Dams, Rivers & People

VOL 4    ISSUE 1-2    FEB - MARCH 2006

Rs 15/- Lead  Piece

Alternatives to the proposed Polavaram dam

The way Andhra Pradesh govt has gone about pushing Polavaram Project (also a river linking scheme) smacks of many things, except development. This clearly flies in the face of all the claims that India has learnt from past experiences and the mistakes of the past won't be repeated. The manner in AP and the Union Water Resources Ministry has pushed this project in fact reflects all the worse facets of dam building in India. There has been no proper appraisal of costs, benefits of impacts. Environment Ministry has given sanction without practically any scrutiny. There has been no proper EIA, no proper public hearing or public consultation, and most importantly, better options exist. This article Venkat Naagesh exposes all this.

The AP govt. has taken up the Polavaram project overriding all objections to minimize the displacement of more than 2,50,000 people mostly tribals and dalits and saving more than 1,19,000 acres of farm land mostly belonging to tribals. This project would only benefit the areas that are already developed for the last 150 years by destroying tribal areas that have made vast strides since the last 30 years and are rapidly developing. The project is basically robbing the tribes to give it to the rich and developed. The way in which the state govt. has taken up the project raises many suspicions about the govt.'s sincerity in taking up the project for irrigation or for the contractors?

The same benefits and more can be achieved in alternate ways that would shun the misery of more than 2,50,000 people by not submerging more than 1,19,000 acres, save more than Rs 10,000 crores of taxpayer money and also save priceless forests and not damage the environment. We deplore the manner used by the govt. of AP in taking up this project. The govt.'s actions have confirmed the views of many in the state that a "Politician - Contractor" nexus exists where corruption is rampant and estimates are raised just to benefit the contractors and politicians. The propaganda of the govt. has resulted in many people being called traitors just because they raised questions about lack of justification of such projects and about the corruption in the projects.

The Polavaram project envisages transfer of 85 TMC of water from the Godavari to the Krishna delta, thus freeing up Krishna water in the upstream to use in Telangana or Rayalaseema. The project was conceived since the 1940s and in 1980 the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal allowed AP to construct the dam with an FRL of 45.72 m (150').¹ The AP govt. undertook surveys in 1984 and proposed alignments for the canals to take off at 40.23 m (135') and transfer water to the Budameru diversion channel into the Krishna whose capacity was designed for 12,000 cusecs. The AP govt.

never started the project and after the 1986 floods the Ministry of Environment and Forests declined to give environmental clearance unless catchment area treatment was undertaken, as there was massive degradation occurring in the river catchment that would reduce the life of the dam significantly.² In 1996-97 the AP govt. updated the estimates of the project to reflect the 1995 schedule of rates and put the project cost at Rs 8198 crores.³ The AP govt. decided not to take up the project in view of the limited benefits and the huge cost involved. The ratio of command area to submersible area is only 5:1.⁴ Presently the cost has been put as Rs 16,500 crores ultimately the cost is likely to go over Rs 20,000 crores. After the severe droughts of 2001 & 2002 and the change in the state govt, the new regime has taken up this project

INDEX

Alternatives to the proposed Polavaram Dam exist

Polavaram a constitutional violation: Karat

Rural Water Supply

Planning Commission on Assessment of RWS

Janhit report on Meerut Water: 124 dead already

Research on Bhoj Tal Lake

A Bengal Bill to make wetlands destruction lawful?

Get Serious about wetlands

CGWB: Groundwater Overuse in 30% of India

Rampur HEP: Violations, inadequate EIA

Malana HEP shut down for Tunnel leakage

Baspa II: HPERC extends deadline

HP's new forestry policy: NOCfrom gramsabhas mandatory 21

Power Sector: India has highest T&D losses in South Asia    23

Haryana is first state to devolve major irrigation to PRIs        24

Unprecedented Agriculture Crisis

Budget does not address the Agriculture Crisis

IFC's new standards: Risky for People and the planet

Publications available with SANDRP

Contact Himanshu Thakkar, Bipin Chandra, Swarup Bhattacharyya, Ganesh Gaud, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, C/o 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110 088. India. Ph: 91-11-2748 4654/5 cwaterp0)vsnl.com Web: www.sandrp.in OR www.narmada.org/sandrp

Dams, RiversS People

The present govt has made this project as its showpiece in the ongoing 'Jalayagnam'. But when taking up such a large project that has so many ramifications, the least the govt. could have done is to undertake a study to explore all alternatives and minimize displacement and avoid inter state problems. Instead of doing this, the govt has just reopened the old 1984 project report and decided to implement the project based on it. It has failed to see that since 1984, there have been so many demographic and social changes that have totally changed the effective landscape in the command and the submergence area.

The govt. had already taken up the Tadipudi and Puskharam lift irrigation schemes that are going to irrigate 400 000 acres of the total 720 000 acres of the Polavaram ayacut at a cost of Rs 900 crores.⁵ What justification does the govt. have in spending over Rs 20,000 crores to irrigate the remaining 3.2 lakh acres and in the process submerging 119 000 acres of valuable farm land and displacing over 250 000 people in 3 districts? Work on the canals has already started despite a high court stay, and the intention of the govt. seems to be to justify the dam as the canals have already been built.

Environment Impact Assessment When the MEF gave site clearance on the Sept 19, '04, it clearly stipulated conditions that an EIA had to be given within 18 months after fresh undertaking of at least 1 year's data. It also stipulated that suggestions and views of the public should be incorporated in the EIA.⁶ But the govt. had already given a notification for a public hearing on Sept 10, 05 and the EIA was produced for the public on the same day. According to the affidavit given by the state govt to the High Court of AP, the EIA was prepared by EPTRI, Hyderabad.⁷ But actually it was prepared by the Agricultural Finance Corp, an entity that has no environmental experience whatsoever.

•    "NO" Project Option or Alternate Sites not considered

•    Impact on Ecology , People & Community not studied

•    Impact on Wildlife and Habitat destruction not studied

•    Environmental clearance given in only 2 days

•    No public hearings conducted in Orissa & Chhattisgarh

•    PH in Bhadrachalam done after public were evicted.

No extra benefits due to the project The command area of 2,95,000 ha (7,20,000 acres) comprises the semi-upland areas of Krishna, W Godavari, E Godavari and coastal areas of Visakhaptnam district. The command area of the right canal is about 90% irrigated by bore wells and is more valuable in terms of crop yields than the delta areas. The command area of the left canal is about 60% irrigated and is rapidly undergoing a change to industrialization due its proximity to the ports of Visakhapatnam and Kakinada. The EIA has shown the command area as backward which is totally inaccurate. With the advent of the tube well and a

 

high groundwater table, the command area has totally transformed into the most agriculturally advanced region in the state. The govt. has shown these areas as dry land areas. These areas receive some of the highest rainfall in the state from both the monsoons.

The area that is going to be submerged in the reservoir is one of the finest and most fertile lands in the nation. The tribes that were previously into podu (shifting cultivation) have developed and today grow even cash crops. This area has made vast and rapid strides in all spheres of development.

Water logging, salinisation in Krishna, Godavari deltas The govt. has forgotten that the command area lies at the head of the Krishna and Godavari deltas, and any action would have its consequences on the deltas that have been the bread basket of the state for over 150 years. There has been no attempt by the govt. to study the effects this project would have on the deltas already having severe drainage problems. The existing drainage system of the delta has to cater to the additional water that would come due to the Polavaram project. The famous erstwhile engineer K Sriramakrishnaih had voiced his apprehensions about the project and the damage it would do to the delta.⁸ About 4,00,000 acres in the Krishna and Godavari districts could lose their Kharif crop due to water logging.

In the last three years only 90-100 TMC water was used for irrigating 10-13.2 lakh acres in the Krishna delta. The average yield was 30-35 bags per acre compared to this year where there was extensive water logging and the yield was just 20 bags per acre.⁹ In the deltas less water means more yield and more water means less yield.

The groundwater levels in the proposed command area vary from 0.7m-15m.¹⁰ Already some areas are water logged in monsoon. Giving more water by canal irrigation in tie monsoon would only add to the water logging problems causing a big reduction in the yields.

Cheating, misleading the centre and the public Work on the canals has started and the govt. has hugely increased the capacity to 17,500 cusecs¹¹ for both the canals from 12 500 and 8 250 cusecs¹² respectively that was furnished by the govt to the MEF in the EIA and also to the CWC. They have increased the bed widths of the canals to 85 m and 101.5 m from 68.5 m and 51.5 m for the Right and Left canals respectively. By drastically increasing the capacity of the canals, the govt is going to cause irreparable damage to the Krishna-Godavari deltas by water logging and flooding, as the drainage systems of the deltas are incapable of handling huge quantities of water.

All the drainage from the Right canal has to go through the Kolleru Lake and the Yenamadarru drain passing out through only one outlet into the sea. The capacity of the

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

Kolleru Lake to absorb flood waters has decreased drastically due to encroachments by fish tanks.¹³ The additional 100 TMC of water due to the Polavaram Right canal will only aggravate the problem of flooding and water logging. The excess capacities of the canals are also causing land alienation for small farmers who are losing everything h the process of losing land to the canals. More than 60 000 acres of land would be needed for the canals. The canals seem to be navigation facilities rather than irrigation channels.

