Yes, the
question remains. What is the need of this project? And then, there is a bigger question that begs serious debate. Is it necessary to submerge 775 hectares of
Forest Land, including 49 hectares of Renuka Wildlife Sanctuary for quenching Delhi’s
thirst?
Environmental activists are up in arms against the concept of
inundating a large tract of rich forest bio-diversity, including portion of a
wildlife sanctuary, to fulfill the water needs of a far away metropolis.
A serious poser here is: Why is it that the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) report in such cases is always suspect? People in the proposed
submergence area are not just suspicious but also are a worried lot, for the
EIA report is full of misleading things. For instance, a protected wetland in
the vicinity – Renuka Lake is a Ramsar declared international wetland. The EIA
does not even mention it.
Another factor to show that the authorities have not taken a
holistic approach is the winter migration by the Gujjars. They come down to the
lower reaches in winters and use the riverbed along with hundreds of cattle/livestock.
Where would they go when there is a reservoir round the year?
The people fighting the ‘lost cause’ ask: “Wazirabad barrage
(Delhi) already has the capacity to hold that much water which they plan to
impound here at Renuka Dam. So what is the need of a dam here?” Numerous flora,
aquatic fauna and terrestrial fauna would be affected due to the 24-kms long
reservoir. The terrestrial fauna includes as many as 96 species of butterflies,
107 species of birds, 10 species of mammals, six species of reptiles and 15
species of fishes from the impact zone of the project.
The local community is totally against the dam. They claim the
authorities have not taken any cognizance of the fact that all villages in the
submergence area have passed a resolution against the dam at their gram sabhas.
Consultation with gram sabhas is an important part of National Resettlement and
Rehabilitation (R&R) policy. And it is clear that this rule has been
violated.
Back to the same question, “Do we really need this?”
He recalled the Performance Audit of Water Management Systems in Delhi (Report
on Delhi government published in 2008), which says: “The distribution losses in
Delhi were as high as 40 per cent of total water supply, which was
significantly more than the acceptable norms of 15 per cent prescribed by the
Ministry of Urban Development.”
He recalled the Performance Audit of Water Management Systems in Delhi (Report
on Delhi government published in 2008), which says: “The distribution losses in
Delhi were as high as 40 per cent of total water supply, which was
significantly more than the acceptable norms of 15 per cent prescribed by the
Ministry of Urban Development."
Describing the Renuka Dam project in Himachal Pradesh for
providing water to Delhi akin to a new tank atop a neighbour’s house to
compensate leaking pipes in your house, environmentalist are opposing the Rs
2,700 crore – the cost may increase – project. Once when I had a discussion on
the topic with Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams,
River and People, he criticized it as a “massive dam to fill leaking buckets.”
Over the years, the water utility has shown some improvements but
the fact remains that Delhi denizens already get more than the conventional per
capita per day prescription. At 230 litres per capita per day, Delhiites get much
more than what most European nations provide: only 150 litres water per capita
per day. However, Delhi Jal Board says distribution losses are much less, at
only about 20-25 per cent. The figure appears high because most of it is
non-revenue distribution like free water supply.
So it turns out that Delhi’s problem is not shortage but
mismanagement. But then, no ‘options assessment’ was ever done to arrive at a
proper solution to meet the increasing demand.
The National Green Tribunal hearing will commence next week and the
fate would be clear in days to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment