-->
Notice from Union Ministry of Environment to AP State on Bungling of Polavaram dam
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/118735/jairams-green-rap-for-andhra-over-dam.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2010/11/bungling-of-polavaram-dam.html
PUBLIC HEARING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE OF POLAVARAM PROJECTS
(Published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, and Section 3, Sub-section (ii)
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS New Delhi 14th September, 2006)
At present
there was a controversy on holding public hearing for embankments
project estimated at Rs.700 crores as a supplementary project of the
Polavaram dam. The AP Chief Minister is declaring that AP State cannot
hold this public hearing for their Polavaram project in Orissa and
Chattisgarh. The Orissa and Chattisgarh state Governments are refusing
to hold public hearing on this project because they have filed cases in
the supreme Court against the Polavaram dam and hence it may be
subjudice. But the Central Government Ministry of Environment and
Forest issued a notice to the AP State Government why they are going
ahead with the Polavaram dam project without holding public hearings on
the embankments project in Orissa and Chattisgarh. In the normal
conditions the AP State Government should have maintained cordial
relations with Orissa and Chattisgarh on this project for securing their
approval for the main dam project and also this supplementary
embankments project. Similarly they require the consent of these upper
states even for the 960 MW hydro-power project which is part of the
Polavaram dam project. Now the AP State Government has taken a posture
of confrontation with the upper states and is demanding the Union
Government to use its good offices to convince the upper states to the
construction of Polvaram dam project estimated at Rs.16,000 crores.
INTRODUCTION:
AP state and central government experts deliberately ignored the
standard procedures for estimating the spillway design flood and
rendered the project design defective as already stated by Dr.KL Rao.
The experts failed to get their knowledge updated for using the state of
art technology for Polavaram dam.
1985 “GuidelinesThe
Indian Standard IS : 11223 –for fixing spillway
capacity” gives the criteria for inflow design flood as follows:
The
dams may be classified according to size by using the hydraulic head
(from normal or annual average flood level on the downstream to the
maximum water level) and the gross storage behind the dam as given
below. The overall size classification for the dam would be greater of
that indicated by either of the following two parameters:
Floods
of larger or smaller magnitude may be used if the hazard involved in
the eventuality of a failure is particularly high or low. The relevant
parameters to be considered in judging the hazard
in addition to the size would be:
(i) distance to and location of the human habitations on the downstream after considering the likely future developments.
(ii) Maximum hydraulic capacity of the downstream channel at a level at which catastrophic damage is not expected.
For
more important projects, dam break studies may be done as an aid to the
judgement in deciding whether PMF needs to be used. Where the studies
or judgement indicate an imminent danger to present or future human
settlements, the PMF should be used. Any departure from the general
criteria as above on account of larger or smaller hazard should be
clearly brought out and recorded.
Each
site is individual in its local conditions and evaluation of cause and
effects. While, therefore, the norms mentioned above may be taken as
general guidelines, the criteria could be varied in special cases where
the same are justifiable on account of local conditions and keeping in
view the hazard potential. When a dam capable of impounding large
quantity of water is constructed above an area having extensive
community, industry and agriculture, a distinct hazard from a possible
failure is created. The failure of a dam so located would have
disastrous effects.
In addition to loss of life, loss to property, loss of revenue from the
project, the deliberate acceptance of a calculated risk in the spillway
design and free board would reduce the public confidence in the safety
of similar structures.
The
spillway capacities and free board allowances of such a dam should be
adequate to insure against failure of the dam during the most severe
flood or sequence of floods considered reasonably possible, irrespective
of the apparent infrequency of occurrence of controlling conditions.
3.5.2 Experience data
In
some cases where design data are lacking, an evaluation of overtopping
potential may be based on watershed characteristics and rainfall and
reservoir records. An estimate of the probable
maximum
flood may also be developed from a conservative, generalized comparison
of the drainage area, size and the magnitude of recently adopted
probable maximum floods for dam sites in comparable hydrologic regions.
Where
the review of such experience data indicates that the recommended
spillway design flood would not cause overtopping, additional hydraulic
and hydrologic determinations will be unnecessary.
As
per the standard procedures to be followed for ensuring safety of the
dam the experts failed to implement even the ISI Standards and CWC
guidelines as can be seen from the above matter. For instance if the
incremental increase in flood consequent to the dam failure is about
2ft. the project design has to be changed. But in the case of Polavaram
dam the incremental increase of flood due to dam break is exceedingly
high than this limit and hence the project proponents have a
responsibility to either change the location of the project to construct
a dam at a place like Inchampalli or to construct only a diversion
barrage at Polavaram to ensure the safety of the project and the lives
and properties of people who will be killed in case of a dam burst due
to extreme floods, earthquakes, construction defects or operation
failures during cyclonic storms.