Ecological Impacts The reservoir would submerge over 8 900 acres of prime forests in the Papikonda wildlife sanctuary and 9 000 acres of reserve and protected forests in Chhattisgarh.¹⁴ In addition it would also submerge some prime wildlife habitat of the tiger and gaur. The tribes would just undertake vertical migration up the hills and again resort to podu (shifting cultivation) that would severely denude the hills and rapidly silt up the reservoir.¹⁵ More than half of the Papikonda sanctuary would be deforested impacting the environment very severely. More than 6 minor irrigation projects Kovvada, Bhupatipalem, Musurumilli, Surampalem, Yeleru and Jalleru have the Papikonda sanctuary as their main catchment area.

Safety of the Dam The proposed design of the dam was

floated in the early 1970s and even K L Rao had expressed doubts about its design. The Godavari river is supposed to be diverted to the right after making a left turn through a 950 m spillway where the width of the river is about 2.5 km.³ If the maximum flood of 36 lakh cusecs is released the level of the water downstream will reach 100' FSL that is only 50' from the full reservoir level. More than half the earthen dam would be submerged as there is no free flow like in rocky areas that would lead to undercutting of the front of the dam.

Backwater Effect In addition to this the govt. has not undertaken any proper backwater effect studies due to a reservoir. The hydrology studies were considered only up to 1975.¹⁶ In the EIA report a flood of 36 lakh cusecs was shown to have a frequency of 500 years, but actually it occurred in 1953 and 1986 i.e. twice in 33 years. The backwater levels reached during the 1986 flood were actually more than levels claimed for a pond level of 130' when in Polavaram the level was only 100'. If a flood of that magnitude repeats what will be the safety of the dam when more than half of the dam foreshore will be submerged as there is no free flow like Nagarjunasagar?

(feet)

As seen from the above table the govt. is claiming that there will be less submergence than during a flood. They

 

conducted model studies for a flood of 36 lakh cusecs in the 1970s. But in 1986 when the big flood came then the levels were much higher than the levels claimed by the govt in model studies. So the models were proved wrong. Therefore with a reservoir the floods will be more frequent due to backwater effect and also more severe as was proved by the Almatti dam when a flood of just 5 lakh cusecs caused enormous submergence in Maharashtra submerging Sangli and Kolhapur.¹⁹ For Polavaram the backwater will be much more and it would go all the way upto Eturnagaram and Bhadrachalam would be very frequently submerged.

Sedimentation The sedimentation rates of the reservoirs have been shown as 61.73 TMC in 50 years and 78.98 TMC in 100 years.¹⁶ But in a report prepared by the NWDA the sedimentation was shown to be 130.72 TMC after 100 vears.²⁰ The assumed rate of sedimentation of 595 m / km²/ year is much lower than the actual observed rates of sedimentation in Sriramsagar and Nizamsagar projects.²¹ Except for the Indravati, the other sub tributaries Penganga, Wainganga and Pranahita carry a lot of silt as they flow through loose black soils. Even the Sabari brings enormous amounts of silt. As most of the live storage of the reservoir is behind the Papi gorge where the Godavari River takes a right turn, most of the live storage will be lost quicker than the dead storage. The reservoir will be very similar to Srisailam reservoir, which has lost its live capacity by 44 TMC from 308 TMC to 264 TMC within 21 years.²² Despite having many reservoirs upstream of Srisailam serious sedimentation has occurred. In studies conducted by the NWDA, the flow of the Godavari at Polavaram is about 10 times more than the flow of the Krishna at Srisailam and also carries much more silt than the Krishna. If correct sedimentation rates are used, the Polavaram reservoir will lose most of its capacity in 50 years.

 

Duplication of Ayacut Most of the proposed ayacut of the Polavaram project is already being irrigated and proposed to be irrigated by various medium and minor irrigation projects. In addition to these projects the Tadipudi and Pushkaram LIS would cover most of the ayacut proposed to be covered by the Polavaram project. In addition to this rapid urbanization and industrialization are taking place due to the regions proximity to three ports and a major offshore gas find. More than 20,000 acres of land has already been acquired for the setting up of an ONGC refinery at Kakinada and a mega chemical complex at Visakhapatnam. The various schemes are as below:

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

Chagalnadu LIS:                                       35,000 Acres

Torrigedda pumping scheme:                     23,000 Acres

Existing Yeleru Ayacut:                             70,000 Acres

Irrigation by Tadipudi & Pushkaram:

1,86,000 + 2,06,000 Acres = 3,92,000 Acres
Total existing Avacut:________________ 520 OOP Acres

Proposed Irrigation by Polavaram:

As seen from the above the net ayacut for the Polavaram project would be 200 000 acres after the Tadipudi and Pushkaram LIS are finished. The only other uses of the project would be the diversion of 85 TMC of water to the Krishna delta during Kharif and the industrial needs of Visakhapatnam which can be supplied from the Yeleru reservoir during the Rabi as the reservoir was constructed for that specific purpose.

Duplication of ayacut The govt. is implementing the Tadipudi and Puskaram lift irrigation schemes to irrigate 3.92 lakh acres of the proposed 7.2 lakh acres total ayacut of Polavaram. The cost of these schemes is Rs 900 crores. The canals are proposed to be dug parallel to the Polavaram canals with an FSL of 3 m and a capacity of 1 500 cusecs as opposed to the FSL of 5 m for Polavaram canals and a capacity of 17,500 cusecs.°° The irrigation dept has said that the canals will serve as distributaries to the Polavaram canals. How can the distributaries run parallel to the canal? Unnecessarily excavating two parallel canals instead of one is going to create more drainage problems, seepage problems damaging the lining of the Polavaram canals, and resulting in more wastage of valuable land and crop.

The govt has drastically increased the capacity of the canals to 17,500 cusecs for both the canals from 12,500 and 8250 cusecs respectively. They have increased the bed widths of the canals to 85 m and 101.5 m from 68.5 m and 51.5 m for the Right and Left canals respectively. The govt. is excavating the canals by full cutting instead of an embankment canal thus increasing the land required for depositing the spoils. Due to being full cutting canals it will be very difficult for the canals to command the ayacut area as the fall is very low about 1:20,000 in the ayacut area. By drastically increasing the capacity of the canals, the govt. is going to cause irreparable damage to the Krishna and Godavari deltas by water logging and flooding them, as the drainage systems for the deltas are incapable of handling such huge quantities of water.

Canal capacity & Cost

All the drainage from the Right canal has to go through the Kolleru Lake and the Yenamadarru drain passing out through only one outlet into the sea. The capacity of the Kolleru Lake to absorb flood waters has decreased drastically due to encroachments by fish tanks. The additional 100 TMC of water due to the Polavaram Right

 

canal will only exacerbate the problem of flooding and water logging. The excess capacities of the canals are also causing land alienation in small farmers who are losing everything in the process of losing land to the canals. More than 60,000 acres of land would be needed for the canals. The intention of the govt. seems to be to create facilities for navigation rather than irrigation. The state govt. should also stop the Tadipudi and Puskharam LIS and excavate just one canal and pump water into it so that it can provide irrigation benefits immediately and save money and displacement.

PRMC

PLMC

Water allocation and capacities

The Tadipudi canal was designed to use 14.8 TMC to irrigate 2.06 lakh acres at a duty of 150 (1 cusec irrigates 150 acres) with a discharge capacity of 1400 cusecs. The water allocation for the PRMC is 112 TMC and thus the remaining 98 TMC would be used to irrigate the remaining 1.12 lakh acres of PRMC ayacut from the Gunderu to Vijayawada. This will result in water shortage under Tadipudi and flooding and water logging for the remaining ayacut and also the Krishna delta as all the drainage has to go through the Gunderu, Tammileru and Budameru rivers that flow into the Kolleru increasing the flooding of the Krishna-Godavari deltas. In the EIA a very meager of 33 crores has been allocated for improving drainage. The wide disparity of irrigation intensity between the two regions raises suspicions about the govt's intention as to if it really wants to irrigate the area or just transfer water to the River Krishna. For 1.12 lakh acres of remaining ayacut of PRMC the govt. is excavating a canal with a capacity of 500 cumecs

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

(17,500 cusecs) and a bed width of 85 m when they are supposed to excavate a canal of capacity 347 cumecs (12,250 cusecs) according to the EIA.

Only one canal i.e. the PRMC with a capacity of 13,500 cusecs and a bed width of 68.5 m would be sufficient to irrigate the ayacut and transfer 85 TMC to the Krishna River. This would result in savings of over Rs 900 crores and also save over 5000 acres of valuable farmland and also save money on duplication of related structures.

The capacity of the PLMC shown in the EIA is 230 cumecs (8250 cusecs) with a bed width of 51.5 m. The PLMC has been proposed to irrigate 4 lakh acres and supply 24 TMC to meet the drinking & industrial requirements of Visakhapatnam. The supply canal to Visakhapatnam city has been designed with a capacity of 730 cusecs. The Pushkaram LIS is proposed to use 15.8 TMC to irrigate 1.86 lakh acres with a canal capacity of 1500 cusecs. The govt. has proposed both the Pushkaram and the PLMC canals to run parallel for a distance of 95 km. Pushkaram will serve as a distributary of PLMC for 95km and no distributaries are to emanate from PLMC up to 95km. Thus the same conditions that are going to be created in the Krishna delta will recur for the Godavari delta resulting in water logging & flooding.

