The escalating risks and threats to the true health of our rivers can be gauged by numerous media reports on river restoration efforts through dam removals. As one the news articles, referring to the scenario in the West, states, there seems to be an increasing trend in this regard in many parts of the world, but our country seems to have not learnt anything from these worldwide realisations. "The rate of dam removals in the United States has increased over time, in part driven by dam age. As of 1996, 5,000 large dams around the world were more than 50 years old. In 2020, 85% of dams in the United States were more than 50 years old. In the United States roughly 900 dams were removed between 1990 and 2015, and by 2015, the rate was 50 to 60 per year."
"Dam removal is the process of demolishing a dam, returning water flow to the river. Arguments for dam removal consider whether their negative effects outweigh their benefits. The benefits of dams include hydropower production, flood control, irrigation, and navigation. Negative effects of dams include environmental degradation, such as reduced primary productivity, loss of biodiversity, and declines in native species; some negative effects worsen as dams age, like structural weakness, reduced safety, sediment accumulation, and high maintenance expense. The rate of dam removals in the United States has increased over time, in part driven by dam age. As of 1996, 5,000 large dams around the world were more than 50 years old. In 2020, 85% of dams in the United States were more than 50 years old. In the United States roughly 900 dams were removed between 1990 and 2015, and by 2015, the rate was 50 to 60 per year. France and Canada have also completed significant removal projects. Japan's first removal, of the Arase Dam on the Kuma River, began in 2012 and was completed in 2017. A number of major dam removal projects have been motivated by environmental goals, particularly restoration of river habitat, native fish, and unique geomorphological features. For example, fish restoration motivated the Elwha Ecosystem Restoration and the dam removal on the river Allier, while recovery of both native fish and of travertine deposition motivated the restoration of Fossil Creek. Many of the dams in the eastern United States were built for water diversion, agriculture, factory watermills, and other purposes that are no longer seen as useful. Because of the age of these dams, over time the risk for catastrophic failure increases. In addition, many of these dams block anadromous fish runs, such as Atlantic salmon and American shad, and prevent important sediments from reaching estuaries."
In contrast, our governments here in India seem to be determined to build more dams and barrages through highly unsubstantiated schemes such as interlinking of rivers, pumped storage projects (PSPs), etc. This is despite innumerable valiant efforts by individuals and small communities to revive old, defunct, and dry rivers and lakes all over the country. The latest among these unsubstantiated schemes, which are generally seen as benefiting only a few vested interests, lobbies, and mafias, are the pumped storage projects (PSPs), which are being planned in large numbers all over the country, in river valleys, and even within legally protected areas (PAs), such as Wildlife Sanctuaries. Whereas one primary reason being propagated by the advocates of PSP is that there may already be two dams on the same river, thereby providing the 'water head', there are also strong efforts to build PSPs by building only one additional dam, such as the proposal for a 1,500 MW PSP across river Varahi in Karnataka.
In this larger context, it will not be an exaggeration to state that almost all the existing dam-based hydel power projects may soon be identified as suitable to build PSPs at unimaginable ecological costs.
One such high-impact project proposal, the 2,000 MW PSP in Sharavati river valley of Karnataka, is reported to be favoured by not only the state government of Karnataka but also the Union government. As per many media reports, many such PSP projects are being doggedly pursued against a lot of opposition from the public. Such schemes for PSPs and nuclear power reactors (SMRs is the latest infatuation for our leaders) in different parts of the country seem to be the only policies and schemes on which even some of the opposition political parties, as in Karnataka, and the Union government have the common obsession to spend a lot of public money—both without any substantiation and for obvious political reasons.
The question is what can the public, especially the concerned civil society groups, do to minimise such ecological destruction. The only solution appears to be a massive public awareness campaign on all the associated concerns to our people and to promote credible alternatives to achieve the stated goals of such unsubstantiated schemes. This can be achieved through active participation of the concerned individuals in writing effective opinion pieces on one or more of the associated topics to the national media.
---
*Power & Climate Policy Analyst, Karnataka
Comments