http://www.sakti.in/godavaribasin/indira-enviranmental.htm

http://gitam.edu/old/www.gitam.edu/science/envstud/envr_achievements/shivajirao.html

Browse all the 7(0 to 6) websites on Polavaram dam

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/IN/2/Polavaram.html

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-0

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-1

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-2

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-3

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdamimages-4

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-5

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-6

http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter1.htm

profshivajirao.googlepages.com/seemakugodavarijalalesaranyam (Telugu Article)

(See other chapters 1 to 8 of the above website)

For more details on Dam safety,see:

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/modifyingsardarsarovardam

http://kfki.baw.de/conferences/ICHE/2002-Warsaw/ARTICLES/PDF/129C2.pdf [ Asian Dams]

includes standards followed by China,asian coutries and ICOLD

Prof.T.Shivaji Rao,
Director, Centre for Environmental Studies,GITAM University, Visakhapatnam-530045

RAMA TEMPLE OF SOUTH INDIA FLOOD IN AUGUST 1986

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-editorialfeatures/when-bhadrachalam-was-under-a-sheet-of-water/article2710249.ece

GROSS UNDER ESTIMATES ON IMPACTS OF FLOODS BY GOVERNMENT

District	Villages under floods
District	36 lakhs cusecs As per Govt.	28.5 lakh cusecs Actual flood	49.5 lakhs cusecs (Revised flood)
Khammam	205	295	?
Population Affected	1,77,000	2,50,000	?
Land Affected	1 lakh acres	1.3 lakh acres	?

For more pictures on Godavari sub basins see website: http://www.sakti.in/godavaribasin/basindetails.htm

Dr.K.L.Rao warned 25 years ago that Polavaram is highly under-designed and hence will not work

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sVfucOHVYnsC&pg=PA247&dq=cross+section+of+krishna+anicut+or+barrage+on+krishna+river+at+vijayawada&hl=en&ei=N4_0TIHyGIeecLmzvP0E&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=true

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL FOR POLAVARAM MADE BY FORMER CE GENENRAL, SHRI.T.HANUMANTHA RAO

IRRIGATION PUMPING PROJECT ON GODAVARI RIVER

– T. HANUMANTHA RAO

T.Hanumantha Rao

Chairman, Technical Committee, H6-3-S83 A/11, Punjagutta,

Water Conservation Mission, Government of A. P. Hyderabad - 500 082.

United Nations (OPS) Consultant for Asian Countries. Phone: 23402048.

Former Engineer-in-Chief, A.P.

About two decades back it was felt that it is not possible to fully utilize the available 800 TMC of Godavari water out of the allocated water to Andhra Pradesh. Even if reservoirs have to be constructed water level in the same would be at about 100 meters above Mean Sea Level (MSL) and bulk of the area in Telangana to be irrigated would be available between levels 200 and 400 MSL. The average head of pumping in such a case would be 150 meters. It was then considered financially not viable to pump a quantity of nearly 600 TMC for irrigating these areas. This is the reason that projects like Ichampally were designed for gravity flow irrigation using 80 TMC and the rest for generating hydropower. If water has to be pumped for an average height of 150 meters, power consumption alone would workout, (at the rate of Rs.3/- per unit), to Rs. 10,700/- per acre (for supplying 900 mm depth of water), for Kharif wet crops. For Kharif ID crops, for three wetting and 150 mm depth of irrigation, the power consumption charges would work out to Rs. 1,780/- per acre. For Rabi ID crops to give ten wettings (total 500 mm depth) the cost of power requirement is Rs.5,940/- per acre. These power consumption charges are exorbitant. Neither the farmer nor the government subsidy would be able to sustain the system. If a dedicated thermal power station is built, exclusively for the purpose of supplying the required power and capital expenditure is charged to the irrigation project, the cost of consumables like coal and other maintenance charges would workout to Rs.1.50 per unit. On this basis, the power charges would become half of the above mentioned figures, namely Rs.5.3507- per acre for Kharif wet, Rs.890/- per acre for kharif ID. Rs.2.970/- per acre for rabi ID even these figures are extremely high and the farmers will not able to bear this expenditure in addition to other costs of pumping.

In the existing lift irrigation schemes constructed by the Irrigation Development Corporation nearest 50% of the- scheme (157 out of 320) have become defunct on account of the farmers not in a position to pay the electric consumption charges. This is the situation when the average head of pumping is only 30 meters. If the head of pumping is five times of this, it can easily be concluded that the system is not sustainable on its own. It is also not possible for the government to give huge subsidies every year. Thus the lift irrigation projects now contemplated on Godavari river (e.g. Devadula) would not be sustainable if the average pumping head is 150 meters. A method has to be found out for providing almost free power, out of the Godavari system, to enable pumping water (irrigation) for such high heads. The power resources will have to be generated through hydropower within the Godavari basin and the cost of the hydro power stations will have to be charged to the irrigation project. Since there are no consumables and the maintenance charges for the same would be nominal, they can be merged with the irrigation maintenance and almost free power can be supplied. The enable this, 3 reservoirs will have be constructed across Godavari. It is possible to generate 3400 megawatt of power through four barrages and three dams across Godavari river. This would be adequate to meet the requirement of 2900 megawatt to utilize 760 TMC of Godavari water. The three reservoirs can be located at (a) Suraram between confluence of Pranahita and Indravathi rivers, (b) Down stream of Kantalapalli near Eturunagaram, (c) Polavaram. The four barrages would be at (a) near Peddaballal down stream of Kadam river confluence, (b) Yellampalli, (c) Upstream of Edira, (d) Dummagudem. These four barrages would be able to generate 1000 megawatt of power during- kharif period. A capacity of 2400 megawatt can be generated during the kharif period in the three reservoirs. The whole system of barrages and reservoirs would be able to generate 1000 megawatt of power during the rabi period when water is led down for Godavari delta. The power of 3400 megawatt during the kharif can be used for irrigating 46 lakhs acres of kharif wet crops and the rabi reason power of 1000 megawatts cab be utilized for irrigating rabi ID crops for an extent of 23 lakhs acres.

Lift irrigation projects of huge magnitude on Godavari river should not betaken up for execution, unless the same are tied up with hydro electric projects. This is the only method that would make possible, the utilization of the balance 760 TMC in Godavari river, presently being wasted to the sea.

Unless free power is provided for the Godavari pumping projects the systems can not be financially viable either to the farmers or to the government.

ALTERNATE PROPOSALS TO POLAVARAM BY SHRI.M.DHARMA RAO ,FORMER CHIEF ENGINEER

Details of alternate proposal:

The present proposal of polavaram project envisages utilization of about 300 Tmc with canals on the two flanks, approximately 115 Tmc under left flank and 105 TMC under right flank canal and 80 Tmc diversion to Krishna barrage. The required water is proposed to be stored and diverted by constructing a huge dam across Godavari at Polavaram.

The alternate proposal envisages a comprehensive utilization of the existing projects and which are in the active consideration of the government in the Godavari valley. In this proposal it is not required to construct the polavaram reservoir as now proposed.