1) AP ENGINEERS MISLEAD CHIEF MINISTERS AND THE CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION ON GODAVARI FLOODS and proper selection of site for the project
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-inevitable-collapse-of-polavaram.html
http://sites.google.com/site/shivajirao32/
http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-0
-->
(See Horsetooth dam burst case-
-->
-Make an
indepth study of the dam break analysis report, including emergency
action plans and economic costs to be presented in the environmental
impact assessment report on similar lines for Polavaram dam project
Unfortunately the Engineers did not prepare these relevant crucial reports rules cited under web site:
before taking even the partial first environmental clearence on 25-5-2005
http://www.cwc.gov.in/main/downloads/EAPChapters.pd[dam-disaster management plans,EAP reports of CWC guidelines on dam safety]
)
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth_carter/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter1.htm
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth_carter/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter2.htm
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth_carter/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter4.htm
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth_carter/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter5.
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth_carter/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter6.htm
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth_carter/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter7.htm
-->
-->
http://www.dowrorissa.gov.in/DamSafety/Dam%20Safety%20activity%20report.pdf
http://nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/4129963896.PDF [ see last paragraph]
http://nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/6479885403.PDF [ see para 8.1 and 8.2]
indicates that while Central Water Commission suggested for off take canal at 33.53 m 110ft elevation with a discharge point in Krishna basin at about 18.29 m 60ft,
the AP state Government for its own vested interests for increasing the
elevation of the Polavaram dam on a large scale insisted on increasing
the level of Polavaram at off take level of 40.23 m 133ft with a discharge point in river Krishna at an elevation of about 27.97 m 92ft.
Moreover the Central Water Comission always considered Polavaram as a
barrage structure for purposes of design flood and thereby accepted for
spillway design a 500-year return flood of 36 lakhs cusecs while the CWC
guidelines insist on considering for the size of Polavaram dam a
Probable Maximum Flood or a 1000-year return flood for spillway design
purposes.
Moreover the NWDA website on Polavaram project clearly states under
table 9.2 of the report under the Polavaram right canal out of
1,62,691ha of irrigable land area only 44,000 ha is unirrigated while
the rest of the land is irrigated under different sources like canals,
lift irrigation systems,borewells and village tanks. Hence there is
only about 1 lakh acres of land available to be irrigated by water from
Polavaram dam while the claim is made for irrigating about 3 lakh acres
under this right canal. In fact independent experts have collected
field data which shows that about 95% lands under the left polavaram
canal is already irrigated and only 5% land may get benefitted by
polavaram dam project.see the following web site:
http://www.weap21.org/downloads/NRLP.pdf [ see pages 65 and 66]
Similarly under the left canal of the Polavaram project while about 4
lakh acres is proposed to be irrigated with water from Polavaram dam
about 2.5 lakh acres is already under irrigation under the lift
irrigation schemes,canals, medium irrigation projects, borewells and
village tanks with the result that only about 1.5 lakh acres can be fed
by Godavari waters from Polavaram project. If these two true facts are
taken into conisideration the cost benefit analysis of Polavaram dam
will be negative and there is no feasibility for taking up this project
to promote national economy and how can planning commission
promote.such project that is risky as also not economically viable but
also verycostly, uneconomical and detrimental to public interests
AP State Engineers misled AP Chief Minister to entered into
impracticable and illegal Interstate agreement with Madhya Pradesh and
Orissa during August and December 1978 ( extract of para 100 and 102 of
Bachawat Tribunal report of 1979:
Clause VIII(E) of the Agreement dated the 7th August, 1978 between Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra provides—
“(E) The state of Madhya Pradesh agrees subject to the State of Orissa agreeing for the construction of Polavaram project of the State of Andhra Pradesh
so that the maximum submergence in Madhya Pradesh territory at Konta
does not exceed R.L.+150ft due to all effects including backwater
effect. The Polavaram project shall be designed for the maximum probable
flood in consultation with the Central Water Commission so as not to
exceed the limit of submergence mentioned above.”
Clause-II(I) of the Agreement between the states of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa dated the 15th December, 1978 provides-
“(I) The States of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh agree for the construction of Polavaram Project of the State of Andhra Pradesh, so that the maximum submersion in the State of Orissa
territory at Motu/Konta does not exceed RL +150ft due to all effects
including backwater effect. The Polavaram Project shall be designed for
the maximum probable flood in consultation with the Central Water
Commission so as not to exceed the limit of submergence mentioned
above”.
CWC reminds AP State Engineers about their mistakes in drafting the agreement:
The Central Water Commission sent letter No.6/125/78-T.E/25, 12-2514, dated the 3rd July, 1979 to Andhra Pradesh Government, the material portion of which is as follows:
“It is seen from the project report that the State Government of Andhra
Pradesh have proposed the Polavaram project for an FRL /MWL of +150ft.