When the govt is proposing to irrigate 1.86 lakh acres with 15.8 TMC what justification does the govt have to excavate a huge canal with a capacity of 500 cumecs (17,500 cusecs) when only 40 TMC would be required to irrigate the rest of the area and supply water to Visakhapatnam. The area is also one of the highest rainfall areas receiving rain in both the monsoons. By excavating one canal with a capacity of 237 cumecs (8250 cusecs) with a bed width of 51.5 m as opposed to 101.5 m presently, Rs 900 crores can be saved.

A White Elephant The govt has started construction of the Tadipudi and Puskharam LIS to irrigate about 4 lakh acres by pumping water from a maximum static head of 28 m at a cost of Rs 900 crores. The cost of pumping will be cheaper than estimated as the head is not more than 15 m during the rainy season. This works out to about Rs 17,500 per acre. The pumping cost yearly would be about Rs 700 per acre. But for Polavaram the cost would be over Rs 2.3 lakh according to present estimates. This is without the cost of the distributaries. The govt. might as well extend the Tadipudi and Pushkaram canals to irrigate the rest of the area as planned for the Polavaram project. Even by their estimates it would not cost more than Rs 2000 crores to irrigate all the Polavaram ayacut and supply water to the Krishna delta.

When water is only going to be supplied during the Kharif, what is the point in spending over Rs 20,000 crores to construct a project that has so many inherent problems and contradictions? If we examine the project in detail the project would be financially unviable and

 

would turn out to be Andhra's Enron. The AP govt. has also simultaneously taken up 25 irrigation projects at a cost of Rs 46,000 crores that has already increased to more than Rs 1,00,000 crores. The money saved in Polavaram could be used for more appropriate projects in backward areas like Telangana and Rayalaseema.

Land to be acquired

For R&R                 124 000 acres

For tribals              50 000 acres

For canals:            24 664 acres estimates, without  land for

distributaries

Costs (Rs crores)

Compensation for land & assets (without canals) 2535
Resettlement                                                        631

Rehabilitation                                                       476

Command area development                   :              403

Catchment area treatment____________ ;_______ 280

Total

Canals

Dam

Power house

Spillway

Connectivity

Tadipudi & Pushkaram LIS

Forest compensation_____

Total (Without compensation for canals)

Questionable  viability  of  the  Power  project  The

project would generate power at its installed capacity of 960 MW only in the rainy season for about 3 months. As the head at Polavaram is relatively low, over 180 000 cusecs would be required to generate power. With siltation, the quantity of water stored will also decrease significantly resulting in lesser power produced.

This project would also decrease the power generation at the planned Dummugudem project upstream. The bed level of the Godavari River at Dummugudem is 40 m and the FRL of 45.7 m at Polavaram would decrease the head and obstruct the free flow of water to maximize generation of power. About 100 MW of power could be lost due to the backwater effects of floods of magnitude greater than 2 lakh cusecs.

Seeds for increased naxalism? The affected area is just at the edge of the strongholds of the People's War Group. It adjoins the Dantewada and Malkangiri districts of Chhattisgarh and Orissa. It also lies at the head of the rich delta districts of E Godavari, W Godavari and Krishna in coastal Andhra. The schedule areas of E Godavari already are naxal infested. The naxals run a parallel govt. in most of Dantewada and Malkangiri districts. In Malkangiri the alienation of tribal land by the Balimela and Sileru reservoirs and by resettlement of Bangladeshi refugees has increased the number of naxal recruits significantly, it has been reported.

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

6

In Khammam district and the agency areas of E and W Godavari districts, there is a lot of tribal land alienation resulting in many disputes between tribes and non tribes. About 3 lakh acres in Khammam district is under dispute in the courts between tribes and non tribes. Similarly over 1.2 lakh acres in E and W Godavari districts are in disputes in the courts. There is no land available for the govt to resettle the displaced and is offering cash compensation. Whatever lands the govt. has offered in Schedule areas are already under possession of other tribes or under dispute in the courts. Even the land that would be provided would not match the fertility of the lands that the tribes own now. The govt. also has not made any mention of the non tribes that are going to be affected. Resettlement would only increase the disputes between tribes and non tribes causing social problems as land is a very scarce commodity in India.

Violation of Schedule V The site of the dam and the

whole submergence area has been notified under Schedule V of the constitution of India. Taking any decision without permission of gram sabhas in such areas is violating the constitution. The tribes that have been enjoying special rights under the Schedule V would lose all their rights and privileges if they are moved out. This would also violate their right to life enshrined in the constitution. The dam would wipe off the progress made by the tribes and would drive them back to living off the forests. They would again have to start shifting cultivation on the hills that would cause increased sedimentation of the reservoir reducing its life.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Series of barrages on Godavari - Polavaram FRL at 115'

The Godavari River flows at a very low level in a valley whereas its surrounding areas are at higher elevations. If a huge dam was built it would have very limited benefits due to the limited area it would irrigate compared to the area it would submerge. There is no other alternative but lift irrigation in the Godavari valley. Due to the huge flows in the rainy season, the water can be harnessed for hydro power that can be used for the lift irrigation schemes that have been started. More than 2000 MW of power can be generated from 5 run of the river sites based on the monsoon flows without any submersion.

The Godavari River is much wider in the reaches from Inchampalli to Bhadrachalam than in the stretch from Bhadrachalam to Polavaram. In some places the width is about 5 km. A lot of storage space is available within the river course. 3 barrages can be built at Kanthalapallii, Singareddypally near Edira, Dummugudem and two low dams at Inchampally with FRL 95 m and at Polavaram. The AP govt has already contemplated HEPs at Dummugudem and Kanthalapalli. These barrages would help regenerate water flows in the non monsoon seasons. The river right up to the confluence of the Pranahita and Godavari would become navigable. The

 

water stored in these barrages would be more than 150 TMC that is more than the dead storage of Polavaram. This water could be used to supplement the rabi crop in the Godavari and Krishna deltas. The money saved in avoiding building Polavaram could be used for barrages.

NWDA Studies²⁰ Due to the various problems of submergence and also the severe backwater effects during floods of the Godavari River following studies were taken up by different organizations to study the interlinking of the Krishna-Godavari rivers. I.The CWC proposed an alternative that had the canal taking off at 33.53 m (110') with an outfall level at 18.29 m (60.3'), so that the FRL could be reduced by 35' to about 115' and Orissa & Chhattisgarh would agree to it.

2.               The NWDA studied another option with an off take of
36.58 m (120') falling into the Budameru diversion canal
below the regulator at an outfall level of 20.63 m (68').

3.               The AP govt proposed the alignment with an off take
of 40.23 m (135') to join the Budameru diversion channel
at the regulator at an outfall level of 27.97 m (91.74').

The alignment given by the AP govt was chosen, as it did not pass through the outskirts of Vijayawada town and more command area being served by it. The reasons given were

1.  To have maximum command area

2.               To cross minimum number of streams

3.               To run the canal in the Budameru diversion channel
as far as possible since it has a capacity of 15,000
cusecs as claimed by the state govt.

But unfortunately the very reasons that the state govt has chosen this alignment are not true and due to the construction of the Vijayawada Thermal Power Station the scope of the Budameru Diversion channel has changed drastically. The main reasons why this alignment is not technically feasible are:

1.  The capacity of the Budameru diversion channel is 4
000 cusecs due to construction of a mini HEP.

2.               The capacity of the Budameru diversion channel is
not large enough to discharge water into the Krishna as
more   water   would   damage   the   VTPS   and   stop
generation of electricity. There is no scope of enlarging it
as there is not enough space available at VTPS.

3.               The Budameru diversion channel cannot handle the
flash floods that occur in the Budameru as was recently
seen in the Sept '05 floods that flooded large parts of
Vijayawada.²⁵

4.               The AP govt has already proposed another diversion
channel at Rayanapadu at a cost of Rs 95 crores to
divert the flood water of Budameru.²⁶

5.               The proposed aqueducts on the various streams will
not be able to discharge the floodwaters and would
cause upstream flooding above the canal. This was
proved   in   the   recent   Sept   '05   floods   when   the
Yerrakalava caused severe upstream flooding above the
Eluru canal.

27

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

In view of these severe problems the AP govt. should follow the advice of the CWC to realign the canal with an off take of 33.53 m (110') that would join the Krishna between VTPS and the city. This is inevitable as any alignment that goes through the Budameru diversion channel is not technically feasible. Even though the canal passes through valuable land in Vijayawada, it would help in saving a lot of money due to the lower alignment which would help in building a barrage instead of a dam. The multiple advantages of following the CWC alignment are:

1.               A barrage with an FRL of 115' can be built instead of
a dam with an FRL of 150'.

2.               The canal can be used as an additional flood flow
diversion for the Budameru River into the Krishna and
thus   the   flood   danger  to   VTPS   can   be   reduced
significantly.