Brief description of the proposal is given below:

1. System for the Left flank requirements

In the Godavari basin Sabari river including main tributary Sileru river contributes about 200 Tmc to main Godavari river. This water is available at higher level and above the F.R.L. of the proposed Polavaram Project and can be harnessed at higher level as described below.

(a) Sileru river has got many existing hydro electric schemes which contribute regulated flow of about 4,000 cusecs for atleast 9 months in a year. This regulated flow can be harnessed at a level of about 300 ft by constructing a barrage across the river and diverting the flow into the sokleru river valley.

(b) Construction of a reservoir across Sokleru river to store water diverted from Sileru river

(c) A barrage can be constructed across Sabari river at a level abot +150' and at least 25% of its flow can be diverted into the canal taking off from sokleru reservoir.

(d) The canal taking of from the Sokleru reservoir can be aligned at suitable level and can be dropped into a reservoir across Pam'uleru river.

(e) Reservoirs also can be constructed across Pamuleru River and other hilly tributaries in this region to tap the waters of these hilly streams which contribute considerable amount of water.

All those proposals can be formulated with a comprehensive design as required altitude available for location of the barrages-reservoirs and canals. The canals and reservoirs proposed are upsteam of Polavaram dam and at higher elevation and as such can supply water to the left flank requirements.

The total water thus available as a conservative estimate will be

(1) Even if we propose to tap waters of regulated flow released from the hydro electric schemes on Sileru river in only six monsoon months the availability will be about 65 Tmc from Sileru basin.

(2) As per the norms which are being followed a diversion scheme across Sabari river where the monsoon rainfall is more than 45 inches can divert 25% of the 75% dependable yield. The 75% dependable yield of sabari river alone excluding sileru river is about 120 Tmc and as such we can divert 30 Tmc.

(3) Sokleru, Pamuleru and other 4 or 5 minor valleys contribute about 20 Tmc. All these put together will be (65+30+20) 115 Tmc. The regulated flow from Sileru, balancing reservoirs on the Sokleru, Pamuleru and other tributaries and barrage across Sabari river will provide assured water supply to the left flank requirements as envisaged under the present polavaram project.

Advantages of this system are:

(1) Existing reservoirs on sileru river can be improved to hold extra water, thereby increasing the hydro electric and irrigation potential.

(2) The proposed reservoirs across Sokleru, Pamuleru and other streams will act as balancing reservoirs and will off set excess of low flows in the different valleys. These reservoirs and the Canal running at higher contour will increase ground water table in the area and will solve drinking water problems of not only Vishakhapatnam but poor people in the forest. At present there is severe water scarcity in the valley in the summer season and wild life is also suffering.

(3) The rise in water table will contribute to forest growth and many forest species will thrive contributing to health of the people in the valley.

(4) At present there are no proper communication facilities. The canal can be designed to have a road on the bank which will be not only useful for inspection but for communication and will act as bank for flood control.

(5) All the villages and towns in the toes of eastern ghat can be supplied water from this canal as it is at higher level than the polavaram canal.

(6) Considerable saving can be effected in the power requirement as there will be no need to lift water from lower level to cover more ayacut and villages as in the now proposed project.

(7) The small reservoirs, barrages and communication net work along the canal will save many heritage sites and temples, Papikondalu and will be an eco tourest destination.

(8) Hydro electricity can be produced at the toe of the proposed balancing reservoirs on Sokleru and Pamuleru.

II) System for the Right flank requirements

There is an existing anicut across Godavari at Dummugudem, which is proposed to be improved to store water up to +165 ft level. This anicut is at up stream location and at higher elevation than Polavaram project.

At Dummugudem anicut sufficient perennial flow of more than 35,000 Cusecs is available and at 75% dependability about 600 Tmc of water is available and as such there is no dearth of water at this point.

It is important to note that assured water can be supplied from Dummugudem anicut as there are proposals of construction of Ichampally Hydro Electric Project, Singareddygudem Hydro Electric Project up stream of Dummugudem anicut and modernization of Dummugudem anicut. These three systems as they are also Hydro Electric Schemes will enable the assured water at Dummudugem anicut for diversion to the right flank of Godavari River from higher elevation than Polavaram Project. Even in Polavaram Project design Inchampalli Project plays vital role for supply of regulated flow. Further to Inchampalli Project singareddiGudem and modernization of Dummugudem schemes are added.

Therefore there will not be any dearth of water supply at Dummugudem anicut for diversion to serve the right flank requirements of Polavarm Project and diversion of water into Krishna vally and Prakasam prakasm barrage.

This system can be utilized and canal can be proposed from the right flank of Dummugudem and aligned to run parallel to Godavari River upto Kinnersani River and after crossing this river encountrers Godavari-Krishna ridge. A tunnel will have to be provided to cross this ridge and after this the canal can be designed to supply water on the right flank of Godavari.

Advantages of this system are:

(1) The envisaged benefits under Polavaram Right Canal can be easily achieved by the canal taking off from Dummuguda Anicut as it will be at higher level than the present Polavaram Right Canal.

(2) Many areas in Krishna valley particularly tail end of Nagarjuna sagar canal can also be served.

(3) As the canal enter into Krishna valley after crossing the ridge 80 Tmc of water can also be supplied to Krishna valley and ultimately into Krishna barrage.

(4) The canal will be a garland canal running down stream of the reservoirs already constructed across many streams joining Godavari in the right flank. At least 30 Tmc of water can be harnessed at higher level by improving the existing systems on the tributaries.

(5) This canal will supply water by gravity to large areas in Khammam, West Godavari and Krishna districts.

(6) As the canal runs parallel to Godavari River it can also be designed to act as flood bank and to carry a road for inspecti'on and communication purpose.

At this juncture it is to be pointed out that the proposed tunnel to cross the Godavari 85 Krishna ridge can be easily constructed as many varieties of tunnel boring machines are available in the market. As the tunnel boring technology is easily available the Government of Andhra Pradesh is also proposing to construct tunnels for SLBC and for other canals. Therefore it is not difficult for Government of Andhra Pradesh to take up this tunnel.

The feasibility of this diversion scheme from Dummugudem anicut has been studied by Khosla, Gulhati Commissions earlier and . recently by the Government of Andhra Pradesh

in connection with the proposals of diverting Godavari waters into Krishna valley. Therefore the technical feasibility has already been established.

The proposed canals in the left and right flank will have dead length for certain stretch but cost of these canals including barrages, balancing reservoirs and tunnels will be far less than the construction cost of Polavaram reservoir and cost of rehabilitation of villages and people. As the proposals avoids huge submergence of lands, forest and displacement of 300 villages and two lakhs of people, it will be acceptable to the people.

There will be no opposing section in the society for the alternate proposals as it may involve submergence of only 4 or 5 villages, that is to say the entire displacement of tribal people and submergence of 300 villages is avoided and all the envisaged benefits can be achieved without creating any animosity in the society and all sections will welcome the proposals.

Further one more important aspect is that there is no submergence in the neighbouring States and there are no interstate problems.

