As source of water, the
Himalayan rivers, especially
Ganga, have been
crucial for many human
settlements from its origin up to
confluence with sea. The stretch
of Ganga River beyond Rishikesh
is fulfilling the demands of many
industries including irrigation
and transport. Economic activities
including its use as natural sewers
have placed a heavy burden on
this river, but much of it has happened
outside Uttarakhand.
Development in Uttarakhand,
especially in its mountainous
regions, is very restricted.
Presently, only two sectors,
tourism and hydropower, have the
potential to improve the economic
status in these mountains. Water,
which drains these mountains
without its being used for economic
activity within the region,
flows to the plain and exploited at
maximum level.
Hydropower projects are the
only means in these hills by which
this unused water can be used to
uplift the economic status of the
people of the mountains. Run-ofthe-
river hydropower projects will
not withhold the water and the
question of discontinuity of water
flow does not arise. The reduction
in water quality or low water flow
or pollution of Ganga River begins
from Haridwar and increases as it
flows through various cities with
heavy developmental activities.
Hydropower as compared with
different uses like irrigation,
industries etc., of Ganga River
water is much more environment
friendly. Primary stakeholders
like the uphill people living in the
Ganga basin must have equal
opportunity with the downstream
people to use the river water for
their economic development.
Looking into the topography, the
water uphill cannot be used for
irrigation, and very few industries
are available in this place to use it.
Hydropower projects are almost
always welcomed by the local
people. The resistance expressed
by the people is not against the
hydropower projects but is aimed
at getting their rights in terms of
livelihood and proper compensation.
Self-declared environmentalists
who cry for saving the
Ganga do not have either enough
scientific background or understanding
of the socio-economy of
the mountains nor do they keep
the sentiment and basic requirement
of local people in mind
before demanding a halt to the
hydropower projects.
The cause of protests by the socalled
environmentalists is pollution
of river water, but the efforts of
the last 20 years to clean up the
Ganga and reduce the amount of
industrial waste and sewage
being discharged into it have not
yielded desired results. As part of
India's river conservation policy
framework, the Ganga is kept in
topmost priority and government
has set an ambitious target of
achieving good ecological status
for the river. While significant
progress towards this goal has
been made in terms of sewage and
industrial waste treatment plants
being constructed all along river
stretch, much more work remains
to be done for enhancing the ecological
status of river Ganga. In its
endeavour to clean the Ganga, the
central government went overboard
and intervened in developmental
projects like hydropower
on the insistence of some people
and organisations.
A very recent example of this is
the Cumulative Environmental
Impact Assessment (CEIA) study
awarded by the Ministry of Environment
and Forests to Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee,
and Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun. Quick and unscientific
approach to address the issues
of interest in CEIA by a reputed
institute like WII has already
started misleading the decision
makers and impacting development
of hydropower in Uttarakhand.
Not only is this dangerous
for the state but it is also likely to
impact the overall development of
the country in future.
WII's interim report, which was
full of mistakes and written with
extreme insincerity and very little
scientific facts, was the basis of the
MoEF's decision to stop three
major projects and permit two others.
The final report of WII
changed the entire approach of
evaluation and is totally different
from the interim report. In fact, the
final report hides the mistakes
that were made in the interim
report. There is no transparency
in the final report and is again full
of misleading information and
mistakes.
The final report wrongly categorised
some projects under the
proposed category as under construction.
This categorisation
resulted in favouring some projects
and shows the level of efforts
made by the research team of WII.
The project profile is also incomplete
and misleading. Otherwise,
how is it possible that WII did not
know the forest land take and forest
area submerged for seven out
of eight commissioned projects?
These details are also missing for
most of the projects under construction
and proposed.
There is no area statistics on subbasins.
What were the criteria
taken to decide these sub-basins?
What were the criteria taken to
conclude that these 18 sub-basins
are different in eco-geography?
Mapping of the zone of influence
and its characteristics, both
in terms of area and biology, is the
primary requirement for any
such study. We are surprised how
without knowing what is there in
the influence zone of the project,
the impact of the project was
determined!
Very funnily, the snow leopard's
presence was shown even below
the Karn prayag, which is impossible.
Similar is the case of the
brown bear. The report mentioned
brown bears were present in
many sub-basins without giving
their distribution range or proof of
presence.
The recommendation for reconsideration
of projects is biased
and misleading. The team members
of the study did not have any
experience on working with
hydropower designs and neither
did they make any effort to understand
the designs of various
projects before actually studying
their impact.
We have been involved in studying
the environmental impact of
hydropower for the last one
decade and tried to understand
the design of a project vis-à-vis
their impact on the environment.
The findings of the review are so
shocking that we feel this report
cannot be used for even referring
to any facts or making any policy
decision. Such misleading reports
may further strengthen vested
interests of certain agencies
(NGOs and individuals) that are
active in stalling hydropower
development of the state.
(Prof. Nagendra Prasad Todaria
is Professor of Forestry & Natural
Resources, Dean and Head of
HNB Garhwal University, and
Sabyasachi Dasgupta, Ph.D,
is Assistant professor, Department
of Forestry & Natural Resources,
HNB Garhwal University
(a central university).
Untitled Document
BASIN-WISE HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL |
| River Basin |
No. of schemes |
MW |
| Indus |
190 |
33,382 |
| Brahmaputra |
226 |
66,065 |
| Ganga |
142 |
20,711 |
| Central Indian River System |
53 |
4,152 |
| West Flowing Rivers of South India |
94 |
94,300 |
| East flowing Rivers of South India |
140 |
14,511 |
| Total |
845 |
233,121 |
| Pumped Storage Schemes |
56 |
94,000 |
| Source: CEA |