Therefore, prima facie, with MWL at Polavaram at RL +150ft. submergence
due to all effects including that of backwater effect will always be
more than RL +150ft. upstream and also at Konta. The State Government
will no doubt be working out the backwater effects at Konta/Motu
considering advance releases from Polavaram Dam. It is however seen that
during the year, 1966 CWC had observed that a flood level at Konta had
reached an RL 46.595m (RL +153ft). which is 0.875 m higher than RL
45.72m(RL 150ft) This is an observed flood whose frequency is expected
to be high. For a flood at Konta corresponding to frequency the flood
adopted for the Polavaram Dam (which will be between 1 in 500 years to 1
in 1000 years), the natural flood level at Konta should be expected to
be substantially higher than RL +45.72m (RL +150ft.) It would thus be
seen that the stipulation that a flood level at Konta/Motu should not
rise above RL +150ft will not be practicable and that the agreements
entered into by the States may have to be suitably modified. Perhaps
this situation about observed flood level at Konta might not have been
known to you and other states when this agreement was concluded.”
2) AP STATE ENGINEERS
DESIGNATED POLAVARAM AS A BARRAGE AND THEREBY MISLEAD CENTRAL WATER
COMMISSION TO ACCEPT PEAK FLOOD OF 36 LAKH CUSECS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
POLAVARAM PROEJCT (E-MAIL DT.11-12-2009)
Central Water Commission,Hydrology (South) Directorate,on Floods Letter dt.13-2-2008
In the earlier studies, the project authorities proposed a design flood
of 80,000 cumecs (36 lakh cusecs). These studies were based on flood
frequency approach and the observed data for the period 1981-1995 was
used to obtain flood of 500-year return period. Central Water Commission
accepted this estimated flood of 80,000 cumecs in 1979. From the
records, it is found that this flood was accepted when the structure
proposed at the project location was a barrage. In the revised reports
submitted earlier, same design flood i.e.80,000 cumecs has been
recommended and no revised studies were carried out.
3) Experts of CWC and Sir Arthor Cotton recommend for a barrage and not a dam:
a) In his
technical report on Dhowlaiswaram anicut (1847-52) Sir Arthor Cotton
suggested that the construction of another anicut across Godavari river a few miles upstream of Dhowlaiswaram will be highly beneficial.
b) In his
book on “Engineering works of Godavari Delta the British author,
Mr.Walch mentioned in 1896 on the need for the construction of another
anicut upstream of Dhowlaiswaram will be highly useful.
c) Dr.A.N./Khosla,
Chairman, CWC in his “Report of the Technical Committee on Rivers
Krishna, Godavari and Pennar” to the Government of India(1953) stated
under Appendix-D (Note on the Diversion of Godavari waters to Krishna
Basin, Page-101) submitted as follows: “The only other site where there
is a possibility of diverting (water) supplies from the Godavari into
Krishna river basin at Ramapadasagar where a dam or diversion barrage
will be necessary for the purpose (Ramapadasagar dam was proposed at FRL
+198ft (First stage) and by omitting the supplies for Guntur uplands,
the water diversion from Godavari to Krishna works out to 142 TMC only).
If Ramapadasagar dam is not built but a storage reservoir is
constructed somewhere upstream either on the Godavari itself or some of
its major tributaries and only a diversion barrage is built at the
proposed Ramapada Sagar dam site, this quantity (of 142 TMC diversion)
will remain unaffected”
d) In the
report of the Krishna-Godavari Commission appointed by the Union
Government headed by Mr.Gulhati, an eminent engineer, it is stated under
paragraph-61 as follows: “A large part of the regulated flow available
in the river Godavari from the power projects referred to above, which
would amount to much more than 10 MAF would be surplus to the
requirements of projects on the Godavari (the supplies available in the
lower part of the Godavari basin , sub basins G.7 to G.12 are in excess
of the demands) and can be diverted to the Krishna basin, to the extent
these supplies can be utilized in that basin by the following two link
canals:
i) A link canal from the Godavari at Polavaram to Vijayawada at a cost of about Rs.40 crores. This can transfer usefully about 211 TMC (4.8 MAF) of water to the Krishna .
ii) A link canal from the Godavari near Albaka or Singaraddi to Pulichintala on the Krishna at a cost of about Rs.40 crores. This link canal can transfer usefully about 95 TMC (2.2 MAF) of water to the Krishna.
These diversions, if executed, would call for modifications in some of
the projects under execution and in some of those proposed.”
e) AP
State Government published a report in 1961 on “Krishna-Godavari
Waters-Optimum Economic Utilisation”. In paragraph 73 of the report, it
is stated thus “The only practical scheme for diversion of Godavari
waters to Krishna basin in the lower
reaches is by construction of Inchampalli dam and Ramapadasagar barrage.