The alternate proposals envisages construction of barrages and number of small balancing reservoirs across many streams joining Godavari and will be storing water throughout the year. Therefore it contributes to the improvement of ground water in the entire delta systems and will be stabilizing the ayacut of Godavari and Krishna deltas.

conclusion:

1. In the new proposals there are no opposing sections of people and all are only beneficiaries and as such the scheme will be acceptable to all and can be easily implemented.

2. The entire proposed system is in Andhra Pradesh territory and as such required decisions can be taken at the State Government level.

3 .This involves know n technology for boring the tunnels.

4 .The proposal consists of small barrages and reservoirs and as such the system can be constructed within five years and the benefits can be achieved in a short period.

5. This scheme protects the environment and the tribals.

6. Last and most important feature of this scheme is that it saves about 1.5 lakhs acres cultivable land, 300 villages, public utilities already developed by the Government and National heritage sites, temples, Papi Kondalu from permanent submergence.

7. We will be not only saving National assets but preserve our ecosystem, heritage and culture.

ALTERNATE PROPOSALS TO POLAVARAM BY SHRI.K.SRIRAMAKRISHNAIAH

K Sriramakrishnaiah

The Godavari flows almost close to the northern border. The water is to be transported to higher levels negotiating the rising topography and over long distances.

Lift irrigation is therefore a must and distances to be reached are great. The following strategies are evolved and adopted.

New Techniques (Alternatives)

1. Use of natural water resources to function as canal systems.

2. Low head pumping arrangements.

3. Storage reservoirs submerging only unproductive lands without much rehabilation problems.

4. Swapping of waters from one system to the other.

5. Beneficiaries participation and management from investigation to execution and operation.

The study revealed that about 600 TMC can be pumped without any head works across the Godavari. Utilising streams as carriers of pumped water and swapping of water from one system to the other has resulted in considerable economy, least disturbance to the environment and need less maintenance.

The scheme to irrigate 58 lakh acres, providing 40 TMC for drinking and industries, 10 TMC to Hyderabad and 40 TMC to Rayalaseema is made out after detailed study of levels and topography.

The cost per acre is as low as Rs.11,000 to 12,000. The total power required during 4 to 5 months of rainy season is about 3000 MW, which can be managed over a period of 15 to 20 years. All clearances can easily be obtained since no inter-state problems are involved and only limited problems relating to environment are involved.

Water supply to the Hyderabad city can be had at 30 to 50% of the cost of bringing water from the Nagarjunasagar.

New financial instruments need to be developed. The scheme can be financed by the beneficiaries, if only the required atmosphere is created by suitable steps like enactments of the required acts, etc. The government can act as friend, philosopher and guide, generously lending financial. Administrative and technical support when needed at the right time.

EIA Notification of 1994

Annex-I http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/iass/eia/Annex1.htm

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS-NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 27^th January, 1994 (As amended on 04/05/1994, 10/04/1997, 27/1/2000 and 13/12/2000)

1. S.O. 60 (E) Whereas a notification under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 inviting objections from the public within sixty days from the date of publication of the said notification, against the intention of the Central Government to impose restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and modernization of any activity or new projects being undertaken in any part of India unless environmental clearance has been accorded by the Central Government or the State Government in accordance with the procedure specified in that notification was published as SO No. 80(E) dated 28^th January, 1993;

And whereas all objections received have been duly considered;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby directs that on and from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, expansion or modernization of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one, or new project listed in Schedule I to this notification, shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded environmental clearance by the Central Government in accordance with the procedure hereinafter specified in this notification;

2. Requirements and procedure for seeking environmental clearance of projects:

I(a) Any person who desires to undertake any new project in any part of India or the expansion or modernization of any existing industry or project listed in the Schedule-I shall submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.

The application shall be made in the proforma specified in Schedule-II of this notification and shall be accompanied by a project report which shall, inter alia, include an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, an ** Environment Management Plan and details of public hearing as specified in Schedule-IV** prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests from time to time.

(b) Cases rejected due to submission of insufficient or inadequate data and *Plans may be reviewed as and when submitted with complete data and *Plans. Submission of incomplete data or plans for the second time would itself be a sufficient reason for the Impact assessment Agency to reject the case summarily.

II In case of the following site specific projects:

(a) mining;

(b) pit-head thermal power stations;

(d) ports and harbours (excluding minor ports);

(e) *prospecting and exploration of major minerals in areas above 500 hectares; *

The project authorities will intimate the location of the project site to the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests while initiating any investigation and surveys. The Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests will convey a decision regarding suitability or otherwise of the proposed site within a maximum period of thirty days. *The said site clearance shall be granted for a sanctioned capacity and shall be valid for a period of five years for commencing the construction, operation or mining. *

III (a)The reports submitted with the application shall be evaluated and assessed by the Impact Assessment Agency, *and if deemed necessary it may consult* a committee of Experts, having a composition as specified in Schedule-III of this Notification. The Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) would be the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Committee of Experts mentioned above shall be constituted by the Impact Assessment Agency or such other body under the Central Government authorised by the Impact Assessment Agency in this regard.

(b) The said Committee of Experts shall have full right of entry and inspection of the site or, as the case may be, factory premises at any time prior to, during or after the commencement of the operations relating to the project.

**(c) The Impact Assessment Agency shall prepare a set of recommendations based on technical assessment of documents and data, furnished by the project authorities, supplemented by data collected during visits to sites or factories if undertaken, and details of public hearing.

The assessment shall be completed within a period of ninety days from receipt of the requisite documents and data from the project authorities and completion of public hearing and decision conveyed within thirty days thereafter.

The clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years for commencement of the construction or operation of the project. **

*III A.* No construction work, preliminary or otherwise, relating to the setting up of the project may be undertaken till the environmental and site clearance is obtained.

IV. In order to enable the Impact Assessment Agency to monitor effectively the implementation of the recommendations and conditions subject to which the environmental clearance has been given, the project authorities concerned shall submit a half yearly report to the *Impact Assessment Agency. Subject to the public interest, * the Impact Assessment Agency shall make compliance reports publicly available.

V. If no comments from the Impact Assessment Agency are received within the time limit, the project would be deemed to have been approved as proposed by project authorities.

3. Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to:

(a) any item falling under entry Nos. 3, 18 and 20 of the Schedule-I to be located or proposed to be located in the areas covered by the Notifications S.O. No.102 (E) dated 1^st February, 1989, S.O. 114 (E) dated 20^th February, 1991; *S.O. No. 416 (E) dated 20^th June, 1991* and S.O. No.319 (E) dated 7^th May, 1992.

(b) any item falling under entry Nos.1,2,3,4,5,9,10,13, 16,17,19,*21*,25 and 27 of Schedule-I if the investment is less than Rs.50 crores.

(d) defence related road construction projects in border areas.