3.               The  capacity  of the  canal   can  be  reduced   by
diverting water to the Eluru canal via the Tammileru and
for the Ryves and Bandar canals via the Cheemalavagu
escape to about 5000 cusecs thus reducing the land
required for excavation.

4.               As the National Highway Authority of India and the
Vijayawada Urban Development Authority are already
contemplating to acquire land for a six-lane bypass road
from Gannavaram to Rayanapadu, the road can be laid
on the banks of the proposed canal that would run
through  this  area thus  avoiding  duplication  of  land
acquisition costs.

According to the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, the pond level at Polavaram has to be kept at 140' (42.7 m) if the inflow is more than 1 lakh cusecs, at 130' (39.6 m) if the inflow crosses 3 lakh cusecs and at 120' (36.6 m) if the inflow crosses 10 lakh cusecs. For most of the monsoon season the canals as designed would not be able to discharge at full capacity as the pond level would be lower than the full supply level of the canals. Therefore there is a need to redesign the canals to flow at lower alignments. Lowering the FRL of the reservoir to about 36.6 m would also fulfill the needs of the ayacut and the Krishna delta as the state govt has contemplated to give water only during Kharif and no water at all during Rabi.

Submergence area as submitted in the EIA

Benefits:

•          There would be minimal submergence confined to
areas within the riverbanks thus saving fertile farmlands
and avoidance of displacement.

•          There   will   be   minimal   sedimentation   due  to   a
barrage

•          The money saved can be used to construct the HEP
cum barrage at Dummugudem to generate 450 MW

•          As the National Highway Authority of India and the
Vijayawada Urban Development Authority are already
contemplating to acquire land for a six-lane bypass road
from Gannavaram to Rayanapadu, the road can be laid
on the banks of the proposed canal that would run
through this area avoiding duplication of land acquisition.

•          The canal can be used as an additional flood flow
diversion   for  the   Budameru   River   into   the   Krishna
preventing floods in Vijayawada city.

•          Over Rs 5000 crores can be saved in R & R costs.

•          There will be no threat of increased naxalism.

2.    A No Dam option: Dummagudem -Vijayawada
link²⁷ The AP govt. is also taking up the Dummugudem
HEP and Lift irrigation scheme about 35 kms upstream
of Bhadrachalam where there is already an old anicut
that was built by the British. The NWDA had proposed a
Dummugudem - Vijayawada link canal to transfer 85
TMC to the Krishna delta by gravity. This canal would
provide irrigation to the intermediate areas of Khammam
and W Godavari districts most of which are tribal areas.
This would serve  the  Right canal and also facilitate
transfer of 85 TMC to the Krishna delta.

For the left canal ayacut the Nelakota project on the River Sileru that was conceived by the AP Irrigation dept could be taken up as it would irrigate the upland areas of E Godavari districts that are not proposed to be covered under the Polavaram project and also the areas to be covered under the Polavaram project. This would entail using the regulated waters of the Sileru after HEP generation at Lower Sileru and also facilitate power generation at Nelakota.

3.    Using a Low Lift of 15 m to supply water to both
the canals The proposed cropping pattern envisages
water supply only during July - Nov. No water will be
provided to the ayacut and the Krishna delta during the
Rabi season. As there is enough water in the Godavari
in the monsoon months water can be lifted to a height of
15-20 m into both the Left and Right canals. The govt
has already been supplying water through various lift
schemes  in  the  Godavari  districts   like  Chagalnadu,
Thorigedda, etc which have been successful. Thus water
can be supplied to the whole ayacut and also to the
Krishna delta.  Presently there are 50,000 bore wells
each in the ayacut of the PLMC and PRMC, with an
average of 15 hp pump sets which aggregate to 4.5 lakh
hp totally.²⁹ The govt. is presently supplying free power
to these for 8 hours. Thus the govt can install pump sets

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

and pump water into the PRMC and PLMC and save over 10 000 crores. This is a very small lift compared to the lifts that the govt has already started construction on. In Devadula LIS water will be lifted 280 m over 5 stages, the Handri Neeva LIS entails lifting water to a height of 460 m in 10 stages.

A barrage or low dam at Polavaram that can store about 75 TMC can cater to the needs of the rabi crop in the Godavari delta. About 450 MW of power can be generated at the barrage. If the govt wants to supply water to 3 lakh acres in the Krishna delta during the Rabi then the water can be supplemented from the Sileru reservoirs by generation of power. The water from the Sileru in addition to the water stored in the Yeleru reservoir can also supplement the needs of Visakhapatnam city. In Oct-Nov when the water needs are low, water can be pumped into the upstream reservoirs and lakes like Yeleru, Tandava, etc so that the water can be used in the non monsoon months.

Conclusion The construction of the Polavaram project would entail massive social and environmental problems. Most of the over 2.5 lakh people are tribes and dalits. Construction of the dam would displace them. Most of them would be forced to resettle in the higher reaches take up shifting cultivation in the forests in the hills which would result in serious erosion of the slopes thus reducing the life of the dam very quickly.

We would like all concerned to recommend cancellation of the Project, its Environmental clearance and strongly push the AP govt to implement an alternative plan rather than the extremely destructive Polavaram Project. The excavation of canals should stop immediately as once they are excavated the govt. would try to justify their alignment for a higher dam.

Venkat Naagesh (Vijayawada, AP)

REFERENCES

1.     Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1980

2.       'Differences on Polavaram project continue', The Indian
Express, June 5,1988

3.       Polavaram Project Detailed project report, Irrigation and
Command Area Development, Govt. of AP, 1996-97

4.       www.sardarsarovardam.org

5.       Tadipudi US - Brief Profile, Irrigation & CAD Dept, Govt of
AP http://webapps.caa.aov.in/icadd/ContMai/Tadipudi.htm.
Puskaram LIS - Brief Profile, Irrigation & CAD Dept, Govt of AP
http://webapps.cga.aov.in/icadd/OngMai/PushkaraLISchemeBr
ief.htm

6.       MOEF site clearance

7.                Affidavit filed by Govt. ofAP in High Court ofAP

8.       Utilization of Godavari Waters- K.Sriramakrishnaih

9.       Irrigation in Krishna Delta in drought years, ISN Raju, SE
Vijayawada

10.    Environmental Impact Assessment of Tadipudi LIS, Hima
Ecology Associates, 7/2005

11.    GO MS 78, 96, Irrigation & CAD Dept, Govt of AP, July '05

12.    Environmental Impact Assessment of Polavaram Project,
Agricultural Finance Corporation, September 2005

13.          Ryots    around    Kolleru    seek    solution    to    flooding
http://www.hindu.eom/2005/10/24/stories/2005102406500300.
htm

14.          Polavaram                 Project,                 Brief                 Profile
http://webapps.cgg.gov.in/icadd/ContMaj/Polavaram.htm

15.          Displaced Development, The Hindu 080106
Polavaram, Tribals clear land for new settlements, The Hindu,
171005

16.          Environmental Impact Assessment of Polavaram Project,
Agricultural Finance Corporation, September 2005

17.          Central Water Commission

18.          Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1980

19.          http://www.flonnet.com/fl2217/stories/2005082600641310
O.htm      ,     http://wrmin.nic.in/events/vr2005/aug2005.htm
http://deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug62005/index202435
200585.asp

20.    Polavaram Vijayawada Link Feasibility Report, National
Water Development Agency, 1999

21.    Irrigation,      Flood     Control     and     Command     Area
Development, Ninth Five Year Plan, Planning Commission of
India, 1992

22.    Central Water Commission, Srisailam reservoir fast losing
capacity The Hindu, 031204

23.    Note on Polavaram project, Irrigation & CAD Dept, AP

24.    Perspective on utilization of Godavari waters, Irrigation &
CAD Dept, Govt. ofAP, 1999

25.    Polavaram Vijayawada Link Feasibility Report,   NWDA,
1999

26.    Budameru diversion channel needs immediate attention,
The Hindu, 241205

27.    A second diversion channel on Budameru , The Hindu
122705

28.    Dummugudem   -   Vijayawada   Link   Feasibility   Report,
National Water Development Agency, 2001

29.    Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited

Polavaram a constitutional violation

Brinda Karat, Polit Bureau member of the Communist Party of India (M) has said that Polavaram is a disastrous project and is in clear violation of the Fifth Schedule of Constitution as it alienates large tracts of tribal lands without consulting the tribals, in the name of development. She said that the project submerges 3728 ha of prime forest land but the environment clearance was given in two days. She said both the centre and the state govt has not considered the less destructive options that would reduce the flooding by constructing three dams and promised that the issue will be raised in the Parliament. (The Hindu 200206)

SRI UPDAT

No discussion on SRI at SAARC workshop on water efficiency? The 6*^h SAARC workshop on water saving technologies organized by the United States Educational Foundation in India, in collaboration with the Dept of Botanical and Environmental Sciences and Guru Nanak Dev University was held at Amritsar. It is reported (The Tribune 240206) the experts recommended restricting the cultivation of Rice, and not adoption of SRI to reduce water consumption for rice.

