January 28,
2013
To:
Chairman and Members,
Expert Appraisal Committee on River
Valley Projects,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi 3
Sub: Review and Cancel Approval of Environment Clearance
for the proposed 775 MW Luhri hydropower project on Sutlej River in Himachal
Pradesh
Respected Minister, Chairman and
Members of EAC,
1. We would like to draw your attention
to the decision of the Expert Appraisal Committees (EAC) on River Valley
Projects to recommend environment clearance (EC) to the proposed 775 MW Luhri
Hydropower project on Sutlej river in Himachal Pradesh. The EAC took this
decision in its meeting in November 2012, the minutes of the meeting were
available only in last week of December 2012.
2. Sutlej was known to be already an
over developed basin when the Luhri project came up for first stage clearance
before the EAC in April 2007 (see for Sutlej basin map: http://www.sandrp.in/
3. Here we would like to draw your
attention to the fact that recommending Environment clearance without first
undertaking carrying capacity and cumulative impact assessment is in violation
of Supreme Court order (see attached) in “Karnataka Industrial Areas ... vs Sri
C. Kenchappa & Ors on 12 May, 2006” which has said:
A. “The pollution created as a
consequence of environment must be commensurate with the carrying capacity of
our ecosystem. In any case, in view of the precautionary principle, the
environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environmental degradation.”
B. “…the preventive measures have to be
taken keeping in view the carrying capacity of the ecosystem operating in the
environmental surroundings under consideration.”
C. “The pollution created as a
consequence of development must not exceed the carrying capacity of ecosystem.”
Here it should be noted without knowing
carrying capacity of the Sutlej basin it cannot be ascertained if the proposed
project is “commensurate with the carrying capacity of our ecosystem” and
ecosystem in this context is the Sutlej basin. Hence the EAC decision is in
violation of this SC order.
4. The minutes of the EAC meeting in
April 2007, where the Terms of Reference (TOR) of EIA came up for approval for
the Luhri project, says that the project is going to have 45 m high dam affecting
a maximum of 45 project affected families and 13 villages. Now from the EIA it
is clear that dam height is not 45 but 86 m, the project will affect not 45
families but 2337 land owners and 9674 persons, Luhri project will affect not
13 but over a hundred villages including 78 village along the world's longest
Head Race Tunnel. Any competent body would have questioned these very serious
nature of changes in basic project parameters of the project from TOR to EC
stage, but EAC did not. The EAC did not even ask the project promoter for an
explanation for these changes.
5. Even legally, the TOR clearance is
supposed to be valid only for 2 years. When the project first came up for final
environmental clearance before the 56th meting of EAC towards the end of March
2012, it was almost five years since the TOR was cleared. TOR clearance was no
longer valid than, but the EAC ignored the legal norms too.
6. The legally mandatory Public
hearings for the project were held in May and August 2011, but the EIA made
available a month before the public hearing as required under the EIA
notification did not have the basic information about the names and impacts on
the 78 villages along the path of the tunnels of the project. The local groups
had written to the ministry, the Pollution Control Board that is supposed to
conduct the hearings and the EAC about these and other issues. But the EAC did
not even take note of such serious legal lapses. Even just on this count of
violations in the public hearing process the MoEF should not have forwarded the
proposal and the EAC should have refused to consider the project. But EAC did
not even discuss this issue!
7. In repeated representations to the
EAC, the Himachal Pradesh based groups Sutlej Bachao Sangharsh Samiti and
Himdhara have been bringing to the notice of EAC that there has been no
compliance with the Forest Rights Act for the forest land required for the
project and the local administration has been indulging in manipulations and
pressure tactics to get the mandatory gram sabha resolutions for the FRA
compliance, as also reported in the media. In fact these groups have been
sending representations to the EAC on all these issues since October 2011 and
has already sent five representations, but the EAC has never even acknowledged,
leave aside discussing any of these representations in its meetings. In fact
the EAC should have invited the people who sent such representations and heard
them and also allowed them to be present when the project is discussed in the
EAC. This behaviour of the EAC is also in violation of the Delhi High Court
order in Utkarsh Mandal case where the High Court has expressly asked the EAC
to show that it has applied its mind to each representation it receives and the
decision it takes in that regard.
8. The Environment Impact Assessment
itself has so serious inadequacies that even the EAC notes in the minutes of
the March 2012 meeting that “the EIA/EMP report is inadequate”, consultant has
presented “poor quality of material”. The EAC minutes records many of the
serious deficiencies of the EIA in its March 2012 meeting. The minutes of the
56th meeting of EAC
saying about this project:
“The Committee also expressed its
concern over the long stretch of river of about 50 km getting dry due to a long
HRT, large reservoir length and large number of people getting affected due to
the submergence. The Committee felt that the TORs of the project were
decided during April-May 2007 when the water environment issues were not as
conspicuous or serious as they are in the current times. Otherwise, such a long
diversion of river water through the HRT which would affect continuous river
length of 46 km would have been objected at that time. The Committee felt that
the consultant/s to the project who have been interacting with the MoEF/EAC in
various presentations with respect to other projects should have advised the
Project Proponents and alerted them regarding the recent criteria of the EAC.