4. Concealing factual data or submission of false, misleading data/reports, decisions or recommendations would lead to the project being rejected. Approval, if granted earlier on the basis of false data, would also be revoked. Misleading and wrong information will cover the following:

· False information

· False data

· Engineered reports

· Concealing of factual data

· False recommendations or decisions

[No.Z-12013/4/89-IA-I] SCHEDULE-I (See paras 1 and 2)

LIST OF PROJECTS REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

1. Nuclear Power and related projects such as Heavy Water Plants, nuclear fuel complex, Rare Earths.

2. River Valley projects including hydel power, major Irrigation and their combination including flood control.

3. Ports, Harbours, Airports (except minor ports and harbours).

4. Petroleum Refineries including crude and product pipelines.

5. Chemical Fertilizers (Nitrogenous and Phosphatic other than single superphosphate).

6. Pesticides (Technical).

7. Petrochemical complexes (Both Olefinic and Aromatic) and Petro-chemical intermediates such as DMT, Caprolactam, LAB etc. and production of basic plastics such as LLDPE, HDPE, PP, PVC.

8. Bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals.

9. Exploration for oil and gas and their production, transportation and storage.

10. Synthetic Rubber.

11. Asbestos and Asbestos products.

12. Hydrocyanic acid and its derivatives.

13 (a) Primary metallurgical industries (such as production of Iron and Steel, Aluminium, Copper, Zinc, Lead and Ferro Alloys).

(b) Electric arc furnaces (Mini Steel Plants).

14. Chlor alkali industry.

15. Integrated paint complex including manufacture of resins and basic raw materials required in the manufacture of paints.

16. Viscose Staple fibre and filament yarn.

17. Storage batteries integrated with manufacture of oxides of lead and lead antimony alloys.

18. All tourism projects between 200m—500 metres of High Water Line and at locations with an elevation of more than 1000 metres with investment of more than Rs.5 crores.

19. Thermal Power Plants.

20. Mining projects *(major minerals)* with leases more than 5 hectares.

21. Highway Projects **except projects relating to improvement work including widening and strengthening of roads with marginal land acquisition along the existing alignments provided it does not pass through ecologically sensitive areas such as National Parks, Sanctuaries, Tiger Reserves, Reserve Forests**

22. Tarred Roads in the Himalayas and or Forest areas.

23. Distilleries.

24. Raw Skins and Hides

25. Pulp, paper and newsprint.

26. Dyes.

27. Cement.

28. Foundries (individual)

29. Electroplating

30. Meta amino phenol

SCHEDULE-II [See Sub-para I (a) of para 2] ---- APPLICATION FORM

1.(a) Name and Address of the project proposed:

(b) Location of the project:

Name of the Place:

District, Tehsil:

Latitude/Longitude:

Nearest Airport/Railway Station:

(d) Does the site conform to stipulated land use as per local land use plan:

2. Objectives of the project:

3. (a) Land Requirement:

Agriculture Land:

Forest land and Density of vegetation.

Other (specify):

(b) (i) Land use in the Catchment within 10 kms radius of the proposed site:

(ii) Topography of the area indicating gradient, aspects and altitude:

(iii) Erodibility classification of the proposed land:

(d) Distance of the nearest National Park/Sanctuary/Biosphere Reserve/Monuments/heritage site/Reserve Forest:

(e) Rehabilitation plan for quarries/borrow areas:

(f) Green belt plan:

(g) Compensatory afforestation plan:

4. Climate and Air Quality:

(a) Windrose at site:

(b) Max/Min/Mean annual temperature:

(d) Frequency of cyclones/tornadoes/cloud burst:

(e) Ambient air quality data:

(f) Nature & concentration of emission of SPM, Gas (CO, CO₂, NOx, CHn etc.) from the project:

5. Water balance:

(a) Water balance at site:

(b) Lean season water availability;

Water Requirement:

(d) Water quality:

(e) Changes observed in quality and quantity of groundwater in the last years and present charging and extraction details:

(f) (i) Quantum of waste water to be released with treatment details:

(ii) Quantum of quality of water in the receiving body before and after disposal of solid wastes:

(iii) Quantum of waste water to be released on land and type of land:

(g) (i) Details of reservoir water quality with necessary Catchment Treatment Plan:

(ii) Command Area Development Plan:

6. Solid wastes:

(a) Nature and quantity of solid wastes generated

(b) Solid waste disposal method:

7. Noise and Vibrations:

(a) Sources of Noise and Vibrations:

(b) Ambient noise level:

(d) Subsidence problem, if any, with control measures:

8.Power requirement indicating source of supply: Complete environmental details to be furnished separately, if captive power unit proposed:

9. Peak labour force to be deployed giving details of:

- Endemic health problems in the area due to waste water/air/soil borne diseases:

- Health care system existing and proposed:

10. (a) Number of villages and population to be displaced:

11. Risk Assessment Report and Disaster Management Plan:

Report prepared as per guidelines issued by the Central Government in the MOEF from time to time:

12. (a) Environmental Impact Assessment

(b) Environment Management Plan:

(d) Duly filled in questionnaire

13. Details of Environmental Management Cell:

I hereby give an undertaking that the data and information given above are due to the best of my knowledge and belief and I am aware that if any part of the data/information submitted is found to be false or misleading at any stage, the project be rejected and the clearance given, if any, to the project is likely to be revoked at our risk and cost.

Signature of the applicant With name and full address Given under the seal of Organisation on behalf of Whom the applicant is signing

Date: & Place

In respect to item for which data are not required or is not available as per the declaration of project proponent, the project would be considered on that basis.

SCHEDULE-III [See sub-para III (a) of Para 2]

COMPOSITION OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1. *The Committees will consist of experts in the following disciplines:*

(i) Eco-system Management

(ii) Air/Water Pollution Control

(iii) Water Resource Management

(iv) Flora/Fauna conservation and management

(v) Land Use Planning

(vi) Social Sciences/Rehabilitation

(vii) Project Appraisal

(viii) Ecology

(ix) Environmental Health

(x) Subject Area Specialists

(xi) Representatives of NGOs/persons concerned with environmental issues.

2. The Chairman will be an outstanding and experienced ecologist or environmentalist or technical professional with wide managerial experience in the relevant development sector.

3. The representative of Impact Assessment Agency will act as a Member-Secretary.

4. Chairman and Members will serve in their individual capacities except those specifically nominated as representatives.

5. The Membership of a Committee shall not exceed 15.

SCHEDULE-IV (See Sub-para 1 of para 2)

Procedure for Public Hearing

(1) Process of Public Hearing: - Whoever apply for environmental clearance of projects, shall submit to the concerned State Pollution Control Board twenty sets of the following documents namely: -

(i) An executive summary containing the salient features of the project both in English as well as local language.

(ii) Form XIII prescribed under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 where discharge of sewage, trade effluents, treatment of water in any form, is required.

(iii) Form I prescribed under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Under Territory Rules, 1983 where discharge of emissions are involved in any process, operation or industry.

(iv) Any other information or document, which is necessary in the opinion of the Board for their final disposal of the application.

(2) Notice of Public Hearing: -

(i) The State Pollution Control Board shall cause a notice for environmental public hearing which shall be published in at least two newspapers widely circulated in the region around the project, one of which shall be in the vernacular language of the locality concerned. State Pollution Control Board shall mention the date, time and place of public hearing. Suggestions, views, comments and objections of the public shall be invited within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification.

(ii) All persons including bona fide residents, environmental groups and others located at the project site/sites of displacement/sites likely to be affected can participate in the public hearing. They can also make oral/written suggestions to the State Pollution Control Board.

