Digging Our Rivers' Graves?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Working for water resources development as if democracy, people and environment matter Vol 14 | Issue 1-2 | February-March, 2016 Rs. 15/- Index Digging Our Rivers’ Graves? A summary analysis of the ecological impacts Digging Our Rivers’ Graves? 1 of the National Waterways Bill (2015) Large Dams in Konkan Nachiket Kelkar Western Ghats: Costs, (Email: [email protected]) Benefits and Impacts 7 Introduction: The National Water- such irreversible engineering controls ways Bill (NWB, Bill No. 122 of 2015) on our rivers. There is no discussion Unabated Riverbed was tabled by the current central among politicians and administrators. Mining in Saharanpur, government’s Minister of Transport Importantly, this issue appears to UP, Puts Delhi’s Water and Shipping, Mr. Nitin Gadkari, in have barely received adequate atten- Supply under Threat 15 May 2015. This Bill plans to convert tion even in environment and conser- 106 rivers and creeks across India into vation circles. Problematically River Sand Mining in waterway canals, purportedly for ‘eco- enough, the NWB thus emerges as a India in 2015 17 friendly transport’ of cargo, coal, in- threat that may go unnoticed by con- dustrial raw materials, and for tour- servationists and get passed without River Sand Mining in ism purposes. The primary reasons debate, deliberation or emphasis on India in 2015 – II – provided for this bill are that 1) in- environmental clearances to the ex- Government acts of land water transport is fuel-efficient, tent required. In this article I will dis- omissions and commissions 20 cost-effective and eco-friendly, 2) the cuss the potentially damaging conse- systematic development of waterways quences of the NWB on river ecology, River Sand Mining in India will create progressive economic op- human life and hydrological dynam- in 2015 – III – Judicial portunities in the country, and 3) the ics of India’s riverscapes. My earlier actions 23 potential of water transport is article on the SANDRP blog ‘Four underutilized in India. The Bill has boats at a river crossing along Ganga’ Jhulelal or Zindapir: since been examined by the Standing (dated 28th December, 2015) had de- River Saints, fish and Committee appointed of Rajya Sabha scribed https://sandrp.wordpress. flows of the Indus 25 Members and experts on the matter, com/2015/12/28/four-boats-at-a-river- who submitted their findings in Re- crossing/) ground experiences related Farmers, Rivers and the port No. 223 (Rajya Sabha Secre- to the impacts of large-scale inland Environment in Union tariat, August 2015). Recently, the Bill water transport (IWT). Continuing Budget 2016-17 29 has been cleared by the Lok Sabha, there I attempt to provide a point-wise and awaits final discussion in the discussion and critique of the NWB. Rajya Sabha within a fortnight’s time. Policy document sources: This As of now the NWB appears to enjoy Contact : document discusses various points of support across party lines, states and Himanshu Thakkar, contention as identified in 1) the draft political positions and agendas. There Parineeta Dandekar, of the National Waterways Bill (2015), is also a belief that waterways would Bhim Rawat, and 2) the Standing Committee (SC, mean maintenance of enough water Ganesh Gaud, comprised of select members of the flowing in our rivers – yet the means Anuradha Venugopalan Rajya Sabha)’s initial appraisal of the through which this is proposed to be Dams, Rivers and People implications of the said bill provided achieved involve capital dredging and C/o 86-D, AD Block, in its review and recommendations large-scale conversion of floodplain Shalimar Bagh (Report 223, Rajya Sabha Secretariat environments and riverbanks to con- Delhi - 100 088, India. 2015). crete embankments. A serious concern Ph: + 91 11 2748 4654/5 of observers has been that there has Observations on the National Water- [email protected] unfortunately been but scant debate ways Bill draft, 2015 and Report 223 http://sandrp.wordpress.com/, on the high ecological and social risks of the Standing Committee, Rajya www.facebook.com/sandrp.in, the NWB poses to riverine bio-diver- Sabha on the Bill http://sandrp.in sity and local resource users through 1 Dams, Rivers & People February-March, 2016 1. NWB as a river-control ploy: the Bill, at its core, and drinking water demands. Point No. 9 of the Re- appears to treat rivers as mere canals for waterways port states land acquisition as a minor concern of the that can be commoditized for just this singular pur- waterways development plan. However, there is abso- pose. In fact, it appears that inland water transport, lutely no discussion on addressing issues of rights to at the scale conceived by the bill, involves the central- water for direct needs such as fisheries-based liveli- ized, unitary control of rivers by the Government of hoods, pilgrimage, or rights for local navigation, which India. This will involve the construction of locking bar- are unresolved in most cases even today. The Report rages to hold water for vessel movement, concretiza- mentions concern about rights to sediment and silt tion and building of embankments to create port ter- dredged from rivers (point 15.1) but deeper security minals, and regular (high-intensity) capital dredging for more fundamental water rights have been paid of river sediment deposition along channel bottoms and rather scant attention. margins. Worldwide, such interventions are known to 4. Hazardous goods: The Bill contradicts its own claim have seriously damaging impacts on fish fauna, aquatic that waterways are environmentally friendly means biodiversity, and people dependent on them. Although of transport because in the same breath, the statement purportedly eco-friendly, there is not a single mention of object (page 18, pt. 2) says that “hazardous goods” of “ecological” or “conservation” needs or concerns for will also be transported by waterways. Accidental spill- rivers in the Bill draft. age could directly affect the health of millions of people 2. Rivers as nothing but water channels: The bill in India that still depend on rivers for drinking, do- shows a poor understanding of the hydrological, geo- mestic uses, commerce, and livelihoods, and present morphological and socio-ecological complexities of life-threatening risks to aquatic species. India’s rivers. In this sense, it is a blind copy-and-paste 5. Feasibility of Implementation: The Rajya Sabha proposal inspired from other waterways across the Standing Committee’s Report 223 recognizes multiple world that also conveniently ignores the failings of even lacunae and potentially serious gaps in the implemen- these examples (e.g. ECMT 2006). Most river courses tation of the proposed project. It details multiple eco- in the Ganga and Brahmaputra floodplains are highly logical, social, commercial viability, and political-eco- dynamic and migratory. They show flooding pulses in nomic feasibility considerations and consequences for the monsoons, but have little water in the dry-season. the 101 proposed national waterway development The resulting sediment deposition and erosion patterns projects. Point 14 of the Report highlights that the Bill’s in the river channels have historically made river navi- implementation will be conditional on Techno-Eco- gation highly risk-prone. By treating rivers as mere nomic Feasibility, Environmental Clearances, and De- “water-carriers” the bill dishonours the naturally dy- tailed Project Reports, which is a welcome reminder to namic flow regimes that involve ‘essential floods’, criti- the Bill itself, of its potentially disastrous impacts on cal to sustaining river productivity and life-history of natural flowing water bodies. Point 22 of the Bill also organisms like fishes. There is not a single mention of highlights the opinion of the Indian Chamber of Com- “ecology” or “conservation” needs of rivers in the Bill merce about how the lofty ambitions of the waterways statement. project show strong disconnect with ground realities – 3. Competing rights to and pressures on water: The and suggest first focussing on improving the effective- Bill does not recognize natural limits on the proposed ness of the 5 existing waterways (Nos. 1 to 5 in bill) in expansion of water use for transport in India, where a sustainable manner, before taking up 101 more river/ multiple competing pressures already exist on water coastal projects. Strong suspicion about the feasibility resources. Given the current and projected scale of of the projects is also evident in the risk-averse water demands for irrigated agriculture, industry, ther- and reluctant responses of companies towards taking mal power plants, etc. (Pt. 18) of the Bill seems an en- up government tenders and contracts for port construc- tirely unfeasible idea entirely because of the basic re- tion and dredging-related work (http://www. quirement of adequate water availability. As a result thehindubusinessline.com/companies/no-takers-for- the bill seems either unconcerned or naïve about con- ntpc-river-transport-deal/article7642357.ece). A case in sidering rights to use water for diverse social and eco- point is the navigation lock of the Farakka Barrage on logical needs. There is a cursory mention of “continu- the Ganga, where navigation is hugely impaired due ity of state rights to river water” (page 19, pt. 6 of NWB) to high sediment loads, need for continuous and costly yet there is no clear mechanism identified on how wa- dredging and maintenance. terways development and already ongoing activities 6. Where is the Water? At present, owing to numerous will be reconciled. The Rajya Sabha SC Report 223 existing large and small dams, barrages, channel di- rightly expresses concern about the conflicts that could versions, irrigation canals, thermal plants’ demand on be potentially generated at multiple levels: between river water, most rivers in India have extremely low state and central governments, between local human or even NO water availability, especially in the dry sea- users and ecological needs of rivers, and between wa- son.