By this it will be possible to divert waters at least cost…”
4) CWC ordered for change of Polavaram design in August 2006 by
raising peak flood of 36 lakh cusecs based on 500-year return flood to
50 lakh cusecs But the inflow design flood of 60 lakh cusecs was
estimated for polavaram by the National Institute of Hydrology for its
Dm-break Analysis report of June,1999.This Technical Report was
submitted to the A.P. State Government through the Environmental
Protection Training and Research Institute, Hyderabad
5) Independent experts like Dr.K.L.Rao reviewed the Design
criteria adopted for Polavaram dam and found that the spillway design is
faulty with the result that the dam has more chances of failure. But
such dam failure causes 50 lakh people down stream to be drowned under a
wall of flood of 40 ft. or more. Dam burst may occur for one reason or
other like extreme floods, earthquakes, construction defects and human
failure. Andhras have witnessed such human failure as it had happened in
case of Srisailam dam during the floods in October 2009. See figure 13
containing Indian express news paper report of 1-5-1983 in website
http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-6
6) For 88,000 sq.km. catchment of Narmada
river, the peak observed flood in 1994 was 71,000 cumecs. But the
Design flood of 1 in 1000 years was placed at 87,000 cumecs. Since the
Godavari basin is adjacent to Narmada river basin,it is appropriate to
apply similar standards for estimating the PMF at Polavaram site On
this basis the PMF at Polavaram works out to about 85 lakhs cusecs.
http://www.sscac.gov.in/p_maindam.html
7) For Nagarjuna Sagar dam 100-year flood observed was 10.4 lakh
cusecs. But 1 in 1000 years flood was placed at 20.6 lakh cusecs. If
this criteria is used for Polavaram, the peak flood with a return period
of 1in 1000 tears works out to 66 lakhs cusecs and PMF works out to
about 90 lakhs cusecs
http://irrigation.cgg.gov.in/html/demoFuncs.html (Click on completed dams and go to Nagarjuna Sagar site for details)
(b) If this proposition is extended to Godavari floods, the past
century historical flood of 33 to 35 lakhs occurred in August 1986 and
hence the potential peak flood in Godavari
under similar conditions works out to 89 to 90 lakh cusecs. But this
peak flood, PMF, is underestimated by the Expert Engineers of the AP
State and the Central Water Commission and placed at 50 lakh cusecs
only.
(c ) According to the calculations of the National Institute of
Hydrology which is another wing of the Union Ministry of Water
Resources, the inflow design flood for Polavaram is taken as 60 lakh
cusecs on the basis of spillway design flood of 36 lakh cusecs. When
the CWC has estimated natural peak flood of 50 lakh cusecs at Polavaram
it is necessary to realize that the 194 TMC of reservoir standing water
will get transformed into dynamic flood flow water of about 24 lakhs
cusecs making the outflow as 74 lakhs cusecs which will certainly over
flow the flood banks of Godavari down stream of Polavaram in the case of
a dam burst. Consequently, the rockfill Earthen dam proposed at
Polavaram is bound to collapse and kill 50 lakhs of people downstream in
Godavari Delta. Hence Polavaram dam should be replaced by the Three
barrages project as proposed by the former Engineer-in-Chief,
Sri.T.Hanumantha Rao.
9) (a) When a case was filed against Polavaram Dam in Orissa High
Court , the Court gave a judgement in March 2006 directing that as a
result of Polavaram project, there shall not be any submersion of lands
and villages and displacement of people in Orissa. The Union government
accepted this High Court Order and directed AP State Government to make
this condition as an addendum to the Environment clearance letter given
for Polavaram on 25-10-2005.
(b) To fulfil this condition imposed by the Orissa High Court,the AP
State proposed to build 30 km embankments of 10 to 15m depth on the
banks of Sabari and Sileru rivers in Chattisgarh and Orissa. When the
AP State requested the Union Ministry of Environment for clearance of
this supplementary Polavaram project, the AP State was directed to
obtain the consent of Orissa and Chattisgarh state Governments who
refused the consent and filed cases against the project in the Supreme
Court. Orissa is asking for reduction in the height of Polavaram
project. But A.P. State
wants to go ahead with Polavaram dam project. So commonly acceptable
solution lies in modifying the Polavaram dam into barrages. A.P.State
Government failed to get consent of Orissa for Janjhawati and Vamsadhara
projects since more than 20 years. Hence serious attempts must be made
to get the Polavaram project modified suitably to get it materialized
as early as possible to supply water to the farmers.
10) (a) The Central Electricity Authority(CEA) has returned the
Detailed Project Report to AP State Government for obtaining
hydrological clearance on the availability of sufficient water in
Godavari for producing 960 MW of Hydro-Power. Since the present dam
project is not acceptable, it needs to be modified suitably to get the
clearance of CEA to implement the project and it will be possible for
CEA to give clearance for the project only with the consent of the upper
states and the courts.
(b)For securing the Environmental clearance for the embankments
project which is supplementary to Polavaram project and also clearance
from CEA authority for the Polavaram hydro power plant projects. Fresh
EIA and EMP reports have to be prepared on the basis of peak flood of 50
lakh cusecs and Emergency Action Plan has to be prepared as per the
guidelines formulated by the dam safety organization of the Central
Water Commission in May 2006 and the details of this comprehensive 48
page EAP report can be seen from the website.
-->
-->
-->
-->
11. BETTER ALTERNATIVES EARLIER PROPOSED BY CWC AND NWDA BUT REJECTED BY AP STATE OFFICIALS FOR THEIR VESTED INTERESTS :
For aligning the Polavaram - Vijayawada Link Canal, three alternatives have been
studied by various organisations as detailed in the following paras:
(i) The CWC proposed alignment of the canal as a contour canal with anoff take level at
33.53
m (110 ft.) and outfall level at 18.29 m having a length of 202 km.
