More dams in the Himalayas? Scientists seeing red

The Supreme Court’s direction on 9 August to a high-power committee to inquire why 21 of the 28 proposals for hydel plants in Uttarakhand were rejected by the central government is being questioned by environmentalists and activists.

It appears bizarre for the court to ask the central government to furnish reasons why construction of 21 dams was banned, they argue, pointing to scientific studies and clear devastation seen in recent years. In this ecologically sensitive and seismically active zone of the Himalayan range, dams and hydel plants have already been constructed without proper environmental impact assessments, sans detailed geological and geotechnical studies, leading to disastrous consequences, they say. The Supreme Court, they feel, succumbed to the powerful lobbies in favour of hydel plants and dams in the hills.   

Himanshu Thakkar, who heads the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) says, “There is a lot of money to be made in the construction of dams, and if they get washed away, then there is more money to be earned in their rebuilding. Everyone is hand-in-glove in this business.”

Repeated disasters in the region have also seen high insurance costs for these projects. Their funding comes largely from public-sector banks, the state government or from public-sector units. Much or most of the money, activists allege, are siphoned away by the dam lobby. Thakkar holds that the Central Water Commission must be asked to provide a safety evaluation of all dams and the ones that are too old must be decommissioned.  

The Kedarnath disaster in 2013 cost the public exchequer over Rs 15,000 crore, while the landslide in Chamoli district in February 2021 caused losses of Rs 1600 crore to the Tapovan Vishnugad project. These, however, constitute just the tip of the iceberg — these figures do not include the hundreds of lives lost or damage to cattle, agriculture and private property.  

Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan, who filed a petition challenging the proposal to build 28 dams believes that the central government committee that approved 7 of these was the third committee to have looked into the issue of dam construction in the Himalayas. Several members of the committee, he added, were themselves involved in clearing these project proposals — establishing clear bias, surely.

The Supreme Court bench presided over by Justice B.R. Gavai, however, felt that the court could not question the government’s decision. It could examine the decision-making process, however, and evaluate whether there were valid and reasoned grounds for allowing some proposals and rejecting others. 

The first committee formed to look into the objections to dam construction in the Himalayas was a Supreme Court-appointed committee of 2013, chaired by scientist Dr Ravi Chopra. Chopra and his team were convinced that the presence of dams precipitated floods. “If the dam was not there, the river would keep moving,” he said.

The proposals under evaluation at the time involved building a total of 70 dams across the Alaknanda–Bhagirathi basin. Three of these projects were cancelled following India’s foremost environmentalist-scientist, Dr G.D. Aggarwal, going on a fast to stop them. Chopra’s team had recommended cancellation of 23 out of the 24 proposals then.  

The committee’s recommendation carried little weight, though. Chopra recalls that even scientists were not willing to speak out against the government: “I saw this in the Char Dham committee. When we were out in the field seeing landslides and disasters, they would all pull up the construction companies; when it came to writing their reports, they would not support their own criticism. They would moderate statements because they were worried about their jobs.” 

A second committee was instituted, and then a third. Bhushan says, “By then it was decided to go ahead and permit the completion of 7 dams and cancel plans for the remaining 21.” 

“More than the Union government, it is the Uttarakhand state government which keeps coming back with frivolous reasons to support the project proposals,” says earth scientist Dr C.P. Rajendran of the National Institute of Advanced Studies.

This despite knowing that these dams will reduce the water flow in the Ganga and scuttle the central government’s flagship Namami Ganga Programme.  

“During the summer months, there is not enough water left to sustain the ecosystem of these rivers,” says environmentalist Renu Paul. Citing the example of the Tehri Dam on the Bhagirathi river, she says, “In the month of June 2024, no water was released from the Tehri Dam or the Koteshwar Dam. As a result, horrified villagers found thousands of fish rotting on the river banks.”   

Anjali Prakash, research director at the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, and lead author of a 2022 special report by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), believes most of the projects currently under construction were planned over a decade ago. The time has come to re-evaluate them based on current scientific data.  

India has the highest density of dams in the world, with the small state of Uttarakhand having the largest number of dams in the country. Many of the 6,000 dams here are over 25 years old. According to a parliamentary panel, there are 234 functional large dams that are between 100- to 300-years old. Sadly, though, our per capita storage capacity is only 225 cubic metres (compare China’s 1,200 cubic metres). 

The government and bureaucrats remain unfazed by the criticism, however. The existing hydel plants in the Himalayas presently have an installed capacity to generate 46,850 MW; but the range has the potential to generate 1,15,550 MW, they say. High demand for electricity during the summer and winter months also makes it imperative to tap further into this potential, they have argued. 

At present, 26 projects are under construction across  the Himalayan states, while 320 more large projects are in the pipeline. No, our governments are obviously not concerned with the carrying capacity of these mountains.