Explanation: - For the purpose of the paragraph person means: -

(a) any person who is likely to be affected by the grant of environmental clearance;

(b) any person who owns or has control over the project with respect to which an application has been submitted for environmental clearance;

(c) any association of persons whether incorporated or not like to be affected by the project and/or functioning in the filed of environment;

(d) any local authority within any part of whose local limits is within the neighbourhood, wherein the project is proposed to be located.

(3) Composition of public hearing panel: - The composition of Public Hearing Panel may consist of the following, namely: -

(i) Representative of State Pollution Control Board;

(ii) District Collector or his nominee;

(iii) Representative of State Government dealing with the subject;

(iv) Representative of Department of the State Government dealing with Environment;

(v) Not more than three representatives of the local bodies such as Municipalities or panchayats;

(vi) Not more than three senior citizens of the area nominated by the District Collector.

(4) Access to the Executive Summary and Environmental Impact assessment report:- The concerned persons shall be provided access to the Executive Summary and Environmental Impact assessment report of the project at the following places, namely:-

(i) District Collector Office;

(ii) District Industry Centre;

(iii) In the Office of the Chief Executive Officers of Zila Praishad or Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation/Local body as the case may be;

(iv) In the head office of the concerned State Pollution Control Board and its concerned Regional Office.

(v) In the concerned Department of the State Government dealing with the subject of environment.

[No.Z-12013/4/89-IA]

Foot note: The Principal Notification was published vide number S.O. 60 (E) dated 27^th January 1994 and subsequently amended vide numbers S.O. 356(E) dated 4^th may, 1994, S.O. 318 (E) dated 10^th April, 1997, S.O. 73 (E) dated 27^th January, 2000 and S. O. 1119 (E) dated 13^th December, 2000.

****

NOTE: * and** and bold letters indicate అమెంద్మేన్త్స్

http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter1.htm

(See other chapters from 1 to 8 of the above website)

http://www.sscac.gov.in/p_maindam.html [Drainage:88,000Sq.km.Design flood:1 in 1000 years:87,000 cumecs]

http://www.sandrp.in/drp/feb-Mar2006.pdf

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/modifyingsardarsarovardam [sardar sarovar dam]

http://www.irn.org/programs/brazil_dams/index.php?id=archive/060628campos.html

http://www.sfenvironment.com/articles_pr/2003/article/120503.htm [safety principles]

http://www.fmd-online.de/indien/news/Samata%20Report.pdf#search=%22pushkaram%20lift%20irrigation%20project%2CA.P.Government%20scheme%22[ Too costly project]

www.cehq.gouv.qc.ca/loisreglements/barrages/reglement/index-en.htm [ Safety Check Flood,Canada]

http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-60-2002mo.pdf [PIL,pp.9&10]

http://kfki.baw.de/fileadmin/conferences/ICHE/2002-Warsaw/ARTICLES/PDF/129C2.pdf.

The above 2 sites are good- Design Flood Criteria is for Dams for Asian and other countries .

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/7500/7520.doc

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/dams/Images/pdfs/guidelines_EAP.pdf[EAP plans]

Having accepted the use of a Design flood of 1 in 1000 years,of 87,000 cumecs for the catchment of 88,000 Sq.km.for Sardar sarovar project, how can CWCaccept blindly the Design flood of 1,02,000 cumecs for polavaram Dam for its 3.5 times higher adjoining catchment of 3,06,643 sq.km,unless CWC considers Polavaram Dam as a prescription for Disaster that kills 45 lakhs of people in the Godavari Delta.?[see EIA ]

some experts treat 500-year return flood as equivalent to 0.4 PMF in some specific cases

For the tables see page 35 of http://www.defra.gov.uk/........ -21.pdf of the above web site
For the above graph see page 33 of http://www.partnerre.com/pdf/Flood-2002.pdf#search=%22%22Figure.8%3ARelationship%20between%20short%20term%20rainfall%22%22

http://wrmin.nic.in/publication/ar2000/ar00ch10.html

Causes of dam breaks and their percentages due to Chinese statistics

No< namespace="" prefix="o" xml="true">	Causes	Percentage
1	Overtopping, including 1) insuffiency of spill facilities 2) extreme flood exceeding design criteria	51.5 42.0 9.5
2	Piping and other seepage problems, including 1) Piping in dam body 2) Piping at foundations 3) Piping around spillway 4) Piping around tunnel	29.1 22.7 1.3 0.6 4.5
3	Other structural problems 1) Slope, slide of dam body 2) Quality trouble in spillway 3) Quality trouble in tunnel	9.4 2.6 6.0 0.8
4	Poor management, including 1) Decrease of reservoir standard for flood control due to over storage prior to flood season 2) Poor maintenance and operation 3) Temporary bag dam on spillway crest failed to remove in time 4) Nobody in charge of management	4.2 1.1 1.3 0.5 1.3
5	Others including 1) Spillway blocked due to blank slide in reservoir 2) Digging breach on dam face for discharging 3) Poor planning of general layout of project	4.6 1.7 2.3 0.6
6	Unknown	1.2

The Chinese statistics show well that in a tightly populated country also small dams may cause potential hazards and threat to human lives. < namespace="" prefix="st1" ns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xml="true">China has a significant dam & reservoir building program of 200 to 250 dams every year: Due to the establishment of rules and regulations and the development of modern techniques in design, construction, operation and management, only a few dam break events have happened in China after 1980. The potential risk for dam fallures and related hazards is nevertheless well understood in China, and the research on dam break dynamics has been evaluated one of the most important tasks for future development. http://www.hydrocoop.org/rsmgeneralstatus.htm

Dam Failures:USA[ASCE]

http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/downloads/ses3hthandouttech.doc

There are over 80,000 dams in the U.S. (FEMA 1993, 12). More than 20,000 have been rated as “significantly” hazardous, with about 10,000 of these rated as “high” hazard (FEMA 1993, 12). High hazard signifies that significant loss of life and property is likely.

35% of the high hazard dams have not been inspected since 1990. (ASCE 1998)

More than 2,000 communities are at risk from dams that have been identified as unsafe. (FEMA 1995, p. SM Sim 1-3)

A 6 March 1998 American Society of Civil Engineers report notes that in the past ten years more than 200 dam failures occurred (ASCE 1998). The report goes on to state that:

…an alarming number of dams across the country are showing signs of age and lack proper maintenance. Downstream development is increasing. Most older dams were build without adequate spillways to release water in heavy rains, which causes water to run over the top. Inadequate spillway capacities are the most common deficiency and a major cause of dam failures. Dam safety officials estimate that thousands of dams are at risk of failing or are disasters waiting to happen. (Quoted in National Hazards Observer 1998)

It has been estimated that the average cost of repairing one unsafe dam is approximately $500,000, meaning that it would cost approximately $1 billion to rehabilitate all unsafe U.S. dams (ASCE 1998).

“At the present time, about one-third of all dam failures are caused by over-topping due to inadequate spillway design, about one-third are caused by seepage through the dam and the remaining third are due to foundation problems and other effects, such as the liquefaction of earth dams as a result of earthquakes or landslide-generated waves within the reservoir” (Smith 1996, 318).