FRL can be limited to 115ft. thereby reducing the height of the
proposed dam by 30ft. and this will be most probably acceptable both for
Orissa and Chattisgarh states and thereby the interstate problems on
Polavaram project can be avoided.
(ii)
The NWDA has studied another alignment as a contour canal with an off
take level of 36.58 m and tail end level (into Budameru diversion
channel) of 20.63 m with 180 km length..
(iii)
AP state proposed Right Main Canal with off take level of 40.23m and
tail end level of 27.97 m with a length of 174 km. This alignment which
is designed as an unlined as well as lined canal out falls into Budameru
near Velagaleru regulator and then, the waters flow through the
Budameru diversion channel.
In
view of more command area under the canal due to higher off take level,
the AP state proposed this Link Canal. The alignment has been selected
on the following criteria:
(i) To have maximum command area (for the purpose of which a flatter bed slope of 1 in
20000 is considered).
(ii) To cross minimum number of streams by aqueducts.
(iii) To run the canal in Budameru diversion channel as far as possible.
(iv) To avoid interference with the villages and tank beds en route.
Beyond
RD 162.500 km, two alternatives were examined, one directly falling
into Krishna river just upstream of the Prakasam barrage and the other
falling into Budameru river upstream of the existing regulator near
Velagaleru. The former alignment was not found feasible mainly in view
of the following:
(i) The alignment is passing through Vijayawada Urban Development Area where there
is mounting pressure for land with many developmental activities taking place rapidly
in and around, besides formation of canal through costly lands.
(ii) The alignment has to cross Budameru where a costly structure would be necessary.
(iii) The alignment has also to cross railway line and National Highway involving
construction of costly structures.
Obviously
on account of the above mentioned reasons the choice was to adopt the
present alignment, out falling into Budameru river on upstream of the
existing Velagaleru regulator. The water meant for diversion into
Krishna river will then pass through the Budameru diversion channel and
join Krishna river at about 8 km upstream of the Prakasam barrage. The
Budameru diversion channel has been constructed by the State Government
to carry flood discharge of 425 cumec (15000 cusec), which is sufficient
to carry the waters from the Polavaram - Vijayawada link whose design discharge
at its outfall in the Budameru is only 250.52 cumec. This aspect is
dealt with in detail in Chapter on Hydrology and Chapter on Structure
and Layout.
But
some experts find that the alignment proposal by the AP state is not
realistic. If the canal alignment is taken up with FRL at 35.53m
(110ft) as suggested by CWC it has to be realigned. So that it passes
through Vijayawada Thermal Power Station and the city to join the
Krishna river. This alignment does not require the construction of a
risky dam at Polavaram and a barrage will serve the purpose eventhough
the canal passes through valuable lands of Vijayawada yet it will be
economical.
12. MOST GOVERNMENTAL EXPERT COMMITTEES IGNORE CRUCIAL ASPECTS THAT GOVERN THE CLEARANCES FOR POLAVARAM DAM:
a) Statutory Proforma for Environmental Clearance for Polavaram:
Basic Environmental clearance is very wrong due to non-application of
minds of Experts of AP State, CWC and Union Ministry of Water Resources
and Environment.
Even by 25-10-2005 when the first Environmental clearance for Polavaram
dam was granted by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, the
Experts of AP State and Union Government organizations utterly failed to
take cognisance of the following crucial factors that govern the
decisions to clear the Polavaram project.
For obtaining such environmental clearances the dam
proponents have to prepare the dam safety report including the dam break
analysis, risk assessment and Emergency preparedness plans as specified
under the rules of Environmental Protect Act and also the dam safety
guidelines as presented below.
(i) Environmental clearance - crucial requirements under the proforma:
As per the above website of the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests the project authorities must submit an
application for Environmental clearance for irrigation, industrial or
other projects as specified under schedule-I.
As per the EIA notification dt.27-1-1994 as amended upto
13-12-2000 Environmental clearance requires the project authorities to
submit application in the proforma speicified in Schedule-II,
accompanied by a project report which shall include an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) report, a DisasterManagement Plan (DMP or
Emergency Action Plan, EAP ) and an Environmental Management Plan and
details of public hearing as specified by the Central Government.
This application form specified under the Schedule includes preparation
of reports for the following items also under the different serial
numbers specified below:
10) (a) Number of Villages and population to be displaced
(b) Rehabilitation Master Plan
11) Risk Assessment Report and Disaster Management Plan
12) (a) Environemntal Impact Assessment (EIA)
(b) Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
(c) Detailed feasibility Report
(d)
-->
Duly filled in questionnaire
13) Details of Environmental Management Cell
NO
REASONS ARE GIVEN FOR NON-PREPARATION AND NON-SUBMISSION OF RISK
ASSESSMENT AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORTS FOR POLAVARAM DAM
PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY LAW:
-->
Dams
store large amount of water. Uncontrolled or excessive release of such a
huge amount of water has great potential for loss of life and damage to
property in the downstream areas due to excessive flooding. Such
situations can occur due to several reasons, such as, breach of dam on
account of earthquake, landslide and/or sabotage; excessive release of
water on account of extreme storm events, etc. It is, therefore,
necessary to have a thorough and consistent planning for any such
eventuality to help save lives and reduce property damage in areas that
would be affected by dam failure or operation and putting in place
action plans to cope with such an emergency.