Dams, Rivers & People

VOL 4    ISSUE 1-2    FEB - MARCH 2006

Rs 15/- Lead  Piece

Alternatives to the proposed Polavaram dam

The way Andhra Pradesh govt has gone about pushing Polavaram Project (also a river linking scheme) smacks of many things, except development. This clearly flies in the face of all the claims that India has learnt from past experiences and the mistakes of the past won't be repeated. The manner in AP and the Union Water Resources Ministry has pushed this project in fact reflects all the worse facets of dam building in India. There has been no proper appraisal of costs, benefits of impacts. Environment Ministry has given sanction without practically any scrutiny. There has been no proper EIA, no proper public hearing or public consultation, and most importantly, better options exist. This article Venkat Naagesh exposes all this.

The AP govt. has taken up the Polavaram project overriding all objections to minimize the displacement of more than 2,50,000 people mostly tribals and dalits and saving more than 1,19,000 acres of farm land mostly belonging to tribals. This project would only benefit the areas that are already developed for the last 150 years by destroying tribal areas that have made vast strides since the last 30 years and are rapidly developing. The project is basically robbing the tribes to give it to the rich and developed. The way in which the state govt. has taken up the project raises many suspicions about the govt.'s sincerity in taking up the project for irrigation or for the contractors?

The same benefits and more can be achieved in alternate ways that would shun the misery of more than 2,50,000 people by not submerging more than 1,19,000 acres, save more than Rs 10,000 crores of taxpayer money and also save priceless forests and not damage the environment. We deplore the manner used by the govt. of AP in taking up this project. The govt.'s actions have confirmed the views of many in the state that a "Politician - Contractor" nexus exists where corruption is rampant and estimates are raised just to benefit the contractors and politicians. The propaganda of the govt. has resulted in many people being called traitors just because they raised questions about lack of justification of such projects and about the corruption in the projects.

The Polavaram project envisages transfer of 85 TMC of water from the Godavari to the Krishna delta, thus freeing up Krishna water in the upstream to use in Telangana or Rayalaseema. The project was conceived since the 1940s and in 1980 the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal allowed AP to construct the dam with an FRL of 45.72 m (150').¹ The AP govt. undertook surveys in 1984 and proposed alignments for the canals to take off at 40.23 m (135') and transfer water to the Budameru diversion channel into the Krishna whose capacity was designed for 12,000 cusecs. The AP govt.

never started the project and after the 1986 floods the Ministry of Environment and Forests declined to give environmental clearance unless catchment area treatment was undertaken, as there was massive degradation occurring in the river catchment that would reduce the life of the dam significantly.² In 1996-97 the AP govt. updated the estimates of the project to reflect the 1995 schedule of rates and put the project cost at Rs 8198 crores.³ The AP govt. decided not to take up the project in view of the limited benefits and the huge cost involved. The ratio of command area to submersible area is only 5:1.⁴ Presently the cost has been put as Rs 16,500 crores ultimately the cost is likely to go over Rs 20,000 crores. After the severe droughts of 2001 & 2002 and the change in the state govt, the new regime has taken up this project

INDEX

Alternatives to the proposed Polavaram Dam exist

Polavaram a constitutional violation: Karat

Rural Water Supply

Planning Commission on Assessment of RWS

Janhit report on Meerut Water: 124 dead already

Research on Bhoj Tal Lake

A Bengal Bill to make wetlands destruction lawful?

Get Serious about wetlands

CGWB: Groundwater Overuse in 30% of India

Rampur HEP: Violations, inadequate EIA

Malana HEP shut down for Tunnel leakage

Baspa II: HPERC extends deadline

HP's new forestry policy: NOCfrom gramsabhas mandatory 21

Power Sector: India has highest T&D losses in South Asia    23

Haryana is first state to devolve major irrigation to PRIs        24

Unprecedented Agriculture Crisis

Budget does not address the Agriculture Crisis

IFC's new standards: Risky for People and the planet

Publications available with SANDRP

Contact Himanshu Thakkar, Bipin Chandra, Swarup Bhattacharyya, Ganesh Gaud, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, C/o 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110 088. India. Ph: 91-11-2748 4654/5 cwaterp0)vsnl.com Web: www.sandrp.in OR www.narmada.org/sandrp

Dams, RiversS People

The present govt has made this project as its showpiece in the ongoing 'Jalayagnam'. But when taking up such a large project that has so many ramifications, the least the govt. could have done is to undertake a study to explore all alternatives and minimize displacement and avoid inter state problems. Instead of doing this, the govt has just reopened the old 1984 project report and decided to implement the project based on it. It has failed to see that since 1984, there have been so many demographic and social changes that have totally changed the effective landscape in the command and the submergence area.

The govt. had already taken up the Tadipudi and Puskharam lift irrigation schemes that are going to irrigate 400 000 acres of the total 720 000 acres of the Polavaram ayacut at a cost of Rs 900 crores.⁵ What justification does the govt. have in spending over Rs 20,000 crores to irrigate the remaining 3.2 lakh acres and in the process submerging 119 000 acres of valuable farm land and displacing over 250 000 people in 3 districts? Work on the canals has already started despite a high court stay, and the intention of the govt. seems to be to justify the dam as the canals have already been built.

Environment Impact Assessment When the MEF gave site clearance on the Sept 19, '04, it clearly stipulated conditions that an EIA had to be given within 18 months after fresh undertaking of at least 1 year's data. It also stipulated that suggestions and views of the public should be incorporated in the EIA.⁶ But the govt. had already given a notification for a public hearing on Sept 10, 05 and the EIA was produced for the public on the same day. According to the affidavit given by the state govt to the High Court of AP, the EIA was prepared by EPTRI, Hyderabad.⁷ But actually it was prepared by the Agricultural Finance Corp, an entity that has no environmental experience whatsoever.

•    "NO" Project Option or Alternate Sites not considered

•    Impact on Ecology , People & Community not studied

•    Impact on Wildlife and Habitat destruction not studied

•    Environmental clearance given in only 2 days

•    No public hearings conducted in Orissa & Chhattisgarh

•    PH in Bhadrachalam done after public were evicted.

No extra benefits due to the project The command area of 2,95,000 ha (7,20,000 acres) comprises the semi-upland areas of Krishna, W Godavari, E Godavari and coastal areas of Visakhaptnam district. The command area of the right canal is about 90% irrigated by bore wells and is more valuable in terms of crop yields than the delta areas. The command area of the left canal is about 60% irrigated and is rapidly undergoing a change to industrialization due its proximity to the ports of Visakhapatnam and Kakinada. The EIA has shown the command area as backward which is totally inaccurate. With the advent of the tube well and a

 

high groundwater table, the command area has totally transformed into the most agriculturally advanced region in the state. The govt. has shown these areas as dry land areas. These areas receive some of the highest rainfall in the state from both the monsoons.

The area that is going to be submerged in the reservoir is one of the finest and most fertile lands in the nation. The tribes that were previously into podu (shifting cultivation) have developed and today grow even cash crops. This area has made vast and rapid strides in all spheres of development.

Water logging, salinisation in Krishna, Godavari deltas The govt. has forgotten that the command area lies at the head of the Krishna and Godavari deltas, and any action would have its consequences on the deltas that have been the bread basket of the state for over 150 years. There has been no attempt by the govt. to study the effects this project would have on the deltas already having severe drainage problems. The existing drainage system of the delta has to cater to the additional water that would come due to the Polavaram project. The famous erstwhile engineer K Sriramakrishnaih had voiced his apprehensions about the project and the damage it would do to the delta.⁸ About 4,00,000 acres in the Krishna and Godavari districts could lose their Kharif crop due to water logging.

In the last three years only 90-100 TMC water was used for irrigating 10-13.2 lakh acres in the Krishna delta. The average yield was 30-35 bags per acre compared to this year where there was extensive water logging and the yield was just 20 bags per acre.⁹ In the deltas less water means more yield and more water means less yield.

The groundwater levels in the proposed command area vary from 0.7m-15m.¹⁰ Already some areas are water logged in monsoon. Giving more water by canal irrigation in tie monsoon would only add to the water logging problems causing a big reduction in the yields.

Cheating, misleading the centre and the public Work on the canals has started and the govt. has hugely increased the capacity to 17,500 cusecs¹¹ for both the canals from 12 500 and 8 250 cusecs¹² respectively that was furnished by the govt to the MEF in the EIA and also to the CWC. They have increased the bed widths of the canals to 85 m and 101.5 m from 68.5 m and 51.5 m for the Right and Left canals respectively. By drastically increasing the capacity of the canals, the govt is going to cause irreparable damage to the Krishna-Godavari deltas by water logging and flooding, as the drainage systems of the deltas are incapable of handling huge quantities of water.

All the drainage from the Right canal has to go through the Kolleru Lake and the Yenamadarru drain passing out through only one outlet into the sea. The capacity of the

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

Kolleru Lake to absorb flood waters has decreased drastically due to encroachments by fish tanks.¹³ The additional 100 TMC of water due to the Polavaram Right canal will only aggravate the problem of flooding and water logging. The excess capacities of the canals are also causing land alienation for small farmers who are losing everything h the process of losing land to the canals. More than 60 000 acres of land would be needed for the canals. The canals seem to be navigation facilities rather than irrigation channels.

