Saving Ganga from reckless development

IN a major step to settle the 14-year-old case of Alaknanda Hydro Power Co Ltd versus Anuj Joshi & Others in the Supreme Court, an affidavit by the Union of India has recommended that only seven hydro electric projects (HEPs) in Uttarakhand, either already commissioned or with substantial physical or financial progress, may be permitted to proceed. These include the commissioned Tehri Stage-II (1000 MW), Singoli-Bhatwari (99 MW), Madhmaheshwar (15 MW), Kaliganga-II (4.5 MW) and the under-progress Tapovan-Vishnugad (520 MW), Vishnugad-Pipalkoti (444 MW) and Phata-Byung (76 MW).The affidavit reflects a collective decision of the union ministries of Jal Shakti (MoJS), Power (MoP) and Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The recommendation is "subject to strict compliance with all applicable statutory provisions and environmental safeguards and that no other new hydro electric projects shall be undertaken in the upper reaches of the Ganga river basin in the State of Uttarakhand."While media reports have headlined the Union government's decision and many commentators have welcomed it, the state of Uttarakhand appears disappointed by the loss of a 2,134-MW power-generation potential and associated economic benefits. Environmentalists have welcomed the Union government's decision as a step forward. But in reality, it is only a small step forward. The latest affidavit merely reiterates a stand taken by the Union government in an affidavit submitted in 2021.The arguments against promoting new HEPs in the upper Ganga basin were made by a SC-appointed Expert Body (EB-I) in 2014. The EB-I's most important recommendation was that no dams should be built in the paraglacial zone, broadly the area north of the highly seismic main central thrust (MCT). Tapovan-Vishnugad and Vishnugad-Pipalkoti HEPs are in the paraglacial zone. Had the EB-I recommendation been adopted in 2014, the destruction of the Tapovan-Vishnugad barrage (2021) would not have happened and the lives of over 200 workers would have been saved. At the Phata Byung project site, only some civil works have been done so far. All three of these projects can be dropped as well.The significance of the Union government's decision lies in the factors that led to it. The decision rests on a premise that the "upper reaches of River Ganga, occupy an incomparable position due to its unique hydrological, ecological and cultural significance in India…."The affidavit specifies five features that define the uniqueness of the upper Ganga reaches. They include: (1) the five sacred Prayags, the four Char Dham shrines, legally protected areas like the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone, the Nanda Devi, Valley of Flowers and Gangotri National Park and the Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary symbolising the unique cultural and ecological significance of the region;(2) the earlier decision to ensure that the entire flow of upper Ganga, including the Alaknanda, Mandakini and Bhagirathi main streams, is not stopped at any location in the spirit of the 1916 Haridwar Agreement between the British government, princely states and Indian social leaders; and (3) the extreme geological sensitivity of the region lying in the most sensitive seismic zones IV and V, making it inherently prone to landslides, flash floods, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), avalanches and other geological hazards.GD Agrawal, a former Member-Secretary of the Central Pollution Control Board and Head of the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at IIT-Kanpur, gave up his life after a decade-long struggle to convince the Union government that the Ganga was 'unique among all rivers'. His students produced experimental data in the 1970s and showed that the self-purifying capacity of the Ganga was well above other major rivers of the world. He attributed this unique property to the special sediments and vegetative matter originating in the high Himalayan ranges. In 2013, the National Environmental Engineering Institute reported on evidence in the sediments of the Bhagirathi, Mandakini and Alaknanda rivers that confirmed Agrawal's hypothesis.The government's affidavit has cited increasing frequency of disasters in the region as evidence of the sensitive hydro-geodynamic character of the upper Ganga basin. These include the Uttarkashi earthquake (1991), the Bhenti landslide (1998), the Chamoli earthquake (1999), the Varunavrat slope failure (2003), the Assiganga flash flood (2012), the Kedarnath GLOF, extreme regional rainfall (June 2013), the Raunthigad avalanche that destroyed the Rishiganga HEP, the Tapovan-Vishnugad barrage that led to the deaths of over 200 labourers (2021), the Joshimath land subsidence (2023), the Pinder valley flash flood (2023) and the Dharali avalanche (2025). These events demonstrate that the region is extremely hazardous for current HEPs and other major infrastructure projects.The importance of the Union government's affidavit also lies in its support for the precautionary principle. It recalls the court's concern for the upper Ganga basin's sensitive ecology and proclivity to disasters after the June 2013 floods, which led to its suo motu order in August 2013. The affidavit submits, "any final decision regarding the permissibility of HEPs in this region necessarily warrants a cautious and precautionary approach."It is true that Uttarakhand stands to lose revenue from the loss of over 2,100-MW installed hydropower capacity, besides its own share of the foregone power. As a mountain state, it has severe revenue-generation constraints. The Centre must consider paying the Himalayan states for providing ecological services by forgoing ecologically harmful projects. Such a policy must stipulate clearly that the funds should be spent on restoring degraded environments and protecting them through community ownership. Regenerating forests destroyed by hydropower dams and springs damaged during tunnelling could be the first priorities.Challenges by influential vested interests have created a history of committee-pe-committee, affidavit-pe-affidavit and tareekh-pe-tareekh. Four reports of experts and officials, Expert Body I (2014), Tare Committee (2015), Expert Body II (2020) and CABSEC committee (2024) have analysed the issues. These have been examined and debated by the MoEF&CC, MoJS and MoP, with involvement of the PMO, to finally prepare a consensus Union of India affidavit. The Union affidavit may yet be challenged by aggrieved project proponents and perhaps even the state of Uttarakhand.The SC has an opportunity to establish a Lakshman rekha to protect Uttarakhand's fragile ecosystems while also sending a clear message to powerful lobbies and vested interests.The author chaired the Expert Body I and the SC panel to investigate the widening of the Chardham highways

Saving Ganga from reckless development

The Centre must seriously consider paying the Himalayan states for providing ecological services by forgoing ecologically harmful projects

Ravi Chopra

Saving Ganga from reckless development

The Centre must seriously consider paying the Himalayan states for providing ecological services by forgoing ecologically harmful projects

Ravi Chopra

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article