.  “The ground cover”, the study adds “has a rich composition  of mesic plants especially during the monsoon months.  Mosses are aplenty, as well as lichens and fungi.  The role of fungi in breaking down the forest debris into simple  organic nutrients in the natural process of recycling is well known.”

A migratory path near Ambepalgudda has been observed; elephants often use it.  The storage of water (in the dam) will restrict their movement within the left bank which has a vast stretch of forest without human habitation.  Wild animals are scarce on the right bank, perhaps because of human habitation along the Bangalore-Honnavar road whereas on the left bank the animals  are more secure and live under protective cover of the forest.

Apart from elephants, the other fauna available in the project area include tiger, panther, langurs, gaur as well  as bears and mouse deer.  The rare species found here is the lion-tailed monkey, declared endangered all over the world.  There is a larger population of prey animals than predators.

Among the avian species are the grey jungle fowl, Indian great hornbill, Malabar pied hornbill, Keel, Hoopi, Brahimini kite.

The studies indicate that there are 34 varieties of fresh water fish, including the Mahaseet and 27 varieties of entuarine fish  species re Tor Kudree, Tor Musullah, Tor Neilli, Angula species and Labeo callbasu.  We are told that in southern Indian rivers where “abundant economic variety fauna are found”.

The Tailrace project is under attach for the threat it poses to the above mentioned flora and fauna --- and more.  Almost everywhere dams, in particular large ones, have been criticised for not being cost-effective, and for the rehabilitation/ dislocation and environment costs they incur.  So far about 58 large, 152 medium, 2155 small reservoirs (total 2365) have been built in different river basins of India which together have a water spread area of 3 million hectares at the full reservoir level (FRL).  India accounts for more than 50 percent of the total reservoir area in south-east Asia.

Undeniably the most controversial in recent times has been the Narmada (Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra) largely because of the failure on the part of the authorities to re-habilitate the tribals; they have been shunted off to areas alien to their environment; and even the forest area where they have been re-settled (as in Maharashtra) has generated controversy because it has involved the destruction of green cover. In several cases, the tribals refused to move from their villages, being prepared to drown under the impounded waters. In the case of Tehri dam (Garhwal) the people have not shifted even after receiving compensation; Tehri town continues to be occupied and several residents have even rented their homes. Unlike the Namada oustees, the residents of Tehri and nearby villages do not fear going under because once the Soviet Union collapsed, the funds for the project dried up.  The authorities are looking around for resources to  continue work on it.

Rehabilitation with regard to the Pooyamkutty dam (Kerala), however, has not posed a problem because the number of people involved has been limited; in the case of the Tailrace no rehabilitation is required.  The pooyamkutty project area has among the richest forests and vegetation this write has come across, as has been documented in these columns earlier.  Like Pooyamkutty, the Tailrace project too is in the Western Ghats and the vegetation is similar, the potential loss of which has agitated environmental groups in the region.

In fact, they took the matter to the Karnataka high court and at one stage two cases were pending before it.  The MOFF clearance was revoked as a result of the high court order of January 1991 with reference to the court petition No 8170 filed in 1988 by the Sharavathi Tailrace Yojana Horata Samiti and the Honnavar Taluka Parisara Koota.

The NGOs cite the report of the deputy conservator of forests, Hunnavar (Prabhu) who opposed submersion in 1985 observing that the forest’s “micro environment will be damaged”.  Others too have opposed the project.  The report of Dr. Subhaschandran of the loss of the “richness and biodiversity of the valley”.  The 1990 report of Dr. K.M. Safeeulla, the then vice chancellor of Mangalore university, demanded that the project be halted to save the Sharavathi valley.

The studies have identified several new species of plants and fungi that would be endangered by the project.  One study noted that among the six endangered species of Mahaseer, four were to be found in the Tailrace project area.  The project would pose a threat to other rare species like the King Cobra, lion- tailed macaques (for whose preservation the Silent Valley Project was halted) and the migratory path of elephants would be disturbed.