Ecological Impacts The reservoir would submerge over 8 900 acres of prime forests in the Papikonda wildlife sanctuary and 9 000 acres of reserve and protected forests in Chhattisgarh.¹⁴ In addition it would also submerge some prime wildlife habitat of the tiger and gaur. The tribes would just undertake vertical migration up the hills and again resort to podu (shifting cultivation) that would severely denude the hills and rapidly silt up the reservoir.¹⁵ More than half of the Papikonda sanctuary would be deforested impacting the environment very severely. More than 6 minor irrigation projects Kovvada, Bhupatipalem, Musurumilli, Surampalem, Yeleru and Jalleru have the Papikonda sanctuary as their main catchment area.

Safety of the Dam The proposed design of the dam was

floated in the early 1970s and even K L Rao had expressed doubts about its design. The Godavari river is supposed to be diverted to the right after making a left turn through a 950 m spillway where the width of the river is about 2.5 km.³ If the maximum flood of 36 lakh cusecs is released the level of the water downstream will reach 100' FSL that is only 50' from the full reservoir level. More than half the earthen dam would be submerged as there is no free flow like in rocky areas that would lead to undercutting of the front of the dam.

Backwater Effect In addition to this the govt. has not undertaken any proper backwater effect studies due to a reservoir. The hydrology studies were considered only up to 1975.¹⁶ In the EIA report a flood of 36 lakh cusecs was shown to have a frequency of 500 years, but actually it occurred in 1953 and 1986 i.e. twice in 33 years. The backwater levels reached during the 1986 flood were actually more than levels claimed for a pond level of 130' when in Polavaram the level was only 100'. If a flood of that magnitude repeats what will be the safety of the dam when more than half of the dam foreshore will be submerged as there is no free flow like Nagarjunasagar?

(feet)

As seen from the above table the govt. is claiming that there will be less submergence than during a flood. They

 

conducted model studies for a flood of 36 lakh cusecs in the 1970s. But in 1986 when the big flood came then the levels were much higher than the levels claimed by the govt in model studies. So the models were proved wrong. Therefore with a reservoir the floods will be more frequent due to backwater effect and also more severe as was proved by the Almatti dam when a flood of just 5 lakh cusecs caused enormous submergence in Maharashtra submerging Sangli and Kolhapur.¹⁹ For Polavaram the backwater will be much more and it would go all the way upto Eturnagaram and Bhadrachalam would be very frequently submerged.

Sedimentation The sedimentation rates of the reservoirs have been shown as 61.73 TMC in 50 years and 78.98 TMC in 100 years.¹⁶ But in a report prepared by the NWDA the sedimentation was shown to be 130.72 TMC after 100 vears.²⁰ The assumed rate of sedimentation of 595 m / km²/ year is much lower than the actual observed rates of sedimentation in Sriramsagar and Nizamsagar projects.²¹ Except for the Indravati, the other sub tributaries Penganga, Wainganga and Pranahita carry a lot of silt as they flow through loose black soils. Even the Sabari brings enormous amounts of silt. As most of the live storage of the reservoir is behind the Papi gorge where the Godavari River takes a right turn, most of the live storage will be lost quicker than the dead storage. The reservoir will be very similar to Srisailam reservoir, which has lost its live capacity by 44 TMC from 308 TMC to 264 TMC within 21 years.²² Despite having many reservoirs upstream of Srisailam serious sedimentation has occurred. In studies conducted by the NWDA, the flow of the Godavari at Polavaram is about 10 times more than the flow of the Krishna at Srisailam and also carries much more silt than the Krishna. If correct sedimentation rates are used, the Polavaram reservoir will lose most of its capacity in 50 years.

 

Duplication of Ayacut Most of the proposed ayacut of the Polavaram project is already being irrigated and proposed to be irrigated by various medium and minor irrigation projects. In addition to these projects the Tadipudi and Pushkaram LIS would cover most of the ayacut proposed to be covered by the Polavaram project. In addition to this rapid urbanization and industrialization are taking place due to the regions proximity to three ports and a major offshore gas find. More than 20,000 acres of land has already been acquired for the setting up of an ONGC refinery at Kakinada and a mega chemical complex at Visakhapatnam. The various schemes are as below:

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

Chagalnadu LIS:                                       35,000 Acres

Torrigedda pumping scheme:                     23,000 Acres

Existing Yeleru Ayacut:                             70,000 Acres

Irrigation by Tadipudi & Pushkaram:

1,86,000 + 2,06,000 Acres = 3,92,000 Acres
Total existing Avacut:________________ 520 OOP Acres

Proposed Irrigation by Polavaram:

As seen from the above the net ayacut for the Polavaram project would be 200 000 acres after the Tadipudi and Pushkaram LIS are finished. The only other uses of the project would be the diversion of 85 TMC of water to the Krishna delta during Kharif and the industrial needs of Visakhapatnam which can be supplied from the Yeleru reservoir during the Rabi as the reservoir was constructed for that specific purpose.

Duplication of ayacut The govt. is implementing the Tadipudi and Puskaram lift irrigation schemes to irrigate 3.92 lakh acres of the proposed 7.2 lakh acres total ayacut of Polavaram. The cost of these schemes is Rs 900 crores. The canals are proposed to be dug parallel to the Polavaram canals with an FSL of 3 m and a capacity of 1 500 cusecs as opposed to the FSL of 5 m for Polavaram canals and a capacity of 17,500 cusecs.°° The irrigation dept has said that the canals will serve as distributaries to the Polavaram canals. How can the distributaries run parallel to the canal? Unnecessarily excavating two parallel canals instead of one is going to create more drainage problems, seepage problems damaging the lining of the Polavaram canals, and resulting in more wastage of valuable land and crop.

The govt has drastically increased the capacity of the canals to 17,500 cusecs for both the canals from 12,500 and 8250 cusecs respectively. They have increased the bed widths of the canals to 85 m and 101.5 m from 68.5 m and 51.5 m for the Right and Left canals respectively. The govt. is excavating the canals by full cutting instead of an embankment canal thus increasing the land required for depositing the spoils. Due to being full cutting canals it will be very difficult for the canals to command the ayacut area as the fall is very low about 1:20,000 in the ayacut area. By drastically increasing the capacity of the canals, the govt. is going to cause irreparable damage to the Krishna and Godavari deltas by water logging and flooding them, as the drainage systems for the deltas are incapable of handling such huge quantities of water.

Canal capacity & Cost

All the drainage from the Right canal has to go through the Kolleru Lake and the Yenamadarru drain passing out through only one outlet into the sea. The capacity of the Kolleru Lake to absorb flood waters has decreased drastically due to encroachments by fish tanks. The additional 100 TMC of water due to the Polavaram Right

 

canal will only exacerbate the problem of flooding and water logging. The excess capacities of the canals are also causing land alienation in small farmers who are losing everything in the process of losing land to the canals. More than 60,000 acres of land would be needed for the canals. The intention of the govt. seems to be to create facilities for navigation rather than irrigation. The state govt. should also stop the Tadipudi and Puskharam LIS and excavate just one canal and pump water into it so that it can provide irrigation benefits immediately and save money and displacement.

PRMC

PLMC

Water allocation and capacities

The Tadipudi canal was designed to use 14.8 TMC to irrigate 2.06 lakh acres at a duty of 150 (1 cusec irrigates 150 acres) with a discharge capacity of 1400 cusecs. The water allocation for the PRMC is 112 TMC and thus the remaining 98 TMC would be used to irrigate the remaining 1.12 lakh acres of PRMC ayacut from the Gunderu to Vijayawada. This will result in water shortage under Tadipudi and flooding and water logging for the remaining ayacut and also the Krishna delta as all the drainage has to go through the Gunderu, Tammileru and Budameru rivers that flow into the Kolleru increasing the flooding of the Krishna-Godavari deltas. In the EIA a very meager of 33 crores has been allocated for improving drainage. The wide disparity of irrigation intensity between the two regions raises suspicions about the govt's intention as to if it really wants to irrigate the area or just transfer water to the River Krishna. For 1.12 lakh acres of remaining ayacut of PRMC the govt. is excavating a canal with a capacity of 500 cumecs

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

(17,500 cusecs) and a bed width of 85 m when they are supposed to excavate a canal of capacity 347 cumecs (12,250 cusecs) according to the EIA.

Only one canal i.e. the PRMC with a capacity of 13,500 cusecs and a bed width of 68.5 m would be sufficient to irrigate the ayacut and transfer 85 TMC to the Krishna River. This would result in savings of over Rs 900 crores and also save over 5000 acres of valuable farmland and also save money on duplication of related structures.

The capacity of the PLMC shown in the EIA is 230 cumecs (8250 cusecs) with a bed width of 51.5 m. The PLMC has been proposed to irrigate 4 lakh acres and supply 24 TMC to meet the drinking & industrial requirements of Visakhapatnam. The supply canal to Visakhapatnam city has been designed with a capacity of 730 cusecs. The Pushkaram LIS is proposed to use 15.8 TMC to irrigate 1.86 lakh acres with a canal capacity of 1500 cusecs. The govt. has proposed both the Pushkaram and the PLMC canals to run parallel for a distance of 95 km. Pushkaram will serve as a distributary of PLMC for 95km and no distributaries are to emanate from PLMC up to 95km. Thus the same conditions that are going to be created in the Krishna delta will recur for the Godavari delta resulting in water logging & flooding.

