Environment, Jal Shakti ministries said no, but panel tells Supreme Court 5 hydro projects on Ganga are good to go

Initially, the court put a moratorium on granting clearances for any new HEPs, and asked the MoEF to form a committee to first study the impact of such projects. Since then, the ministry has formed three committees:

📌 The first one, led by environmentalist Ravi Chopra, concluded in 2014 that HEPs exacerbated the disaster. It also recommended not going ahead with 24 proposed projects.

📌 After six HEP proponents moved the Supreme Court for permission to resume their projects, the ministry formed a second committee in 2015 under IIT-Kanpur’s Vinod Tare. This panel  found that the six projects had prior clearances but would pose serious ecological impacts.

📌 Then, a third committee formed under engineer B P Das recommended in 2020 that 28 projects be given a nod.

However, the Centre decided in 2021 that just seven of these 28 projects, on which work had already begun, be given the go-ahead. This came on the back of a meeting held in the Prime Minister’s Office chaired by the Principal Secretary to the PM.

On August 8 this year, the Supreme Court asked the Centre why it had allowed only seven projects. It also formed a high-level committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan, to revisit the B P Das committee report and decide the fate of the other 21 HEPs.

This panel, in a report submitted to the court on November 8, gave a go-ahead to five projects — Bowala Nandprayag (300 MW on Alaknanda river), Devasri (252 MW on Pinder river), Bhyundar Ganga (24.3 MW), Jhalakoti (12.5 MW) and Urgam-II (7.5 MW).

Apart from Somanathan, this panel had four others — secretaries of the Environment, Power and Jal Shakti ministries, and the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand.

The panel took into account concerns raised by the Environment and Jal Shakti ministries but concluded that there is no clear-cut evidence to establish affinity between HEP structures and landslides. It noted that there might be some adverse impacts of the five projects proposed for recommendation, but added that their benefits outweigh the drawbacks and it serves the national interest to give them a nod.

The Jal Shakti ministry’s key criticism was that the BP Das committee did not account for the cumulative impact of the projects on Alaknanda, Bhilangana and Dhauliganga rivers.

The environment ministry was of the view that issues such as landslides, flash floods, glacial lake outburst floods and seismic activities had not been considered by the committee even as they had a significant impact on the region’s fragile ecology.

The ministry highlighted that most of the 28 projects recommended were in vulnerable landslide zones and fell under seismic zone IV or V. It also pointed out that recent disasters such as Joshimath flash floods, Chamoli earthquake and Joshimath land subsidence occurred around project sites.

While it gave its go-ahead for five projects, the Somanathan committee was not in favour of the remaining 15. It ruled out seven because they fell in the path of areas vulnerable to glacial lake outburst floods. The other eight were ruled due to their impact on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

In the November 13 hearing, the Centre sought and was granted eight weeks to “place the final decision” before the top court after examining the BP Das committee’s report.

The Environment and Jal Shakti ministries did not respond to calls seeking a comment.