It
is exactly for this reason that Ministry of Environment & Forest
through its Notification No.SO 60(E) dated 27-01-1994 on Environment
(Protection) Rules 1986 has made Disaster Management Plan or Emergency
Action Plan a mandatory requirement for obtaining statutory
environmental clearance for all river valley projects.
An
Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is a formal document that identifies
potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned actions
to be followed to minimize property damage and loss of life. The EAP
specifies actions the dam owner should take to moderate or alleviate the
problems at the dam site as well as in the areas downstream of the dam.
It contains procedures and information to assist the dam owner in
issuing early warning and notification messages to responsible emergency
management authorities, viz., District Magistrate / Collector, Armed
forces, Paramilitary forces, Project Authorities and other Central/
State Agencies. It also contains inundation maps to show the emergency
management authorities of the critical areas for ecessary relief and
rescue actions in case of an emergency.
In
India, there are about 4050 completed large dams and another 475 are
under construction (as per National Register of Large Dams – 2002).
Emergency
Action Plans are, however, not available for any of the completed large
dams. The National Water Policy, 2002 recognizing this deficiency has
stressed for preparation of EAP for all large dams.
ii) Violation of dam safety guidelines of CWC perhaps results in failure of Polavaram dam:
Due to the catastrophic failure of Teton Dam and other dams all over the
World,ICOLD organised an international workshop on Dam Safety at New Delhi
and recommended to all the countries to promote dam safety.
consequently,Government of India established a Dam Safety Organisation
in the Central Water commission in 1979 and formulated guide lines on
Dam safety in public interest for implementation by all the state
Governments.:For detailed information on the role of Union Government
water Resources Ministry to get Dam Break analysis Reports for major
Dams, See pages 32,33 and 34 on the web site:
The guidelines on dam safety sent by the Central Water
Commission to the state Governments in 1986 includes an item on
Emergency Preparedness Plans as can be seen from the website:http://www.dams.org/docs/kbase/studies/csinanx.pdf [see item 9 on page 11 ]
If necessary, please copy the web site and use GOOGLE search engine to get at the correct information
The details to be furnished under the Emergency Preparedness Plans as per World Bank guidelines can be seen from the Website:
For the convenience of the
reader the Emergency Preparedness Plans prepared under the Dam Safety
Act, 1972 [U.S.A] including the inundation maps prepared for each of the
dams in California is presented in the following website:
As an example for indian engineers to
take necessary action to make Dam Break Analysis,Risk assessment and
Disaster management plans as contemplated by the Union Ministry of
Environment and forests and the Union Ministry of Water resources uder
the rules,regulations and guidelines formulated in tune with the
international standards on Dam safety and environmental protection,the
case study of HORSE TOOTH RESERVOIR in Colorado,USA is presented as can
be seen from the web sites: : http://fcgov.com/oem/dam-failure.php
(iii) Dam-Break Analysis For Polavaram Rock-Fill Dam
If the dam break analysis and risk assessment is made alternate actions
can be taken to protect public health and the environment. For instance
in USA
some of the dams found unsafe are completely dismantled. In some cases
the embankments of the dam are strengthened and others, the storage are
reduced for operation so that in the event of a dam failure, the costs
of damage will be restrained to lie within the tolerable limits. The
engineers can plan for alternate courses of action by reducing the
heights of dam and their storages and avoid loss of life and property
for achieving more or less the same economic gains by following the
alternate course of action. To give an example the case study of
Horsetooth reservoir case is presented to serve as a model for preparing
similar risk assessment reports for Polavaram dam. For details see the
website:
http://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/horsetooth/horsetooth_safety_dams/mod/chapter5.htm
(b) Dam Safety and economic viability problems ignored by Expert committees:
Basic Environmental clearance is very wrong due to non-application of
minds of Experts of AP State, CWC and Union Ministry of Water Resources
and Environment. Some of the crucial aspects regarding safety and
economic feasibility have been ignored by experts and a few selected
aspects ignored are presented here.
i) Failure
of the project proponent to get the consent of the Chattisgarh and
Orissa by holding Public hearings in these states as per regulations of
the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
ii) Failure
of Environmental Appraisal committee members to know if this interstate
river valley project has got consent of the upper states and if so,
whether the upper states opted for taking compensation for submersion of
lands or gave consent for construction of embankment dams to avoid
submersion as per the Bachawat Award of April 1980. If embankments are
opted whether their environmental impact assessment reports in Orissa
and Chattisgarh have been made part of this EIA/EMP report of 2005 for
Polavaram project.