In May of 1889, over 2,200 people died when a 36-40 foot wall of water hit Johnstown, Pennsylvania, when an earthen dam failed (FEMA and NOAA 1996, p. III-28).

On March 12, 1928, the St Francis dam in Ventura County, CA failed catastrophically, releasing “[a] wall of water 60 meters high…into the [San Francisquito] canyon and dispersed into the Santa Clara Valley, through the towns of Piru and Fillmore on its way to the Pacific Ocean (Reisner 1993). The flood killed 450 people, destroyed 1,250 homes, and inundated 7,900 acres of prime agricultural land, thus constituting one of the worst human-made disasters in US history (Outland 1977).” (Bolin/Stanford 1998, 108)

1972: “a poorly maintained dam burst…in the coal mining valley of Buffalo Creek, West Virginia…[with] no warning and 125 people were killed and 4,000-5,000 were made homeless” (Smith 1996, 260).

1985, October 7: 29 people died in Puerto Rico when water overflows the in-need-of-repair Coamo River Dam and collapse a pan of the Las Americas Expressway (NRC 1994, 120).

1992, June 9: 238 people died in Rapid City South Dakota when the Pactola Dam failed after 15 inches of rain fell overnight causing the water to rise 12 feet behind the dam. Approximately $160 million in property damage was recorded. (Abbot 1996, 303-304)

Eminent Irrigation Expert , Dr.K.L.Rao WARNS AGAINST SAFETY OF POLAVARAM DAM

Extract from Indian Express (Vijayawada 1-5-1983)

In an exclusive interview to Express News Service Dr.Rao who is taking rest at Nellore said yesterday that there was not enough water in the Krishna to take up any new projects upstream without affecting the existing ones downstream.

Referring to claims of the people of Telangana region and the districts of Cuddapah and

Chittoor for Krishna waters through Srisailam right and left canals and extending the benefits of Telugu Ganga to more areas Dr.Rao said “They are fighting for water that is not there”

Dr.Rao ruled out the possibility of diverting surplus Godavari waters to the Krishna owing to defective designing of the Polavaram project and high cost involved in the Sriramapada Sagar project.

Only 1800ft spillway was provided in the Polavaram project to clear 40 lakh cusecs of flood waters in the Godavari as against 13,000 ft long Dhowlaiswaram anicut designed by Sir Arthur Cotton. Even Prakasam barrage was designed to 6,280 ft. long though the flood water would not be more than 12 lakh cusecs, Dr.Rao said.

It was simple arithmetic to understand that the Polavaram design would not work, he said.

EXTRACTS FROM GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IRRIGATION & C.A.D DEPARTMENT ON “POLAVARAM PROJECT” (TELUGU GODAVARI SUJALA SAGARAM) PREPARED BY POLAVARAM BARRGE INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY, Oct-Dec 1986.

1. But it is after the confluence with Sabari that some of the most picturesque scenes of the world are seen. The Godavari begins to wind amongst the spurs of the Eastern Ghats, which gradually close on it, till it is forced to go through a picturesque gorge at papikonda which for 3km is as narrow as 200 or 300 meters. ( 200 to 300 feet as per Inchampalli project report of June 1970) The depths of the river in the gorge is between 30 to 80m at flood time. The hills rise with steep sides to heights upto 700 to 1000m and are clothed from the water’s edge to the summit with luxurious vegetations. When Dr.Kari Terzaghi, the great soil scientist visited this place, he was a complete ecastacy and remarked that such sights are almost unique and unparalled.

2. INTERSTATE ASPECTS : SHARING OF WATERS AMONG BASIN STATES:

The waters of the river Krishna and Godavari were allotted among the basin states as per the 1951 agreement. After the reorganization of the states in 1956 there were major changes in the boundaries of the basin states and all attempts for an amicable settlement between the party states proved futile. The Government of India, therefore, on 10-4-69 constituted the Godavari water disputes tribunal.

The tribunal could not take-up the hearing on sharing of Godavari water till April 1974 in view of its pre-occupation with similar issue on Krishna River. In view of this no new project could be taken up by any state. To resolve this crisis the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India on 19-7-1975 has convened a meeting of the Chief Ministers of party states which paved the way for concluding bilateral agreements. These agreements were subsequently ratified on 19-12-75 under a common agreement. Further agreements have also been concluded which were incorporated in the final adjudication of Godavari water disputes tribunal dated 7-7-80.

As per clause VI of the final order of the Tribunal.

i) the Polavaram project shall be cleared by the Central Water Commission as expeditiously as possible for FRL / MWL +150ft.

ii) the matter of design of the dam and its operation schedule is left to the Central Water Commission which itself decide keeping in view of all the agreements between the parties including the agreement dated 2-4-80 as far as practicable.

iii) If there is to be any change in the operation schedule as indicated in the agreement dated 2-4-80, it shall be made only after consultation with the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. The design aspects shall however be left to the Central Water Commission.

EXTRACT FROM REPORT ON INCHAMPALLI PROJECT (JUNE 1970), PWD, GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

Protection to establish and contemplated irrigation in Godavari delta: The last project proposed in the Lower Godavari basin is a barrage a Polavaram which is about 8 miles below Inchampalli dam. The canals of Polavaram barrage scheme follow on the same alignment as envisaged in the Rampadasagar project originally proposed in 1951 to serve the upland areas in Krishna, West Godavari, East Godavari and Vizag districts. The requirements for the canals taking off from the Polavaram barrge as well as the supplies for the existing Godavari delta system will be met from the regulated releases from the power house at Inchampalli with an MDDL of 360.00, the FRL required for Inchampalli reservoir is +390.00. The evaporation losses in the reservoir are about 80 TMC

Silt storage and dead storage:

The drainage area at Inchampalli is 1,00,300 sq.miles. This area will be intercepted by three main storages at Pochampad on Godavari (35,425sq.miles) at Watra Badruka Talai on Pranahita (36,900 sq.miles) and at Bhopalapatnam on Indravthi (14,013 sq.miles) and at Potgal on Lower Manair (2,567 sq.miles) near Karimnagar. Therefore the free catchment area at Inchampalli is 1,00,300-88,905=11395 sq.miles. The rate of silting from the free catchment is reckoned at 75 acre per 100 sq.miles of catchment per year. Further in the case of intercepted catchment, the rte of silting is assumed as 20 per cent of what is due from free catchment area. Therefore to provide at least 200 years life before silting encroaches on live storage, a dead storage capacity of 190.00 TMC will be required as detailed below.

1. 11,395 x 75/100x 4840 x 9 x 200 = 75 TMC

2. 88,905 x 75/100x 5 x 4840 x9 x 200 = 115 TMC

------------

Total = 190 TMC

------------

The corresponding dead storage level for 190 TMC is 359.50 or say 3 60.0 . As it is a key structure on the main river, catering not only to direct ayacut but also has to ensure supplies to the ayacuts under the Polavaram and Dowlaiswaram barrage a life period of 200 years is considered essential.

