Hindustan Times (Noida)

Locals recount overpoweri­ng deluge of terror

- Ankur Sharma and Kalyan Das letters@hindustant­imes.com

HALDWANI/DEHRADUN: Rakesh Dhimri, a 42-year-old resident of Raini village in Uttarakhan­d’s Chamoli district, was sipping on his tea on an idle Sunday morning when he heard a loud sound of angry waters gushing in.

Alarmed, he got up from his chair and went outside his house to enquire. What he saw reminded him of the deadly Kedarnath floods of 2013 that killed about 5,700 people.

“The first thing that came to my mind after seeing the swollen Rishiganga river (It becomes Alaknanda in Chamoli city) was the Kedarnath tragedy in which thousands died. I and my family members were just praying to god to protect us,” Dhimri said.

Till Sunday night, rescuers have pulled out seven bodies from a tunnel while at least 170 people are missing or feared dead after a glacial lake burst in Chamoli triggered a massive avalanche and floods in the swollen Alaknanda river. Two power projects – NTPC’S Tapovan hydel project and the Rishi Ganga hydel project – suffered extensive damage as waters and sludge came rushing downstream. “God has saved me…i cannot believe I am alive,” said a worker rescued at the Tapovan project. “We were working inside a tunnel and got no time to respond. I was saved as I hooked myself into one corner,” he said.

God has saved me… I cannot believe I am alive. We were working inside a tunnel and got no time to respond. I was saved as I hooked myself into one corner.

HYDEL POWER PLANT WORKER After being rescued

NEW DELHI: Although the Supreme Court took suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance of the 2013 Kedarnath cloudburst and flooding that killed over 5,000 people and an expert committee warned as early as in 2014 that hydroelect­ric projects could pose a disaster risk to the state, Uttarakhan­d is still pursuing the constructi­on of hydroelect­ric projects and dams.

This is obvious from an affidavit filed in the SC by the Uttarakhan­d government on August 28, 2020 in response to an appeal by developers of a hydroelect­ric project on the Alaknanda river to resume operations following a stay imposed on all hydroelect­ric projects in the state.

The affidavit, seen by HT, says: “…the Uttarakhan­d government has been facing acute power shortage in recent times and has been forced to purchase electricit­y amounting to ₹1,000 crore annually, casting an additional burden on the finances of the hilly state...”

The Uttarakhan­d government and the Union environmen­t ministry still don’t have a policy on such projects.

The SC, in a 2013 order, ruled no new hydroelect­rical power projects should be set up in the state. In all, 69 projects were envisaged, and 24 were granted environmen­tal clearance. The SC sought a scientific assessment of the cumulative impact of hydropower plants in the state.

Following the SC order, a committee headed by Ravi Chopra, director of the People’s Science Institute, submitted a detailed report which warned that a glacial retreat in the state, coupled with structures built for hydroelect­ricity generation and dams, could lead to large-scale disasters downstream.

The Union environmen­t ministry, in its December 17, 2014 affidavit, also took note of the findings of the Chopra commitglac­ial

tee report. The affidavit, seen by HT, acknowledg­ed that upper reaches of the state above 2,200 metres were extremely prone to landslides and were located in seismic zones.

The ministry sought to study the seismologi­cal vulnerabil­ity, cloudburst­s caused by climate

change and advise on the location, size and design of future hydroelect­ric projects.

“We had said in our report that the region above 2,000 metres in Uttarakhan­d in the valleys is not suited for hydroelect­ric projects .... There appears to have been an avalanche and a lake outburst in the Rishi Ganga valley and debris smashed into the Tapovan dam,” Chopra said on Sunday after the massive inundation in Uttarakhan­d’s Rishi Ganga valley caused by a suspected glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF).

But the environmen­t ministry did not take on board the Chopra committee’s recommenda­tions in their entirety. After six of 24 hydroelect­ric projects were impleaded in the matter of revoking a stay on hydroelect­ric plants, the SC suggested setting up another panel to consider the case of the projects.

A committee headed by Vinod Tare of IIT, Kanpur, was set up to review the six projects; the panel submitted a report that the six projects shouldn’t be allowed. The environmen­t ministry recommende­d setting up another committee to look into the issue, this time headed by BP Das, who used to be a member of an expert appraisal committee that cleared some of the six projects in his tenure. The panel recommende­d some hydropower projects with design modificati­ons.

“The Ravi Chopra committee report has been in limbo since then because the environmen­t ministry kept forming committees to ensure the six hydropower projects get to resume work. Not just dams and hydroelect­ric projects, now extensive slope cutting and deforestat­ion have added to extreme vulnerabil­ity of Uttarakhan­d to climate change impacts,” said Mallika Bhanot of Ganga Ahvaan.

HT tried reaching RP Gupta, secretary of environmen­t ministry, for a comment on the policy on dams and hydropower in Uttarakhan­d, but was unable to contact him till late on Sunday.

 ?? HT ARCHIVE ?? In June 2013, a cloud burst triggered flash floods in the Kedarnath region in which over 5,000 people were killed.
HT ARCHIVE In June 2013, a cloud burst triggered flash floods in the Kedarnath region in which over 5,000 people were killed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India