iii) Incomplete
information in the report on Dam Break Analysis under the EIA/EMP
report and also inaccurate and incomplete information on Risk Analysis
and Disaster Management plan furnished under EIA/EMP report
iv) Absence
of field studies to evaluate the extents of lands that can be freshly
irrigated by the project as compared with the lands likely to be
submerged and the lands need to be acquired for infrastructure.
v) Absence of cost-benefit analysis on the basis of latest market values to determine the economic feasibility of the project.
vi) Failure
of the Expert committee Members of all state and Union Government
organizations to question if the existing flood banks of Godavari from
Polavaram for about 100km upto Bay of Bengal can withstand the
devastating flood waves impacts caused by an inflow flood of 60 lakhs
cusecs as estimated by the experts of National Institute of Hydrology
who prepared the Dam Break Analysis report for the project.
vii)
Unscientific
conclusions made on the basis of an incomprehensive EIA report on
Polavaram Dam in recommending for Environmental clearance for the
project.
Embankments failed to prevent Krishna floods from drowning the Temple Town of Alampur Oct.2009
EMBANKMENTS AT BHADRACHALAM FAILED TO PROTECT TOWN FROM FLOODS
2009 FLOODS IN KRISHNA RIVER CAUSED HAVOC BY DAMAGING EMBANKMENT WALLS
2006FLOODS IN GODAVARI RIVER CAUSED HAVOC BY DAMAGING EMBANKMENT WALLS
FAILURE
OF GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES FOR EMBANKMENT WALLS
TO FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY DURING FLOODS IN RAINY SEASON: Heavy
rainfall in neighbouring Maharashtra saw over 6 lakh cusecs of water
flowing into the Sriramsagar project in Nizamabad district while the
river flowed at a height of 67 feet at Bhadrachalam leaving a trail of
destruction. Godavari at Dowlaiswaram near Rajahmundry crossed 22.5
feet, the danger level due to heavy rain in the catchment area.
The
officials are concerned that a 1986 type situation might recur when the
water level touched 23.60 feet. Officials released 27 lakh cusecs of
water into the sea on Sunday.
Rajahmundry:
Heavy rain for the last three days caused havoc in the city repeating
the last year's fury. It was on September 19 last year, all the
low-lying areas of the city were inundated due to heavy floods to the
Godavari.
After
midnight on Wednesday, there was heavy to more heavy rain and the Nalla
Channel pumping system, which has to carry sewage water of more than
half of the area, failed. As a result, the rainwater stagnated in the
streets like Aryapuram, Tummalava, Seshaiahmetta and a few areas in old
town.
Outdated system
The
corporation arranged one 150 HP motor and three 30 HP motors long ago to
pump out water. But they had become outdated. "As there is no other go
we are running the motors which will do at least 40 to 50 per cent of
pumping," said the engineer.
After
the last year floods, Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy came to
Rajahmundry and announced that he was sanctioning Rs.3 crores for
replacing engine, motors and pumping system. "The corporation has not
got the amount. The Commissioner and we engaged private motors and asked
ONGC and AP Paper Mills to send their pumping machinery along with our
fire tenders," said the Mayor.
Knowingly Committed Mistakes in the form of under-estimating Peak Floods Magnitude
http://nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/6907034768.pdf
The Polavaram project is proposed to be
located about 42 km upstream of Godavari Barrage at Dowlaiswaram, which
was constructed during 1970’s. In the case of Godavari Barrage, a
maximum flood discharge of 0.915 lakh cumec (32.30 lakh cusec) at a 200
year return period had been adopted. As the catchment area between
Polavaram and Dowlaiswaram is so small that additional flood discharge
will be nominal, it has been decided by the State to use the flood data
available at Dowlaiswaram for the years from 1904 to 1975. Flood values
prior to 1904, i.e., from 1881 to 1903 were estimated for increasing the
length of the flood flow series to 95 years (1881 to 1975). The
extended flood flow series has been analysed using Gumbel’s flood
frequency analysis modified by Ven Te Chow to arrive at the flood flow
values at various return periods. These are reproduced in the fokllowing
Table .
3Probable floods with their return periods
Return period (years)
|
Probable flood (lakh cumec)
|
25
|
0.636
|
50
|
0.723
|
100
|
0.814
|
200
|
0.898
|
500
|
1.010
|
1000
|
1.094
|
As per CWC criteria on the design flood, storages more than 61.67 Mm3 (50,000
Ac.ft.) have to be designed for the probable maximum flood or 1000 year
return period flood whichever is higher. However, in view of the fact
that the Polavaram project can be considered as a barrage for design
flood purposes and also as the construction of upstream storages will
reduce the flood intensity (the Polavaram project is the terminal
reservoir on river Godavari), a design flood of 1.010 lakh cumec
corresponding to 500 year return period is considered for spillway
design.