Extract of.Shivaji Rao's Talk at a SEMINAR on Water Management on 24-9-2006 ,Maruteru,W.Godavari .

"I have today read the book on Sir Arthur Cotton in which some technical information has been presented by the other experts.[see page 78]
Mr.Walch in his book on Engineering works on Godavari Delta says"Godavari drains 115,000 sq.miles area and produces maximum flood of one and a half million cusecs[15 lakhs cusecs].As Godavari begins to wind amongst the spurs of the eastern ghats,it forces its way through a gorge which for 2 miles is so narrow that a stone may be thrown from either bank into the middle of the river.During floods,the rocky river bed is scoured to great depths of 100 to 200 feet and the high floods rise to 50 ft.,there is a torrent from 150 to 250 deep.On 16-9-1849,high flood occured,with 33.5 feet mark at Rajahmundry and 25.4 feet mark at Dowleshwaram.
When I asked an experienced person on the Godavari Bank at Achanta about the depths of river banks above the river bed level,I was told that it varies from about 30 feet at polavaram to 40 feet at Rajahmundry , Dowleshwaram and Alamur and falls to 30 feet at Gannavaram and Achanta and will be 15 to 20 feet at Antarvedi

POLAVARAM BACKWATER AFFLUX - AP STATE GOVERNMENT

Name of the site	Discharge in cusecs
Name of the site	30,00,000	36,00,000
(i) Without Dam: Polavaram Dam Kunavaram Konta	92.07 157.37 158.07	94.88 (28.92) 165.57 (50.46) 166.10 (50.63)
(ii) With Dam (and with different pond levels during floods (a) Polavaram dam Kunavaram Konta	140.00 163.80 164.23	140.00 (42.67) 170.09 (51.84) 170.75 (52.04)
(b) Polavaram dam Kunavaram Konta	145.00 165.85 166.23	145.00 (44.20) 172.03 (52.44) 172.33 (52.53)
(c) Polavaram dam Kunavaram Konta	150.00 168.23 168.54	150.00 (45.72) 173.97 (53.03) 174.22 (53.10)

POLAVARAM PROJECT – BACKWATER PROFILE CALCULATIONS< namespace="" prefix="o" ns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xml="true">

Name of the site	Discharge in Cumecs
Name of the site	85,000 (30 lakh cusecs)	1,02,000 (36 lakh cusecs)	1,36,200 (48 lakh cusecs)	1,54,300 (54lakh cusecs)
i) Without dam
Polavaram	28.06m (92.07ft)	28.92m (94.88ft)	30.6m (100.48ft)	31.5m(103.20ft)
Kunavaram	47.9 m (157.2 ft)	50.5m (165.8ft)	54.57m(179.0ft)	55.68m(182.7ft)
Konta	48.18m(158.1ft)	50.63m(166.1ft)
Bhadrachalam	54.23m(177.9ft)	57.09m(187.3ft)	61.76m (202.6 ft)	63.57m(208.6ft)
ii) With the dam (with different pond levels due to floods)
a) Polavaram	42.67m(140ft)	42.67m(140ft)	42.67m(140ft)	42.67m(140ft)
Kunavaram	50.39m(165.3ft)	52.58m(172.5ft)	56.86m(186.5ft)	58.95m(193.4ft)
Bhadrachalam	55.38m(181.7ft)	58.04m(190.4ft)	62.89m(206.3ft)	65.16m(213.8ft)
b) Polavaram	45.72m(150ft)	45.72m(150ft)	45.72m(150ft)	45.72m(150ft)
Kunavaram	52.18m (171.2 ft)	54.18 m(177.8)	58.22m(191.0ft)	60.21m(197.5ft)
Bhadrachalam	56.40m(185.0ft)	58.93m (193.3)	63.64m(208.8ft)	65.88m(216.1ft)

Note: The above values are based upon the information from the Bachawat Tribunal Report and the calculations made by the author on the basis of the Advanced Numerical Methods using the Standard-step Method described by K.Subrahmanya in his standard book on flow in open channels.

GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING DESIGN FLOODS

Design Flood:

For the design of hydraulic structures like aqueducts, pick up weirs, anicuts, barrages, minor dams, medium and major dam spillways. The volume of the flood selected from economic considerations do not provide for handling the maximum possible flood from the catchment and hence they are designed for less severe flood because the damages likely to be caused by higher extreme floods than the selected design flood may not be very serious. Hence such selected flood used for the design is called the design flood.

Spillway Design Flood (SDF): SDF spillway design flood may be considered as the design flood used for spillway design and its maximum discharge can be passed through the spillway without causing any damage to the structure.

Stand Project Flood (SPF): SPF is defined as a flood resulting from a severe combination of Meteorological and hydrological factors reasonably applicable to the region. However extremely rare combinations of meteorological and hydrological factors are excluded. It is used where failure of the structure could not cause severe damages and its value is 40% to 60% of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the same drainage area.

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF): PMF is that extreme flood which is physically possible in a region due to extreme combinations including rare events of Meteorological and hydrological factors. PMF is used when failure of the dam would cause considerable loss of life and catastrophic damage and hence complete security from potential floods is essential.

Since design criteria for selecting the design flood for different structures like anicuts, barrages, small, medium and large dams vary from one country to another the guidelines formulated by the Central Water Commission [CWC] are presented in the following table.

GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING DESIGN FLOODS, (CWC, INDIA)

S.No.	Structure	Recommended design flood
1.	Spillways for major and medium projects with storages more than 60Mm³	a) PMF determined by unit hydrograph and probable maximum precipitation (PMP) b) If (a) is not applicable or possible flood-frequency method with T = 1000years
2.	Permanent barrage and minor dams with capacity less than 60Mm³	a) SPF determined by unit hydrograph and standard project storm (SPS) which is usually the largest recorded storm in the region. b) Flood with a return period of 100 years (a) or (b) whichever gives higher value
3.	Pickup weirs	Flood with a return period of 100 or 50 years depending on the importance of the project.
4.	Aqueducts (a) Waterway (b) Foundations and free board	Flood with T = 50 years Flood with T = 100 years
5.	Project with scanty or inadequate data	Empirical formulae
Ref: CWC India “Estimation of Design Flood Peak”, Report No.1/73, New Delhi, 1973.

Similar guidelines for design floods used for fixing the spillway capacity of dams issued by the Indian Bureau of Standards in 1985 are presented in the following table

SIZE CLASSIFICATION OF DAMS

Class	Gross storage (Mm³)	Hydraulic head (m)
Small	0.5 to 10.0	7.5 to 12.0
Intermediate	10.0 to 60.0	12.0 to 30.0
Large	>60.0	>30.0

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD FOR DAMS

Size/Class (based on Table 7.9 (a)	Inflow design flood for safety
Small	100-year flood
Intermediate	Standard project flood (SPF)
Large	Probable Maximum flood (PMF)

Hydraulic Head : Hydraulic head is defined as the difference between the maximum water level on the upstream and the normal average flood level on the downstream side of the dam.