Also, the SJVN who have been interacting with MoEF/EAC with respect to other projects
should have been more cautious. The only remedy now available is to consider
mitigating measures such as larger environmental flows, reducing the dam
height, reducing the HRT length etc. The Committee strongly felt that the
Project Proponent should explore the various possibilities of all mitigating
measures.”
Here the non-consideration of the
crucial issues highlighted here at the TOR stage cannot be a reason for not
rejecting the project in present form. The implication that once the TOR
clearance is given, the project with all its parameters becomes fait accomplice
is completely uncalled for, unjustified and wrong. In any case, there was
enough grounds for the EAC to reject that consideration also considering the
significant change in the project parameters from the TOR proposal and TOR
clearance having already lapsed as highlighted above in para 4 and 5 above.
9. The EIA was so inadequate, full of
contradictions and misrepresentations that the EAC should have rejected it and
asked for fresh EIA while recommending black listing of the consultant. None of
those issues were resolved till Nov 2012 when EAC next discussed the project.
By than EAC had also received representations from affected people, issues
raised in which too remained unresolved. And yet, the EAC decided to quietly
recommend environment clearance to the project without referring to its own
observations or those of the representations and getting the issues raised
therein resolved.
10. The response of the developer and
consultant in response to the issues raised by the EAC in March 2012 meeting
was supposed to be made available at least ten days before the November 2012
EAC meeting when EAC next considered the project, as per the orders of the
Central Information Commission (CIC) in Feb 2012 and CIC notice to MoEF
following SANDRP appeal in May 2012. Violating the CIC orders, the responses
were not in public domain.
11. The project violated the EAC’s own
norms, but EAC did not even discuss it, let us see how. The Full Reservoir Level
of the Luhri dam is 862.9 m and the tail water level of the immediate upstream
Rampur project is also 862.9 m, which means there is zero distance of flowing
river between the two projects. This is incomplete violation of the
recommendation of the Avay Shukla (former additional Chief Secretary of
Himachal Pradesh) Committee appointed by the HP High Court and also the
reported recommendation of the BK Chaturvedi Committee appointed by the Prime
Minister headed National Ganga River Basin Authority. Both the committees’
recommendations are for minimum of 5 km distance of flowing river between any
two projects. Even EAC has been following the recommendation of at least 1 km
distance between two projects. But EAC did not even discuss this issue and
cleared the project violating its own norms.
12. Similarly, the full reservoir level
of the downstream Kol dam is 642 m, whereas the invert level of the Tail Race
Channel of Luhri dam is 1 m below this that is 641 m, which means again there
is zero length of flowing river between the two projects. The EAC again
violated the recommendations of Avay Shukla Committee and its own norm. Why did
the EAC not even discuss this issue? Why did the developer Sutlej Jal Vidhyut
Nigam and the EIA consultants, who were familiar with the EAC norm did not
raise these issues for both upstream and downstream situation? Why did the MoEF
officials who are part of EAC and knew the importance of these issues did not
raise these issues? This collective silence on such a crucial issue raises too
many questions for anyone’s comfort.
13. Here it should be noted that the
Luhri project has head race tunnel length of 38.14 km, which is the longest in
the world. As the EAC itself noted, the tunnel will bypass over 50 km length of
the river, in addition to the 6.8 km long reservoir. So the project will
destroy close to 60 km length of the mighty, already over-dammed Sutlej River.
To see the callous treatment the EAC has given to such unprecedentedly
impactful project is shocking.
One possible option left for the EAC to
clear the air is an urgent, transparent review of this decision. We urge EAC to
do that soon and cancel the recommendation of approval of environment clearance
for the project.
Thanking you and looking forward to
early response,
Yours sincerely,
Endorsed by:
1. EAS Sarma, Former
Secretary, Govt of India, Visakhapattanam eassarma@gmail.com
2. Prof. M.K.Prasad, Kerala Sasthra Sahitya
Parishad, Cochin, prasadmkprasad@gmail.com3. Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh, Pune, chikikothari@gmail.com
4. Alok Agarwal, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh. nbakhandwa@gmail.com
5. Souparna Lahiri, All India Forum of Forest People, Delhi. souparna.lahiri@gmail.com
6. Madhu Bhaduri, former Ambassador of India, Delhi, Madhu.bhaduri@gmail.com
7. Debi Goenka, Conservation Action Trust, Mumbai, debi@cat.org.in
8. Dr. Mohinder Slariya, Environmental Sociologist, Himachal Pradesh, mkslariya@gmail.com
9. Arundhati Dhuru,
National Alliance of People’s Movements, Lucknow. arundhatidhuru@gmail.com
10. Sandeep Pandey, Socialist
Party, Lucknow. ashain@sancharnet.in
11. Praful Bidwai, Columnist, Delhi. prafulbidwai@gmail.com12. Ravi Chopra, People’s Science Institute, Dehradun, psiddoon@gmail.com
13. Ramaswamy R. Iyer, former secretary, Govt of India, Delhi, ramaswamy.iyer@gmail.com
14.
