No new dams in upper Ganga: The Centre’s long-winding road to ‘consensus’ on the issue

Committees and conflicts

Based on the SC’s 2013 order, the Union Environment Ministry constituted an expert body led by environmental expert Ravi Chopra. It was to study whether HEPs had a role in escalating the impact of the Kedarnath flood and to examine whether 24 such projects would significantly affect the biodiversity of the basins.

This expert body (EB-I) submitted that 23 of the 24 projects under review would harm biodiversity, and the Environment Ministry endorsed its view. However, the Central Electricity Authority and the Central Water Commission disagreed. They recommended hydropower, claiming a minimal environmental footprint and citing no grounds to link it to the 2013 disaster.

Meanwhile, six project developers who already had clearances moved court to lift the SC’s freeze. Faced with differing views, the Supreme Court in 2015 directed the Environment Ministry to constitute another body: expert body–II.

Setup under hydrology expert BP Das, EB-II’s mandate included ‘cumulative impact and carrying capacity’ assessment of the Ganga for the development of HEPs with a focus on glacial movement, seismic vulnerability, and socio-economic impacts.

In October 2015, the Environment Ministry told the court that EB-II had also okayed all six projects, but added it would also consult the Ministry of Jal Shakti (then Water Resources and Ganga Rejuvenation), and the Ministry of Power before a final decision. A major disagreement within the ministries occurred at this juncture and the matter remained in a deadlock.

In its final report, EB-II studied 70 HEPs in the upper reaches of the Ganga River basin, out of which 19 were already commissioned. From the remaining 51, it recommended implementing 28 projects in a draft final report. The Jal Shakti ministry opposed this in 2019.

Eventually, the Centre filed a consensus submission in 2021 on permitting seven projects that had finished substantial physical construction and where financial investment was in advanced stages.

Revisiting assessments

The matter, though, did not rest there. The SC, in 2024, ordered that a committee headed by Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan have due deliberations on EB-II recommendations. Even if the Centre was not bound to accept the EB-II recommendations, it had to state reasons for it.

The committee considered the views of the Uttarakhand government, various ministries and civil society and finally recommended only five projects — Bowala Nandprayag, Devsari, Bhyundar Ganga, Jhalakoti, and Urgam-II. To arrive at this, it delineated the key issues, which included projects lying in the path of areas prone to glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). It noted that the Sikkim GLOF event of 2023 demonstrated the devastating impacts downstream. Then, it eliminated projects that would have a high ecological impact.

In January this year, the SC granted three months for a final decision. The Centre has primarily highlighted the fragility of the region to make a case for not having any new hydel dams. It termed the two river basins ‘sui generis’ or one of a kind, and argued that the biodiversity, cultural, and geological implications are large.

Recent disasters in Uttarakhand, such as the 2021 Rishi Ganga floods and the Joshimath flash floods and land subsidence, were cited as proof of the region’s vulnerability. The region’s rich biodiversity was underline, as was the fact that it hosts Nanda Devi National Park, Valley of Flowers National Park, Gangotri National Park, Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, and Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone, which accords protection to the 100-km Uttarkashi to Gaumukh stretch.