When the govt is proposing to irrigate 1.86 lakh acres with 15.8 TMC what justification does the govt have to excavate a huge canal with a capacity of 500 cumecs (17,500 cusecs) when only 40 TMC would be required to irrigate the rest of the area and supply water to Visakhapatnam. The area is also one of the highest rainfall areas receiving rain in both the monsoons. By excavating one canal with a capacity of 237 cumecs (8250 cusecs) with a bed width of 51.5 m as opposed to 101.5 m presently, Rs 900 crores can be saved.

A White Elephant The govt has started construction of the Tadipudi and Puskharam LIS to irrigate about 4 lakh acres by pumping water from a maximum static head of 28 m at a cost of Rs 900 crores. The cost of pumping will be cheaper than estimated as the head is not more than 15 m during the rainy season. This works out to about Rs 17,500 per acre. The pumping cost yearly would be about Rs 700 per acre. But for Polavaram the cost would be over Rs 2.3 lakh according to present estimates. This is without the cost of the distributaries. The govt. might as well extend the Tadipudi and Pushkaram canals to irrigate the rest of the area as planned for the Polavaram project. Even by their estimates it would not cost more than Rs 2000 crores to irrigate all the Polavaram ayacut and supply water to the Krishna delta.

When water is only going to be supplied during the Kharif, what is the point in spending over Rs 20,000 crores to construct a project that has so many inherent problems and contradictions? If we examine the project in detail the project would be financially unviable and

 

would turn out to be Andhra's Enron. The AP govt. has also simultaneously taken up 25 irrigation projects at a cost of Rs 46,000 crores that has already increased to more than Rs 1,00,000 crores. The money saved in Polavaram could be used for more appropriate projects in backward areas like Telangana and Rayalaseema.

Land to be acquired

For R&R                 124 000 acres

For tribals              50 000 acres

For canals:            24 664 acres estimates, without  land for

distributaries

Costs (Rs crores)

Compensation for land & assets (without canals) 2535
Resettlement                                                        631

Rehabilitation                                                       476

Command area development                   :              403

Catchment area treatment____________ ;_______ 280

Total

Canals

Dam

Power house

Spillway

Connectivity

Tadipudi & Pushkaram LIS

Forest compensation_____

Total (Without compensation for canals)

Questionable  viability  of  the  Power  project  The

project would generate power at its installed capacity of 960 MW only in the rainy season for about 3 months. As the head at Polavaram is relatively low, over 180 000 cusecs would be required to generate power. With siltation, the quantity of water stored will also decrease significantly resulting in lesser power produced.

This project would also decrease the power generation at the planned Dummugudem project upstream. The bed level of the Godavari River at Dummugudem is 40 m and the FRL of 45.7 m at Polavaram would decrease the head and obstruct the free flow of water to maximize generation of power. About 100 MW of power could be lost due to the backwater effects of floods of magnitude greater than 2 lakh cusecs.

Seeds for increased naxalism? The affected area is just at the edge of the strongholds of the People's War Group. It adjoins the Dantewada and Malkangiri districts of Chhattisgarh and Orissa. It also lies at the head of the rich delta districts of E Godavari, W Godavari and Krishna in coastal Andhra. The schedule areas of E Godavari already are naxal infested. The naxals run a parallel govt. in most of Dantewada and Malkangiri districts. In Malkangiri the alienation of tribal land by the Balimela and Sileru reservoirs and by resettlement of Bangladeshi refugees has increased the number of naxal recruits significantly, it has been reported.

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

6

In Khammam district and the agency areas of E and W Godavari districts, there is a lot of tribal land alienation resulting in many disputes between tribes and non tribes. About 3 lakh acres in Khammam district is under dispute in the courts between tribes and non tribes. Similarly over 1.2 lakh acres in E and W Godavari districts are in disputes in the courts. There is no land available for the govt to resettle the displaced and is offering cash compensation. Whatever lands the govt. has offered in Schedule areas are already under possession of other tribes or under dispute in the courts. Even the land that would be provided would not match the fertility of the lands that the tribes own now. The govt. also has not made any mention of the non tribes that are going to be affected. Resettlement would only increase the disputes between tribes and non tribes causing social problems as land is a very scarce commodity in India.

Violation of Schedule V The site of the dam and the

whole submergence area has been notified under Schedule V of the constitution of India. Taking any decision without permission of gram sabhas in such areas is violating the constitution. The tribes that have been enjoying special rights under the Schedule V would lose all their rights and privileges if they are moved out. This would also violate their right to life enshrined in the constitution. The dam would wipe off the progress made by the tribes and would drive them back to living off the forests. They would again have to start shifting cultivation on the hills that would cause increased sedimentation of the reservoir reducing its life.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Series of barrages on Godavari - Polavaram FRL at 115'

The Godavari River flows at a very low level in a valley whereas its surrounding areas are at higher elevations. If a huge dam was built it would have very limited benefits due to the limited area it would irrigate compared to the area it would submerge. There is no other alternative but lift irrigation in the Godavari valley. Due to the huge flows in the rainy season, the water can be harnessed for hydro power that can be used for the lift irrigation schemes that have been started. More than 2000 MW of power can be generated from 5 run of the river sites based on the monsoon flows without any submersion.

The Godavari River is much wider in the reaches from Inchampalli to Bhadrachalam than in the stretch from Bhadrachalam to Polavaram. In some places the width is about 5 km. A lot of storage space is available within the river course. 3 barrages can be built at Kanthalapallii, Singareddypally near Edira, Dummugudem and two low dams at Inchampally with FRL 95 m and at Polavaram. The AP govt has already contemplated HEPs at Dummugudem and Kanthalapalli. These barrages would help regenerate water flows in the non monsoon seasons. The river right up to the confluence of the Pranahita and Godavari would become navigable. The

 

water stored in these barrages would be more than 150 TMC that is more than the dead storage of Polavaram. This water could be used to supplement the rabi crop in the Godavari and Krishna deltas. The money saved in avoiding building Polavaram could be used for barrages.

NWDA Studies²⁰ Due to the various problems of submergence and also the severe backwater effects during floods of the Godavari River following studies were taken up by different organizations to study the interlinking of the Krishna-Godavari rivers. I.The CWC proposed an alternative that had the canal taking off at 33.53 m (110') with an outfall level at 18.29 m (60.3'), so that the FRL could be reduced by 35' to about 115' and Orissa & Chhattisgarh would agree to it.

2.               The NWDA studied another option with an off take of
36.58 m (120') falling into the Budameru diversion canal
below the regulator at an outfall level of 20.63 m (68').

3.               The AP govt proposed the alignment with an off take
of 40.23 m (135') to join the Budameru diversion channel
at the regulator at an outfall level of 27.97 m (91.74').

The alignment given by the AP govt was chosen, as it did not pass through the outskirts of Vijayawada town and more command area being served by it. The reasons given were

1.  To have maximum command area

2.               To cross minimum number of streams

3.               To run the canal in the Budameru diversion channel
as far as possible since it has a capacity of 15,000
cusecs as claimed by the state govt.

But unfortunately the very reasons that the state govt has chosen this alignment are not true and due to the construction of the Vijayawada Thermal Power Station the scope of the Budameru Diversion channel has changed drastically. The main reasons why this alignment is not technically feasible are:

1.  The capacity of the Budameru diversion channel is 4
000 cusecs due to construction of a mini HEP.

2.               The capacity of the Budameru diversion channel is
not large enough to discharge water into the Krishna as
more   water   would   damage   the   VTPS   and   stop
generation of electricity. There is no scope of enlarging it
as there is not enough space available at VTPS.

3.               The Budameru diversion channel cannot handle the
flash floods that occur in the Budameru as was recently
seen in the Sept '05 floods that flooded large parts of
Vijayawada.²⁵

4.               The AP govt has already proposed another diversion
channel at Rayanapadu at a cost of Rs 95 crores to
divert the flood water of Budameru.²⁶

5.               The proposed aqueducts on the various streams will
not be able to discharge the floodwaters and would
cause upstream flooding above the canal. This was
proved   in   the   recent   Sept   '05   floods   when   the
Yerrakalava caused severe upstream flooding above the
Eluru canal.

27

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

In view of these severe problems the AP govt. should follow the advice of the CWC to realign the canal with an off take of 33.53 m (110') that would join the Krishna between VTPS and the city. This is inevitable as any alignment that goes through the Budameru diversion channel is not technically feasible. Even though the canal passes through valuable land in Vijayawada, it would help in saving a lot of money due to the lower alignment which would help in building a barrage instead of a dam. The multiple advantages of following the CWC alignment are:

1.               A barrage with an FRL of 115' can be built instead of
a dam with an FRL of 150'.

2.               The canal can be used as an additional flood flow
diversion for the Budameru River into the Krishna and
thus   the   flood   danger  to   VTPS   can   be   reduced
significantly.

