Dam site cursed

On the surface, it’s a war for water in one of the wettest states, but there is more than meets the eye in the opposition to Kerala’s proposed 163-MW Athirapally Hydel Electric Project. The project is a rare one: two Environmental Impact Assessments have been prepared, three environmental clearances granted, there have been interventions by the judiciary twice to suspend/quash the clearance, and two courts have ordered public hearings held — all in a span of 15 years.

The political parties on both sides of the spectrum are all for the dam — in the state’s east-central belt in Thri­ssur district. It is the environmental activists led by the river protection council, called Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshna Samithi, and the local tribal groups that are against the project.

The jungles of the Chalakudy river basin are the only habitat of the hun­ter-gatherer Kadar tribal community. They are completely dependent on the forest and the river. And in recent times, most of them have started working under the Kerala Forest Department’s Vana Samrakshana Samithis, or VSS as the forest protection councils are called. “This is our home. We all continue to make our living from the forests,” says 28-year-old V K Geetha who filed a public interest litigation in the Kerala High Court in October 2007 challenging the Environmental Clearance granted earlier that year.

“Initially we were told by officials and the party that the project was for our good. But when I spoke to my father who is the Mooppen (head), he told me that we had already come down from the high ranges in the mountains when the Poringalkuthu dam was constructed. If this dam comes up, we will have to migrate into the plains and that would be giving up our culture and customs,” she explains.

There are two tribal settlements in the area of the proposed dam impact area. Of them, 25 families live in the Pokalapara settlement which is upstream, and 67 in the Vazhachal settlement which is 500 metres downstream of the dam site. Both will be inundated by the project. This is their main reason for opposing the dam. Most of them work as cleaners and do small-time jobs as part of the VSS at the tourist site of the Athirapally waterfalls which to date remains a big attraction for visitors in Kerala.

They have the moral support of forest department officials, most of whom are unhappy with a dam that could cut into the riparian forests of the Chalakudy River. Of this, 26.4 hectares lie within the Vazhachal area, including three large islands.

“If one goes by the submergible area of the project, it has the state’s most extensive lowland elevation riparian forest eco-system. The 80 hectares of evergreen forest between the Poringalkuthu Power House and the Vazha­chal waterfall is the only stretch loca­ted below 800 metres anywhere in the state,” says Dr A Latha, research coordinator at the Chalakudy-based River Research Centre, who has been campaigning against the dam. In the river basin, highly niche-specific riparian forests within a 60-km stretch have been submerged by manmade projects. Nearly half of the river course and the connected vegetation have been lost.

The main issue, apart from tribal livelihoods, is biodiversity. The International Union for Conservation of Nature report says of the 104 species of fish recorded, nine are critically endangered and 22 are vulnerable. The National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources has recommended that upstream areas of the river be declared a ‘fish sanctuary’.

V S Vijayan of the Kerala Biodiversity Board says the Vazhachal forest division is the second most bio-diverse area in the state. This former head of the Salim Ali Foundation says the International Bird Association has declared it an “Important Bird Area” and the Asian Nature Conservation Foundation has recommended that the area be declared a sanctuary or a national park. The Wildlife Trust of India, too, has named it one of the country’s best elephant conservation efforts. Any disruption of this ecosystem could spell disaster not just for the state but the entire region. Studies by the Nature Conservation Foundation in the entire Western Ghats say the only available nesting site of the Malabar Pied Hornbill in Kerala’s Western Ghats is found in the forests of Vazha­chal. The government has set up a committee to assess the loss of biodiversity if the dam comes up.

But it is in no mood to give up. The Kerala State Electricity Board argues for the project against the backdrop of power-shortages. The delays have resulted in many-fold cost escalation. The initial project cost was Rs 151 crore, went up to Rs 275 crore in 1994 and Rs 385.63 crore in 2003. The present estimate is Rs 700 crore.

Further, escalation in costs in the years to come is set to make this project the most expensive, in terms of unit energy cost. “But we have no alternative,” is the official refrain.

Aged Janakiamma is a sweeper at Athirapally, from the Scheduled Caste, and lives by the Chalakudy river downstream. “I can’t think of a life for my kids without the river and the forests. See, how cool it is here, even in summer...no worry for water and wood. And the job at the VVS makes life complete, for we take care of our forests.”

Meanwhile, the forest guards are worried about the attempts to peddle drugs and liquor in the area. “The checkpost is supposed to look into every vehicle that comes into the high range. But many people who come in fancy cars are offended when we inspect them,” says a guard. He says anybody who is going to meet the tribals in their settlements “needs to rep­ort here and tell us why. Last month, a man tried to sell foreign liquor and drugs. So we have become careful”.

Neither side seems inclined to back down, so the battle for Chalakudy looks likely to be long drawn and bitter.

— sudhanambudiri@gmail.com

High Court Interventions

1. Public Interest Litigation filed in 2001:

By Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi and ‘Nilanilpu’, an organisation working with

farmers, challenging the environmental clearance granted based on the TBGRI Rapid EIA. The judgment was delivered on October 17, 2001 by the Division bench consisting of Justice P K Balasubramanyan and Justice M Rama­chandran. The environmental clearance granted in 1998 was suspended by the Division Bench

2. Public Interest Litigation filed in 2005:  By Athirapally grama panchayat within which the project area falls and Geeta, a Kadar tribal from Vazhachal settlement, challenging the environmental clearance. Another PIL challenging the techno-economic clearance and database

relied by the KSEB was also filed in the same court. The Court said compliance with the amended EIA notification 2002 was mandatory. The High Court quashes the 2005 clearance and the matter remitted for conduct of public hearing after publication of the WAPCOS report.

3. Public Interest Litigation 2007–09 by V K Geetha in October 2007 challenging the environmental clearance granted in 2007 based on the WAPCOS CEIA. The same petitioner, C G Madhusoodhanan, who had filed the PIL in 2005 also challenged the techno-economic clearance in another PIL. The case was heard in 2008 by the Division bench of the Chief Justice. However, the Chief Justice was transferred to the Supreme Court and the judgment could not be delivered. Detailed hearing repeated again in late 2009 before the new Chief Justice S R Bannurmath and Justice A K Basheer. The case was reserved for judgment after the hearing was completed in November 2009. But the judgment could not be delivered due to the retirement of the CJ in January this year.