The NGOs, who base their criticism on the above reports as well as they study of the Central Water Commission in 1973 and the project report  of 1981, point to the technical defects of the dam.  The geological one is that the KPC, which initially began in the construction of the powerhouse on the left bank of Sharavathi, shifted it to the right bank, because of the geological faults, “but now the powerhouse will be occupying the same site as the embankment line on the right bank which was shifted 150 metres upstream’.

Initial studies indicated heavy seepage along the periphery.  Though KPC has taken into account the loss as a result of evaporation, it has not done so with regard to seepage.  Moreover, the water inflow for the Tailrace project is calculated upto 1980.  But since it has reduced each successive year, this is a major lapse on the part of KPC.

Apart from the environmental and technical objections, the NGOs led by Ganesh Bhat of the Sharavathi Tailrace Yojana Horata Samiti and Anant Hegde of Save Western Ghats Movement,  have several on socio-economic grounds as well.  They observe that the downstream effects of the project have not been given sufficient attention: (I) the Sharavathi river joins the Arabian Sea no more than 32 km from the dam site.  The salt-water effect is upto five kilometres from the sea; if this “band” shifts further upstream and the river water turns brackish, thousands of farmers who use the river, will suffer; (ii) the nistar rights of the people of the region has/will be affected as also (iii) the fuelwood supply of the local population.

Then there is the manner in which the project is being implemented.  At the quarry in the forest some distance from the dam site from where material (rock, stone, rubble) for the dam construction is collected, the blasting operations are producing vibrations, gases, dust and sound which are affecting the fauna of the region, so much so that Dr. Kusuma, President of Honnavar Taluka Parisar Koota said she had to treat victims of animal attacks living around the dam site.

The labour force of 500 people is expected to be supplied fuelwood by the contractor (Mr. Sundar) from outside the forest area.  But there is no way of checking that the labour does not on the quiet secure some of its fuelwood requirements from the forests, as also indulge in poaching.

The compensatory afforestation/catchment area treatment by the KPC has to be done as per the (I) Forest Conservation Act and (ii)  the Environment Protection Act.  In accordance with the Forest Act, the survival rate of saplings on parts of the 680 hectares that have been examined by the forest department, is as high as 90 percent.  However, the KPC has so far not even submitted its plans to undertake catchment area treatment of 700 hectares as per the Environment Act.

The KPC’s response to some of the major allegations  is as follows:
The plants termed as endemic to the Tailrace project area are not endemic to it.  They have wide distribution throughout the Western Ghats.  Regarding nistar rights, it has been observed that locals collect green and  dried leaves for manure, as well as bamboo and reeds.  But they have no other  rights over the forest as it is a reserved forest.

The upstream of the Sharavathi river (below jog falls) is a deep cut valley with fairly steep slope in a mountainous terrain and as such the chances of seepage are very remote in the vicinity.  The water loss tests conducted “in the overburden at FRL (full reservoir level) indicate that the seepage losses are negligible.”

The downstream of the proposed dam site is a coastal plain with small agricultural fields growing paddy; areca and coconut are cultivated by lift irrigation.  The utilisation of water for lift irrigation is very meagre compared to the quantity of water flowing in the river during different months of the year.

Before the construction of the dams on Sharavathi, the river used to be active during the monsoon and almost dry during summer.  The tidal water would extend up to Gerusoppa village making the water saline after the monsoon.  After impoundment at Linganamakki and Talakalale and the consequent constant flow in the river, the impact of tidal water has been pushed beyond Hosadi village.  On completion of the Tailrace project, the flow will not decrease, rather it will increase and hence there is no possibility of inpushing of saline water.

As long as the thrust and parry process between the NGOs and the KPC continue, there is a good chance of the MOEF guidelines being implemented.  But their implementation is dependent on the multi-disciplinary high-power committee that has been set up (as per the guidelines).   However, it has met only once.  In the circumstance, the project implementor (the KPC) is burdened with the responsibility of also enforcing the guidelines, a rather unrealistic situation in terms of (a) impartiality and (b)  availability of expertise.  Both these are essential for the protection/preservation of the Sharavathi Valley’s flora and fauna, a job that only the high power committee can do.  Why is the Karnataka government preventing it from doing its job?

Back to Contents