3.               The  capacity  of the  canal   can  be  reduced   by
diverting water to the Eluru canal via the Tammileru and
for the Ryves and Bandar canals via the Cheemalavagu
escape to about 5000 cusecs thus reducing the land
required for excavation.

4.               As the National Highway Authority of India and the
Vijayawada Urban Development Authority are already
contemplating to acquire land for a six-lane bypass road
from Gannavaram to Rayanapadu, the road can be laid
on the banks of the proposed canal that would run
through  this  area thus  avoiding  duplication  of  land
acquisition costs.

According to the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, the pond level at Polavaram has to be kept at 140' (42.7 m) if the inflow is more than 1 lakh cusecs, at 130' (39.6 m) if the inflow crosses 3 lakh cusecs and at 120' (36.6 m) if the inflow crosses 10 lakh cusecs. For most of the monsoon season the canals as designed would not be able to discharge at full capacity as the pond level would be lower than the full supply level of the canals. Therefore there is a need to redesign the canals to flow at lower alignments. Lowering the FRL of the reservoir to about 36.6 m would also fulfill the needs of the ayacut and the Krishna delta as the state govt has contemplated to give water only during Kharif and no water at all during Rabi.

Submergence area as submitted in the EIA

Benefits:

•          There would be minimal submergence confined to
areas within the riverbanks thus saving fertile farmlands
and avoidance of displacement.

•          There   will   be   minimal   sedimentation   due  to   a
barrage

•          The money saved can be used to construct the HEP
cum barrage at Dummugudem to generate 450 MW

•          As the National Highway Authority of India and the
Vijayawada Urban Development Authority are already
contemplating to acquire land for a six-lane bypass road
from Gannavaram to Rayanapadu, the road can be laid
on the banks of the proposed canal that would run
through this area avoiding duplication of land acquisition.

•          The canal can be used as an additional flood flow
diversion   for  the   Budameru   River   into   the   Krishna
preventing floods in Vijayawada city.

•          Over Rs 5000 crores can be saved in R & R costs.

•          There will be no threat of increased naxalism.

2.    A No Dam option: Dummagudem -Vijayawada
link²⁷ The AP govt. is also taking up the Dummugudem
HEP and Lift irrigation scheme about 35 kms upstream
of Bhadrachalam where there is already an old anicut
that was built by the British. The NWDA had proposed a
Dummugudem - Vijayawada link canal to transfer 85
TMC to the Krishna delta by gravity. This canal would
provide irrigation to the intermediate areas of Khammam
and W Godavari districts most of which are tribal areas.
This would serve  the  Right canal and also facilitate
transfer of 85 TMC to the Krishna delta.

For the left canal ayacut the Nelakota project on the River Sileru that was conceived by the AP Irrigation dept could be taken up as it would irrigate the upland areas of E Godavari districts that are not proposed to be covered under the Polavaram project and also the areas to be covered under the Polavaram project. This would entail using the regulated waters of the Sileru after HEP generation at Lower Sileru and also facilitate power generation at Nelakota.

3.    Using a Low Lift of 15 m to supply water to both
the canals The proposed cropping pattern envisages
water supply only during July - Nov. No water will be
provided to the ayacut and the Krishna delta during the
Rabi season. As there is enough water in the Godavari
in the monsoon months water can be lifted to a height of
15-20 m into both the Left and Right canals. The govt
has already been supplying water through various lift
schemes  in  the  Godavari  districts   like  Chagalnadu,
Thorigedda, etc which have been successful. Thus water
can be supplied to the whole ayacut and also to the
Krishna delta.  Presently there are 50,000 bore wells
each in the ayacut of the PLMC and PRMC, with an
average of 15 hp pump sets which aggregate to 4.5 lakh
hp totally.²⁹ The govt. is presently supplying free power
to these for 8 hours. Thus the govt can install pump sets

SANDRP

FEB-MARCH 2006

Dams, RiversS People

and pump water into the PRMC and PLMC and save over 10 000 crores. This is a very small lift compared to the lifts that the govt has already started construction on. In Devadula LIS water will be lifted 280 m over 5 stages, the Handri Neeva LIS entails lifting water to a height of 460 m in 10 stages.

A barrage or low dam at Polavaram that can store about 75 TMC can cater to the needs of the rabi crop in the Godavari delta. About 450 MW of power can be generated at the barrage. If the govt wants to supply water to 3 lakh acres in the Krishna delta during the Rabi then the water can be supplemented from the Sileru reservoirs by generation of power. The water from the Sileru in addition to the water stored in the Yeleru reservoir can also supplement the needs of Visakhapatnam city. In Oct-Nov when the water needs are low, water can be pumped into the upstream reservoirs and lakes like Yeleru, Tandava, etc so that the water can be used in the non monsoon months.

Conclusion The construction of the Polavaram project would entail massive social and environmental problems. Most of the over 2.5 lakh people are tribes and dalits. Construction of the dam would displace them. Most of them would be forced to resettle in the higher reaches take up shifting cultivation in the forests in the hills which would result in serious erosion of the slopes thus reducing the life of the dam very quickly.

We would like all concerned to recommend cancellation of the Project, its Environmental clearance and strongly push the AP govt to implement an alternative plan rather than the extremely destructive Polavaram Project. The excavation of canals should stop immediately as once they are excavated the govt. would try to justify their alignment for a higher dam.

Venkat Naagesh (Vijayawada, AP)

REFERENCES

1.     Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1980

2.       'Differences on Polavaram project continue', The Indian
Express, June 5,1988

3.       Polavaram Project Detailed project report, Irrigation and
Command Area Development, Govt. of AP, 1996-97

4.       www.sardarsarovardam.org

5.       Tadipudi US - Brief Profile, Irrigation & CAD Dept, Govt of
AP http://webapps.caa.aov.in/icadd/ContMai/Tadipudi.htm.
Puskaram LIS - Brief Profile, Irrigation & CAD Dept, Govt of AP
http://webapps.cga.aov.in/icadd/OngMai/PushkaraLISchemeBr
ief.htm

6.       MOEF site clearance

7.                Affidavit filed by Govt. ofAP in High Court ofAP

8.       Utilization of Godavari Waters- K.Sriramakrishnaih

9.       Irrigation in Krishna Delta in drought years, ISN Raju, SE
Vijayawada

10.    Environmental Impact Assessment of Tadipudi LIS, Hima
Ecology Associates, 7/2005

11.    GO MS 78, 96, Irrigation & CAD Dept, Govt of AP, July '05

12.    Environmental Impact Assessment of Polavaram Project,
Agricultural Finance Corporation, September 2005

13.          Ryots    around    Kolleru    seek    solution    to    flooding
http://www.hindu.eom/2005/10/24/stories/2005102406500300.
htm

14.          Polavaram                 Project,                 Brief                 Profile
http://webapps.cgg.gov.in/icadd/ContMaj/Polavaram.htm

15.          Displaced Development, The Hindu 080106
Polavaram, Tribals clear land for new settlements, The Hindu,
171005

16.          Environmental Impact Assessment of Polavaram Project,
Agricultural Finance Corporation, September 2005

17.          Central Water Commission

18.          Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1980

19.          http://www.flonnet.com/fl2217/stories/2005082600641310
O.htm      ,     http://wrmin.nic.in/events/vr2005/aug2005.htm
http://deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug62005/index202435
200585.asp

20.    Polavaram Vijayawada Link Feasibility Report, National
Water Development Agency, 1999

21.    Irrigation,      Flood     Control     and     Command     Area
Development, Ninth Five Year Plan, Planning Commission of
India, 1992

22.    Central Water Commission, Srisailam reservoir fast losing
capacity The Hindu, 031204

23.    Note on Polavaram project, Irrigation & CAD Dept, AP

24.    Perspective on utilization of Godavari waters, Irrigation &
CAD Dept, Govt. ofAP, 1999

25.    Polavaram Vijayawada Link Feasibility Report,   NWDA,
1999

26.    Budameru diversion channel needs immediate attention,
The Hindu, 241205

27.    A second diversion channel on Budameru , The Hindu
122705

28.    Dummugudem   -   Vijayawada   Link   Feasibility   Report,
National Water Development Agency, 2001

29.    Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited

Polavaram a constitutional violation

Brinda Karat, Polit Bureau member of the Communist Party of India (M) has said that Polavaram is a disastrous project and is in clear violation of the Fifth Schedule of Constitution as it alienates large tracts of tribal lands without consulting the tribals, in the name of development. She said that the project submerges 3728 ha of prime forest land but the environment clearance was given in two days. She said both the centre and the state govt has not considered the less destructive options that would reduce the flooding by constructing three dams and promised that the issue will be raised in the Parliament. (The Hindu 200206)

SRI UPDAT

No discussion on SRI at SAARC workshop on water efficiency? The 6*^h SAARC workshop on water saving technologies organized by the United States Educational Foundation in India, in collaboration with the Dept of Botanical and Environmental Sciences and Guru Nanak Dev University was held at Amritsar. It is reported (The Tribune 240206) the experts recommended restricting the cultivation of Rice, and not adoption of SRI to reduce water consumption for rice.