Ref: Indian Bureau of Standards “Guidelines for fixing spillway capacity” IS:11223-1985

EXTRACT from THE HINDU , 21-11-2006: CPI{M]DEMAND FOR REDESIGN OF POLAVARAM DAM

< namespace="" prefix="st1" ns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xml="true">HYDERABAD: The CPI(M) State Committee has asked the Government to explore alternatives for the construction of Indirasagar (Polavaram) project as the present design will adversely impact the livelihood of lakhs of people, tribals in particular. The two-day meeting of the State Committee that commenced here on Monday observed that the design was not in tune with the probable maximum flood report of the Central Water Commission, national rehabilitation policy and draft national tribal policy. < namespace="" prefix="o" ns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xml="true">
Maximum flood The probable maximum flood in the design was pegged at 47.67 lakh cusecs which was over 30 per cent higher than the 36 lakh cusecs maximum flood recorded in the Godavari's history. Given the huge damage incurred during the recent flood that recorded 28 lakh cusecs of flow, the damage that would be caused by 47.67 lakhs would be enormous.
Harmful impacts of Flood Banks While the Government was claiming that strengthening of flood banks would be a solution, it ought to recall the letter written by former Principal of Administrative Staff College of India E.A.S. Sarma that mentioned about the harmful impact of the flood banks.
Rehabilitation policy The party urged the Government to consider the recent national rehabilitation policy that made it mandatory to conduct a social impact study of projects. The draft national policy on tribals was against permitting any major project that would affect more than 50,000 tribals whereas over one lakh tribals would be displaced by the Indirasagar project. In view of this, the party asked the Government to explore alternatives that would ensure minimum submergence.

http://www.sakti.in/godavaribasin/indira-enviranmental.htm

http://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/storage/docs/initial_alt_info/01_eng_ta/21_iai_eta_attach_d.pdf
http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType125/Production/gdlnextrmfld.pdf

http://webserver.cr.usgs.gov/nawqa/splt/

http://www.nawcinc.com/splatte.pdf

http://balwois.mpl.ird.fr/balwois/administration/full_paper/ffp-553.pdf

[How to calculate PMP ,PMPand IDF values for US reservoir catchments ]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=A37EAA893C53F1ECEDA363ACAC1139ED.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=48227

[PMF values for India vary from 70 to 170 cm.per day ]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=47971

[PMF values for 2-day and 3-day duration for India varies from 120 cm to 370 cm for different places]http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=47971

http://gitam.edu/old/www.gitam.edu/science/envstud/envr_achievements/shivajirao.html
Browse all the 7(0 to 6) websites on Polavaram dam

http://www.sscac.gov.in/p_maindam.html
Having accepted the use of a Design flood of 1 in 1000 years,of 87,000 cumecs for the catchment of 88,000 Sq.km.for Sardar sarovar project, how can CWCaccept blindly the Design flood of 1,02,000 cumecs for polavaram Dam for its Environmental Clearence in October,2005 for its 3.5 times higher adjoining catchment of 3,06,643 sq.km,unless CWC considers Polavaram Dam as a prescription for Disaster that kills 45 lakhs of people in the Godavari Delta.? ThusPeak flood works out to 1.00 Cumecs per Sq.km.But CWC revised peak flood of 50 lakhs cusecs in Oct/Nov.2006 for Polavaram although it is still not in tune with international Design standards?
The catchment area of the Tehri dam is 7,511 sq. km out of which 2,328 sq km lies above the snow line.http://www.nodig06.im.com.au/pdfs/9%20Rajeev%20Vishnoi.pdf

Tehri Spillway is a Modern design based on PMF of 10,000 years return period,estimated at 15,540 cumecs

Peak flood works out to 2.00 Cumecs per Sq.km Based upon this criteria CWC must naturally design for a Peak flood of atleast 2 to 3 lakhs Cumecs for Polavaram Dam by taking either the total or intercepted catchment of Godavari river basin.But does CWC consider this view?

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/IN/2/Polavaram.html
http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-0
http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-1

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-2

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-3
http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdamimages-4
http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-5

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-6

http://jarle.nve.no/nncold/images/NNCOLD/Konferanser/Fagseminar/claudebessiere.pdf

Norway Dam design : ICOLD "Safety Check Flood"

http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter1.htm

profshivajirao.googlepages.com/seemakugodavarijalalesaranyam (Telugu Article) (See other chapters 1 to 10 of the above web sites )
For more details on Dam safety,see:

http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/modifyingsardarsarovardam .

http://kfki.baw.de/conferences/ICHE/2002-Warsaw/ARTICLES/PDF/129C2.pdf [Asian Dams] includes standards followed by China, Asian coutries and ICOLD

Since Polavaram site is at the head of the plains area of Godavari Delta,it is suitable only for a Barrage and not at all suitable for a Dam with a storage reservoir because the stored water on failure of the dam gets automatically converted into man-made flood flow of 24 lakhs cusecs which gets added to the already flowing peak flood of about 36 lakhs cusecs .This is like adding fuel to the fire to transform it into a highly destructive conflagration.Naturally all the cities,towns and villages below the Dam will have to face a peak flood of 60 lakhs cusecs for the safe containment of which Extreme flood the Godavari flood embankments have not at all been designed and consequently 50 lakhs of people down strem will face a watery grave for no fault of theirs.So,polavaram site is unfit for locating a Big Dam unless CWC chooses it as a prescription for a major man-made Disaster to promote the vested interests of the officials and politicians who are generally influenced by the business interests who want to make a fast buck at any cost in a very short time

GROSS UNDER ESTIMATES ON IMPACTS OF FLOODS BY GOVERNMENT

District	Villages under floods
District	36 lakhs cusecs As per Govt.	28.5 lakh cusecs Actual flood	49.5 lakhs cusecs (Revised flood)
Khammam	205	295	?
Population Affected	1,77,000	2,50,000	?
Land Affected	1 lakh acres	1.3 lakh acres	?

For more pictures on Godavari sub basins see website: http://www.sakti.in/godavaribasin/basindetails.htm

Dr.K.L.Rao warned 25 years ago that Polavaram is highly under-designed and hence will not work

Unresolved problems by MAY,2007 by Central water Commission

The Central Water Commission is reported to have been examining several problems pertaing to crucial issues of the polavaram project as stated in the News report under the web site:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/05/09/stories/2007050903082100.htm

"The Central Water Commission (CWC) is appraising various `ticklish' issues concerning the Polavaram project, which has got into controversy in the State.
Issues regarding irrigation planning, hydel civil design, cost, backwaters and inter-State aspects are being studied by the CWC, according to an official release.
The project is to be executed in accordance with the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award and Inter-State Agreement on the project between the State governments of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa.
As per the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan of October 2005 prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Government, an area of 587.77 hectares in Orissa was likely to be submerged. A population of 6,318 is likely to be affected, the release quoting the Minister of State for Water Resources, Mr Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav, said.
The Minister said the figures need to be confirmed by conducting a joint survey by the two State governments at the earliest."[From :The Business Line,Dt.9-5-2007]

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL FOR POLAVARAM : BY FORMER CE GENENRAL, SHRI.T.HANUMANTHA RAO

http://www.sakti.in/godavaribasin/Alternatives-hanmanthrao.htm