Rahul Banerjee, Dhas Gramin Vikas Kendra, Indore rahul.indauri@gmail.com
15.
Ravindranath,River Basin Friends(NE), Dhemaji, Assam, rvcassam@gmail.com 16. Vimal Bhai, Matu Jansangathan, Uttarakhand. bhaivimal@gmail.com
17. Sharachchandra
Lele, Centre for Environment & Development, ATREE, Bangalore. sharad.lele@gmail.com
18. Dr Sudhirendar
Sharma, Ecology Foundation, Himachal Pradesh, sudhirendarsharma@gmail.com
19. Dr Bharat
Jhunjhunwala, Columnist, Uttarakhand. bharatjj@gmail.com
20. Samir Mehta,
International Rivers and River Basin Friends, Mumbai, samir@internationalrivers.org
21. Prof Rohan Dsouza,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, rohanxdsouza@gmail.com
22.
Rohit Prajapati, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Baroda, rohit.prajapati@gmail.com
23.
Manoj Misra, Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, Delhi. yamunajiye@gmail.com
24. Bharat Mansata, Vision Acres - Vanvadi, Maharashtra. bharatmansata@yahoo.com 25. Vinita Mansata, Earthcare Books, Kolkata earthcarebooks@gmail.com
26. Nitya Jacob, Centre for Science and Environment, Delhi, nityajacob@gmail.com
27. Soumitra Ghosh, NESPON, Siliguri, W Bengal, soumitrag@gmail.com
28. Joe Athialy, BIC Trust, New Delhi, jathialy@bicusa.org
29. Jitn Yumnam, Committee on the Protection of Natural Resources in Manipur, Imphal jitnyumnam@yahoo.co.in
30. Renuka Huidrom, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Imphal, Manipur, mangangmacha@gmail.com
31. Dr. Nilesh Heda, SAMVARDHAN, Washim, Maharashtra, nilheda@gmail.com
32. Sujit Patwardhan, Parisar, Pune, sujit@parisar.org
33. Ram Wangkheirakpam, Imphal, Manipur wangkheilakpa@gmail.com
34. Radha Gopalan, Rishi Valley Special Development Area, Chittoor, AP, radha.gopalan@gmail.com
35. Pushp Jain, EIA Resource and Response Centre, Delhi, pushpjainindia@yahoo.com
36. Nachiket Kelkar, Nature Conservation Foundation, Bangalore, rainmaker.nsk@gmail.com
37. Gopal Krishna, Toxics Watch Alliance, New Delhi, krishna1715@gmail.com
38. Paramjeet Singh, Peoples Union for Democratic Rights, Delhi, pudrdelhi@gmail.com
39. Shardul S.
Bajikar, Mumbai. shardulbajikar@gmail.com
40. Tarun Nair, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust,
Bangalore tarunnair@yahoo.co.uk 41. Ajay Mahajan, New Delhi, ajaymahajan1@gmail.com
42. Samantha Agarwal, Activist, Raipur, Chhattisgarh agarwal.71@osu.edu
43. Chaoba Takhenchangbam, North East Dialogue Forum, Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, chaosarma@gmail.com
44. Soumya Dutta, Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha, Delhi. soumyadutta_delhi@rediffmail.
45. Prasad Chacko, Social Activist, Ahmedabad prasad.chacko@gmail.com
46. Janak Daftari, Jal Biradari, Mumbai, daffy@jalsangrah.org
47. Shankar Sharma, Power Policy Analyst, Karnataka, shankar.sharma2005@gmail.com
48. Swathi Seshadri, EQUATIONS, Bangalore, swathi.s@equitabletourism.org
49. George Monippally, Bharat Jan Andolan, Jharkhand, gmonippally@gmail.com
50. Ms Malika Virdi, Himal Prakriti, Uttarakhand, malika.virdi@gmail.com
51. Mr E Theophilus, Himal Prakriti, Uttarakhand, etheophilus@gmail.com
52. K. Ramnarayan, Save the Rivers Campaign, Uttarakhand, ramnarayan.k@gmail.com
53. Dr. Latha Anantha, River Research Centre, Kerala, latha.anantha9@gmail.com
54. Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in), 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110088. ht.sandrp@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment