POLAVARAM DAM IMAGES-6

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

EIA NOTIFICATION, 2006:   http://envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so1533.pdf

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

 

68 Dams Collapse in China Every Year

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-6-11/42574.html

Epoch Times Staff Jun 11, 2006


A picture of the Three Gorges dam discharging floodwaters. The safety of reservoirs located across China remain a challenge. (China Photos/Getty Images)

 As the debate about the Three Gorges dam rages on, on June 1, E. Jingping, Secretary General of the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters and Vice Minister of Water Resources, said that the safety of reservoirs continues to remain a challenge and is a weak link in this year's flood prevention efforts. As of last year, an average of 68 reservoir dams collapse every year in China.

He said, "The extent of casualties and economic cost from a dam collapsing possibly surpasses that of a natural disaster like a tsunami or a strong earthquake, and is no less damaging than a local war."

At present, China has 85,160 reservoirs. From 1954 to 2005, a total of 3,486 reservoir dams collapsed. Each year, many reservoirs experience flood damage. In 2004 alone, 7,286 reservoirs experienced flood damage and are in need of repair.

According to China Newsweek reports, among the 85,000 plus reservoirs in China, over 30,000 (35 percent) have problems but continue to be operational, constituting a major hidden danger in water resource facilities.

Now, in China, not one province, city, or district is free of dangerous reservoirs. In the provinces of Hunan, Guangdong, Sichuan, Shandong, Yunnan, Hubei, and Jiangxi, each province has more than 1,600 dangerous reservoirs. In Guangdong Province, there are 3,685 dangerous reservoirs—a total of 55 percent of all reservoirs in the province.

Dangerous reservoirs are usually located upstream from cities at the county level and above in China's administrative system. For nearby areas that have a large difference in elevation, the safety, resources, cities, industries, and public facilities of the people downstream will be directly affected.

Those currently under threat include 25.4 percent of China's cites with 179 dangerous reservoirs, and 16.7 percent of county towns with 285 such reservoirs. The urban and rural populations living in the above-mentioned areas account for 146 million people. In total, 8.8 million hectares of cultivated land is under threat.

In the world's record of disasters due to human technical failures, the 1975 collapse of China's Banqiao reservoir dam in Henan province ranked first, which is higher than the Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union. In a matter of days, 26 dams collapsed one after another, which resulted in massive flooding in nine counties and one town. More than 100,000 corpses were retrieved when the flooding receded. Deaths due to the repercussions of grain shortages and infectious diseases amounted to 140,000; while the total number of deaths recorded was 240,000. This death toll was comparable to the China's Tangshan earthquake in the following year, and the damage dealt was worse than the collapse of Egypt's Aswan reservoir dam.

When stressing the importance of the safety of reservoirs, E. Jingping said that the severe casualties were due to a combination of irresistible natural factors and human factors which included; failure of the Flood Prevention Responsibility System, Safety Management, and delays in relocating those living downstream from the dam.


CLIMATE CHANGE RAPIDLY INCREASES PEAK FLOODS IN GODAVARI RIVER


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.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/07/stories/2006080705530600.htm

 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.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2006092206860300.htm&date=2006/09/22/&prd=th&   

 
 



 

 

 


 

The claim of some experts that the rockfill Polavaram dam is designed with a reduced height by 50ft. to the original Polavaram dam known as Rampadsagar dam is not correct because Rampadsagar dam was a concrete dam with a higher storage capacity of 690TMC with an FRL at +198ft. to transfer more water of Godavari for the benefit of the coastal districts from Visakhapatnam to Prakasam district.   The present Polavaram dam is not made with concrete but with earth and rockfill materials which make the embankment dam highly susceptable to collapse for several reasons and hence this dam possess very serious risks to people living downstreamof the dam in Godavari delta resulting in a potential economic loss of more than Rs.1 lakh crores due to a dam burst either due to human errors or unanticipated extreme floods due to global warming or intense cyclones of longer duration which pose a threat to storage dams in the upstream areas when sudden flash floods are relased from the upper dams to safeguard their own interests.  The Concrete dam at Srisailm was able to withstand the extreme floods in October 2009 when the floods touched over 902ft and the floods flowed over the top of the dam for about 10ft depth without resulting in collapse of the dam. 

 

                             GROSS UNDER ESTIMATES ON IMPACTS OF FLOODS BY GOVERNMENT

District
                         Villages  under floods
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 

 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 

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 27th 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 28th 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;

(c)  hydro-power, major irrigation projects and/or their combination including flood control;

(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 1st February, 1989, S.O. 114 (E) dated 20th February, 1991; *S.O. No. 416 (E) dated 20th June, 1991* and S.O. No.319 (E) dated 7th 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.

(c)  any item reserved for Small Scale Industrial Sector with investment less than Rs. 1 crore.

(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:

(c) Alternate sites examined and the reasons for selecting the proposed site:

(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:

(c)  Pollution sources existing in 10 km radius and their impact on quality of air, water and 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:

(c)  Frequency of inversion:

(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:

(c)   Source to be tapped with competing users (River, Lake, Ground, Public supply):

(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:

(c) Noise and Vibration control measures proposed:

(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:

(c)  Rehabilitation Master Plan:

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:

           (c)   Detailed Feasibility Report:

           (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 27th January 1994 and subsequently amended vide numbers S.O. 356(E) dated 4th may, 1994, S.O. 318 (E) dated 10th April, 1997, S.O. 73 (E) dated 27th January, 2000 and S. O. 1119 (E) dated 13th December, 2000.

****

NOTE: * and** and bold letters indicate amendments


 

WHY  POLAVARAM IS MOST SUITED FOR A BARRAGE AND NOT A DAM

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/02/16/stories/2008021654380600.htm [ Supreme court on Polavaram,Feb.2008]

Many wise Engineering Experts state that the difference between a Dam and a Barrage is worth noting by people likely to be affected on the Down-stream of the dam which may collapse due to a maximum credible accident.

[Desai,sharing of International water Resources,Asia pacific journal of environmental Law3[1998].A Dam is built with the purpose of storing water and it is built in the upper,deep-vallied reaches of a river,thereby raising the level of water by hundreds of feet.

On the other hand,a Barrage is built with the aim of diverting water and it is built in the plains,across wide meandering rivers.Since it is a long and wide structure,the water level is only raised by a few feet.”

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

Can the CWC in India be directed to adopt the  standard procedures followed for estimating the Probable Maximum Precipitation [PMP]and Inflow Design Flood[IDF]for reservoirs in United states as can be seen from the web sites at the top of this page:http://www.nawcinc.com/splatte.pdf  and then calculate the PMF values to implement the state-of-art Design procedures for Dams?

According to the World Commission on Dams[ see,Dams and Development, Nov.2000],” “A Barrage is a structure built across a river consisting of a series of gates that when fully open allow the flood to pass without appreciably increasing the water level upstream of the Barrage and that when closed raises water levels upstream to facilitate diversion of water to a canal for irrigation or to a power-house for generation of electricity”

      During the recent controversy about Polavaram Dam project,the Government of Andhra Pradesh has been harping of the theory that this project was conceived 60 years ago and that there were no objections raised so far and it is only recently that unnecessary objections are raised in the State High Courts and the Supreme Courts by some mis-informed people and the upper states of Orissa and Chattisgarh who are pleading that the Bachawat Tribunal Award of April,1980 is inapplicable under the changed circumstances.It is argued that the old agreement between the basin states of Orissa ,Chattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh imposes a ceiling limit of 36 lakhs cusecs for Spill-way Design  Peak Flood and based on this Quantity,the Andhra Pradesh state Government got the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] Report prepared and submitted to the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests to obtain Environmental clearance for the project.The Dam Break Analysis report , the Back-water Curve for determining the  forests and  villages along with the population likely to be submerged and the Rehabilitation and Resettlement schemes were prepared and the permissions from the Union Ministries were obtained in a great hurry in October,2005 itself.Unfortunately even the public hearing under the rules of the Environmental protection Act,1986 and its regulations were not conducted in Orissa and Chattisgarh villages of Motu and KontaTaluks as per rules.Even without waiting for the permissions from the Union Ministry of Water Resources and the Planning Commission,the work on the project was stated by the Andhra Pradesh state Government by violating the standard procedures and rules in many ways.

The Devastating floods of August,2006 has resulted in great havoc as several villages over and above the number predicted by the state for a peak flood of 36 lakh cusecs occurred even for a flood of 28 lakh cusecs and even Bhdrachalam was inundated inspite of construction of a Flood protection Embankment.This has opened the eyes of the state and Union Governments and ultimately,the Central Water Commission[CWC] refused to accept the  Spill-way Design Flood proposed at 36 lakhs cusecs and revised it to 50 lakhs cusecs in October,2006.

Even this estimate made by CWC is very much under-estimated compared with the practical realities  as seen in the case of Nagarjuna sagar Dam where the maximum observed flood was 10.60 lakhs cusecs while the 1000-year return flood was estimated at double the value,namely, at 20.60 lakhs cusecs as per web site:http://irrigation.cgg.gov.in/html/demoFuncs.html   .

According to French and ICOLD Experts,"Safety Check Flood"is used for spill-way Design flood in many countries including CHINA as per web site,http://jarle.nve.no/nncold/images/NNCOLD/Konferanser/Fagseminar/claudebessiere.pdf

http://www.vncold.vn/En/Web/Content.aspx?distid=299 

http://www.hydrocoop.org/publicationseng.htm 

Even according to this design standards published in the ICOLD Bulletins recently,the Maximum Spill-way Design Flood should have been fixed by the Central Water Commission at the PMF level or at about 100 lakhs cusecs.

It is a pity that both the A.P.State Government Engineers and CWC Engineers failed to follow international Norms

 The following web site shows that for Nagarjuna sagar dam,the peak observed flood in Krishna was about 10 lakhs cusecs,the 1000-year flood was about 20 lakhs cusecs and the routed flood was taken as 16 lakhs cusecs.

Click on the following wb site and later on the Left-side Meu bar on "Nagarjuna Sagar project and again on the "DETAILS" bat to get the full details on Hydrological and other full details of the project. 

 http://irrigation.cgg.gov.in/html/demoFuncs.html

Even the Dam Design standards followed for Nagarjuna Sagar Dam have not been applied for Polavaram Dam as can be seen from the web site:

Since the crucial Design parameters have drastically changed,theAndhra Pradesh state Government must once again revise their Environmental Impact Assessment[EIA]Report and all the other reports including the DamBreak Analysis,Disaster Management,Rehabilitation and Resettlement reports including the Back-water Curve which has to be prepared by the Central Water Commission[CWC] as per the Bachawat Tribunal Award.

 1]65 years ago,Dr.K.L.Rao who worked in 1963 as Union minister for water and power stated that for Polavaram project rock was available at more than 200 feet below the river bed.He also warned that the strategy for diversion of river flows during construction would pose a formidable problem even for a normal flood of 5 lakh cusecs and a possible maximum flood of about 20 lakhs cusecs.During the first 5-year plan,the Government of India  examined the views of experts and officials and then abandoned Ramapada Sagar Dam at Polavaram and proposed a barrage in its place for reasons of the high cost and also the complexities involved in founding such a high dam at that location.

2]Subsequently the Government of India appointed another expert committee under the Chairmanship of  Dr.A.N.Khosla

[http://www.hinduonnet.com/seta/2003/06/19/stories/2003061900020200.htm ]

to study the optimal utilization of the waters of Godavari,Krishna and Pennar rivers.Dr.Khosla stated in his report of 1953 that if Ramapada sagar dam is not built but a storage is built somewhere upstream of either on Godavari itself or some of its tributaries and only a diversion barrage is built at Polavaram site,the contribution of Godavari river to Krishna basin to an extent of 142 TMC[thousand million cubic feet] will remain unaffected.Thus Dr.A.N.Khosla had recommended for the construction of Big Dams upstream of Polavaram with a Barrage at Polavaram for diversion of 142 TMC of Godavari water into Krishna river basin.

3]Again in 1961,the Andhra Pradesh state Government published a white paper on”Krishna-Godavari Waters- Optimum Economic Utilisation”In the concluding pages of this Report,the A.P. state Government stated [para 73]that the only practical scheme for diversion of Godavari Waters to Krishna basin in the lower reaches is by construction of Inchampalli Dam and Ramapada Sagar Barrage ‘.Thus the A.P.State wanted to build a Big Dam at Inchampally and a Barrage only at Polavaram so that the continuous flow of water from Inchamplally can be diverted into Krishna river through Polavaram Barrage.

 4]Again, the Union Government appointed a Technical Commission under the Chairmanship of,shri  N.D.Gulhati [http://www.icid.org/nd_gulhati_2005.pdf]

to study the optimal utilization of waters in Godavari and Krishna rivers and the feasibility of diverting any surplus water from Godavari into Krishna river basin.

Shri Gulhati,in his report[1963]stated that  there is a large amount of water supplies of more than 10 M.Ac.ft.,[million acre-feet] available from the power projects proposed across Pranhita,Indravati and sabari and theirtributaries and this surplus water can be diverted into Krishna river basin by the following two link canals:

[a] A link canal from Godavari near Albaka or Singaraddi to Pulichintala for transfer of 95 T.M.C., at a cost of Rs.40 crores.

[b] A link canal from Godavari at Polavaram to vijayawada to transfer about 211 T.M.C.,at a cost of Rs.40 crores.

5]During June,1970,the A.P.State published the project report on Inchampalli Project[Dam].Under para.30 of this report,it is stated  that”the last project proposed in the Lower Godavari basin is a Barrage at Polavaram which is located a few miles below Inchampally Dam.the canals of the Polavaram barrage scheme follow on the same alignment as envisaged in the Ramapada sagar project of 1951.The requirements for the canals taking off from Polavaram barrage as well as the supplies for the existing Godavari Delta system qwill be met from the regulated releases from the power house at Inchampalli,with the F.R.L.of 390.00 ft.,fixed for Inchampalli reservoir”

6]A.P.State presented for the first timeto the Bachawat tribunal the Polavaram project report of May,1978 which mentions about the Head-works with a rock-fill dam for a peak flood designed for 36 lakhs cusecs,with an M.D.D.L .of R.L +44.20meters[+145 feet] and an  F.R.L.of +45.72 meters[+150 feet].This proposal envisages the diversion of 80 T.M.C.of Godavari water into Krishna basin for projects upstream of Nagarjuna Sagar on the condition that Karnataka and Maharashtra are entitled for 35 T.M.C .of this water.

Subsequently,all the3 state Governments of Orissa,Madhya Pradesh and Andhra pradesh and the Union Governments came to an agreement which has become the basis for the Bachawat Tribunal Award handed over in April,1980 and the validity of this award is now being questioned by the State Governments of Orissa and Chattisgarh because of the changed circumstances like Probable Maximum Flood[PMF] and the implementation of The Environmental protection Act,1986 and its rules and regulations that govern the procedures for sanction of Environmental clearance for the Project.

For more discussions on how to deduce Spill-way Design Flood,see the websites;

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

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

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

 http://shivajirao32/.googlepages.com/polavaramdamimages-6 

 

IS GODAVARI AT COTTON BARRAGE  DRYING UP in NOV-DEC.2008 to Feb.2009,denying waters for 5 lakhs acres?

Vaartha of 31 January,2009 says that 48 km.stretch between cotton barrage and polavaram is getting silted up and this year 5 lakhs acres in Delta mayt not get sufficient irrigation water.When the river basement is +10.67 m the pond level will be +13.30 m.Silt was removed in2003 and non-removal since then is building up sand bed levels.Moreover during Nov.and Dec.months 40TMC water used to get discharged from Sileru and this year due to poor rains in the catchments the inflows into Godavari declined. The fast growing lift irrigation schemes upstrem  of Dhowleshwaram is the main cause for the reduced water availabilty in the pond at Cotton Barrage that will damage the crops in 45 lakh acres in the Delta and several damaging environmental impacts are waiting in the wings[  VAARTHA DAILY,31-01-2009]