WHY PREVIOUS ADVISORS TO AP GOVERNMENT OBJECTED TO POLAVARAM DAM?
http://www.sakti.in/godavaribasin/indira-sriramakrishnaiah.htm
Polavaram Project - Problems
1. Cannot be of much use without either Ichampalli or Bhoopalapatnam projects on the upstream.
2. R & R problems, Coal belt, etc.
3. Dam line requires changes.
4. Flood management is a problem.
5.
The Irrigation is limited to 7.0lakh acres (75% this already under
some sort of irrigation) and with only seasonal power.
6. 80 TMC transfer to Krishna delta is at the time not much required.
7. Godavari and Krishna deltas get affected (loss of khariff paddy in 4.0 lakh acres).
8. Yeleru canals need to be remodelled (C.D.Works).
9. Rail and Road bridges are to be remodelled.
10. Drawing about 250 TMC during rainy season from Polavaram to Krishna river disturbs the irrigation systems and agriculture.
11. Kolleru lake level raises.
12. Upputeru capacity becomes inadequate.
13. Budameru becomes a river of sorrow.
14. Vijayawada city gets into danger of flooding.
15. Industrial and other developments between V.T.P.S. and Vijayawada may face serious flood problems.
16.
Delinking the Krishna delta from Nagarjunasagar and partly
attaching it to polavaram results in diminishing the protective rights
of Krishna delta.
17. Problem of heavy silting.
The deltas suffer
from the drainage generated from the Eastern ghats. Further adding
250 TMC in khariff season is like driving the last nail.
Environmentalists are not addressing themselves to these more serious
problems and the study is limited to the R & R problems of
polavaram reservoir only.
All this effort at
a cost of nearly Rs.10,000 crores is for limited unsustainable
benefits resulting in permanent injury to delta ayacut and other
sectors.
Strategically, to
plan to transport nearly 250 TMC at the eastern slopes of the Eastern
Ghats is suicidal for the entire rich basin upto the Bay of Bengal,
apart from lurking danger to the life lines, the Trunk road, railway
line, irrigation tanks and canals. This area suffers from flood
problems frequently which will become more intensive.
Having lost nearly
50 years over the mighty projects of Ichampalli and Polavaram
(earlier Ramapadasagar) which could not be resolved even now due to :-
(a) heavy investment,
(b) less benefits,
(c) unresolved inter-state problems,
(d) unsurmountable problems relating to environment and ecology,
(e) limited irrigation coverage of only 8 to 9 lakh acres,
(f) inevitably of lift irrigation to serve further needy areas,
(g) consequent increase in regional disparities, and
(h)
drought areas not getting any benefit, I have expalined the
availability of water, the period, the location and feasibility to take
up lift irrigation to begin with, leaving the construction of the
reservoir at Ichampalli and Polavaram to the wisdom, talent and effort
to the future generations.
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.
-.Sriramakrishnaiah
K Dr., 2004, pp116-117, 2nd Irrigation Day Celebrations, 3rd March
2004, Background note for utilization of Godavari waters, Vision of Dr.
K.Sriramakrishnaiah ,BE,FIE on Water resources and Utilisation in
Andhra Pradesh.
(@(@(@(@(@(@
The Godavari is
the biggest river in Andhra Pradesh. It is also the lowest running
river. Its flood flow is limited to four to five months of south-west
monsoon period. Only nominal flows are available in other months.
Godavari flood
flows transport considerable volume of silt. Any reservoir across
Godavari looses considerable capacity very fast. The Godavari is
flanked by dense Dandakaraya forest. Any reservoir across Godavari
involves submersion of valuable forest areas. Alongwith it the tribals,
who live in these forests have to be rehabilitated. Mineral wealth,
specially coal, a valuable energy fuel, may also be lost due to
submersion under any reservoir. The submersion extends to the
neighbouring states, and this problem cannot be solved easily.
The main river has
two notable works one at the entry into Andhra Pradesh-Sriramsagar,
and the other at the head of the delta formation- Sir Arthur Cotton
Barrage, near Dowlaiswaram. In between Inchampalli reservoir and
Polavaram project are proposed. These projects have kindled the
hopes and aspirations of the people in the Godavari basin and outside.
The rapid siltation of Sriramsagar, the biggest major irrigation project in the Telangana, is causing worry.
There is a plenty
of scope to construct small reservoirs within the command which will
improve the storage position. Due to these reservoirs, the capacity
of pumps to be installed gets reduced and the benefit of the
post-monsoon crop, which is most desirable, can be had.
-
Dr. K.Sriramakrishnaiah, 2004, pp122-126, 2nd Irrigation Day
Celebrations, 3rd March 2004, Background note for utilization of
Godavari waters, Vision of Dr. K.Sriramakrishnaiah,BE,FIE on Water
resources and Utilisation in Andhra Pradesh.
-->
-->
4 comments:
First Line,"suties" means"studies"
Last line,"studied" means"studies"
P.Subhashini
C/o Prof.T.Shivaji Rao
P.Subhashini
C/o Prof.T.Shivaji Rao
http://hindu.com/2007/02/15/stories/2007021510890400.htm