write2kill.in
 
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Reports
  4. Here's a new barrage of allegations: Now, irrigation project gets dam and damner
 

Here's a new barrage of allegations: Now, irrigation project gets dam and damner

Sonthi Barrage
The photo of the complete barrage on the KBJNL website. KBJNL

Flouting of environmental norms and forest laws in the construction of irrigation projects in Karnataka are now going the mini-hydel projects way. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) is organising a public hearing for this irrigation scheme long after the project was completed for all practical purposes. And that too without an environment clearance from the Centre.

It's not as complicated as it may sound. Proponents of any project of a particular scale are supposed to start work on it only after the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) grants it environmental clearance. This clearance follows a procedure, and very necessarily precludes a public hearing on the project's pros and cons.

The project in question is the Sonthi Lift Irrigation Scheme in Gulbarga district that is slated for environmental public hearing on March 23 in adjoining Yadgir district. But then, the submersible Sonthi Barrage is already complete. Its gates have been erected, and the main canal has been completed. "This is a clear violation of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, and EIA Notification, 2006," alleges Parineeta Dandekar.

Dandekar, of the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), in fact was the one who made a submission on the issue to the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the MoEF in September last year. Based on the allegations about an astounding number of environmental irregularities in the way the project was proceeding, the EAC at its November 2013 meeting had advised the MoEF to write to the Karnataka government and take necessary action. The EAC had categorically stated, "The proposal may be placed before EAC only after this issue is resolved." The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project were rejected.

Since no ToRs have been cleared, any EIA itself of the project cannot be valid. What this means, according to Dandekar, is that as far as the KSPCB is concerned, "no public hearing can be held based on this EIA (that the project proponent filed with the KSPCB) since the EAC has not appraised on merit or approved TOR clearance for the project."

This is not a question of jumping the gun alone; there's more.

At the November 2013 meeting of the EAC, officials of the Karnataka Bhagya Jal Nigam Limited (the project proponent) and WAPCOS (Water and Power Consultancy, under the Ministry of Water Resources) discussed the "proposed" Sonthi Lift Irrigation Scheme, which "envisages" a non-submersible barrage across the Bhima river in Gulbarga. The barrage and project would submerge 1,400 hectares of land and affect 3,000 people.

This is where the farce comes across clearly. While these officials were "proposing" their contentions, the Sonthi Barrage had already existed in reality. Dandekar says, "While work on the barrage is complete, work on canals is also complete in some stretches and progressing in some. Contracts for this lift irrigation scheme, which was discussed for ToRs only in 2013, were issued by the Karnataka government way back in 2005."

All this was not only done with impunity, the KBJNL is brazen about it too. It has details about the project on its website and states that the Sonthi Barrage, with a capacity of 4 TMC, was launched in 2003 and completed in 2011. On the other hand, the officials of KBJNL and WAPCOS at the EAC meeting (minutes of which are available), mentioned that "The submersible bridge is 'proposed' to be modified as non-submersible bridge and instead of needle gates automated vertical type crest gates are proposed."

These contentions contradict what the KBJNL says on its website,"Civil work of barrage & Erection of all 37 vertical gates completed and water stored at Barrage. For lifting system, tender received for work of Head Work on turnkey basis and approved recently. Construction of Feeder Canal work is completed. Works of Sonthi LIS Main Canal Km 0.00 to 5.00 including Aqueduct, Sonthi Branch canal Km 0.00 to 7.00, Distry. No.1 Km 0.00 to 15 & Yargol Minor Canal works are in progress (sic)."

The pre-feasibility report of this project was presumably done by WAPCOS. The Kannada version of the EIA report carries the name of WAPCOS, but the English one does not. This is mandatory as per EIA Notification. This happens when you apply for clearances after completing a project. Dandekar calls it a "unbelievable copy-and-paste job."

The most glaring example can be found on Page 10-5, "Impacts due to water supply for drinking water requirements (even though there is no drinking water component to Sonthi LIS) : The provision of 20 mm3 of water for meeting drinking water requirements will go a long way in reducing the hardships to the local population. The project will supply water to about 187 villages. The fluoride-affected villages in Rajgarh district are spread over 5 blocks of the district, namely, Rajgarh, Biaora, Khilchipur, Zirapur and Sarangpur. Considering per capita water supply as 40 lpcd, a population about 1.35 million shall be served with fluoride free drinking water."

This would sound good, only if these places were in Karnataka; they are not. All places mentioned are located in Madhya Pradesh. The reason this embarrassing error crept in was that these were copy-pasted from the EIA of the Kundalia Irrigation Project in Madhya Pradesh. This has been repeated several times in the Sonthi EIA.

There are errors sillier than this one. For instance, Page 10-2 of the EIA Report states that 2,861 people will lose their lands and 1,760 people their homesteads. Subsequently, in the same page, it says 2,004 people would lose lands. Section 13.3 says that in total only 942 people would be affected. From 852 families, this assumes there are only 1.1 persons per family.

This cannot be all about money, because the KBJNL makes mistakes on that count too. Page 2-13 projects the cost to be Rs502 crore; on ePage 2-14, it is Rs600 crore.

subir.ghosh@dnaindia.net

KSPCB chief unaware
The chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), Vaman Acharya, said he was unaware whether the public hearing was indeed being held in Yadgir on March 23, when contacted for his reaction on the issue. He briefly remarked that officials on the ground level do their own work.

What's wrong with the EIA report

  • There is no environment management plan in the documents uploaded on the KSPCB website.
  • There is no command area development plan in the documents uploaded on the KSPCB website.
  • In the EIA on the KSPCB website, Chapter 9 about prediction of impacts starts with Section "9.1 "General", and next on the same page 9-1 is section “10.2 Impacts on Land Environment”. This means that entire chapter 9 and section 10.1 are missing.
  • The name and the undertaking of the EIA consultant is an issue. The Kannada version of executive summary bears the name of WAPCOS, but English version has no name of the consultant or their undertaking as required under EIA Notification.
  • The report does not conform to the structure recommended as per Appendix III of EIA Notification.
  • The EIA does not include any ToR ( as ToRs have not been issued).
  • The EIA report does not include Environment Management Plan (EMP), Catchment Area Treatment Plan (CAT Plan), Dam Break Analysis (DBA), and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan (RRP).
  • Details of impacts of the project features which have already been implemented is not even mentioned in the report.
  • The copy of the administrative order for approval of the project from the Government of Karnataka is missing.
  • Sections on aquatic ecology, and floral and faunal diversity differ hugely in the executive summary and the actual EIA report. * The data in the EIA report is based on secondary data and is a copy-paste job.

The procedure

  • As per EIA Notification (2006), a project applies for first stage environmental clearance (i.e. Terms of Reference clearance).
  • The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) is then supposed to appraise the viability of the proposal holistically, assess the pre-feasibility report (PFR) and Form I submitted by the project proponent.
  • If all these are found satisfactory, the EAC recommends specific ToRs for carrying out Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and public hearing of the project.
  • On completing these, the project comes back to the EAC for Environmental Clearance.
  • Based on the EIA and public hearing, the EAC decides on recommending Environmental Clearance (EC).
  • The EC is issued by the MoEF, and only after this can the actual project work start.

Links to original documents

 
 
About write2kill.in
  • Subir Ghosh is a Kolkata-based independent journalist-writer-researcher. He writes on environment, cinema, conflict, the Northeast, fashion, crony capitalism and corruption.
Copyright

This site, created with Drupal, has been designed and developed by Subir Ghosh for Inscriptions. All content on this site, unless explicitly stated, is copyrighted material. 

© Subir Ghosh 1991-2025.