Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India - International ...

Limited issued an approach paper on environmental impact assessment for the river reach downstream. Thisprovided technical understanding of the likely hydrological changes and possible impact in relation thereto. It wasfurther submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the potential for environmental changes in the lowerriver and estuary had to be seen in the context of the long term development of the basin. The current stage wasclearly beneficial. The three stages could be identified as follows:Stage 1 covers the period roughly from the completion of Sardar Sarovar Dam to the year 2015. Events occurringduring this stage include (a) SSP Canal Command will have reached full development and required diversion ofsome water, (b) the upstream demand will reach about 8 MAF and (c) the Narmada Sagar Dam will have beenbuilt and placed in operation.Stage 2 covers the period from 2015 and 2030 during which the demands upstream of SSP continue to grow andwill reach about 12 MAF still below the volume of 18 MAF that Madhya Pradesh can take in 75 percent year.Stage 3 covers the period upto and beyond full basin development.The report given by M/s. H.R. Wallingford in March 1993 in respect of the downstream impacts of Sardar SarovarDam observers, inter alia, as under:The overall conclusion of the team undertaking the assessment described in this report is that there areno down stream impacts whose magnitude and effect are such as to cause doubts to be cast over thewisdom of proceeding with the Sardar Sarovar Projects provided that appropriate monitoring andmitigation measures are applied. Much of this work is already in progress under the auspices of theNPG, SSNNL and NCA. The recommendations in this report are intended to provide a synthesis of theirwork and suggestions as to whether it might be modified to enhance its usefulness.The said M/s. H.R. Wallingford in the findings of 1995 stated as under:It is thought unlikely that any significant negative environmental impacts will occur over the next 30years as a result of the project. Some possible adverse effects have been identified, the main one beingthe effect of flood attenuation on Hilsa migration. These need to be monitored and more studies undertakento better understand the conditions which trigger spawning. Beneficial impacts in this period includereduced flooding and more reliable dry season flows as well as an overall improvement of the health andwell being of the people to the reliable domestic water supply, improved nutrition and enhanced economicactivity.The above report clearly demonstrates that the construction of dam would result into more regulated and perennialflow into the river with an overall beneficial impact. It is also evident that until all the dams are constructedupstream and the entire flow of river is harnessed, which is not likely in the foreseeable future, there is no questionof adverse impact including the fishing activity and the petitioner’s assertions in this regard are ill-conceived.138. The area of submergence was stated to be rich in archaeological remains but it still remained to be studied. Itwas contended that there was danger of rich historical legacy being lost and even a small increase in the damheight would threaten to submerge many of the sites listed in the report of the Archaeological Survey of India.There were stated to be five monuments which would be affected at dam height of 90 meter or above and no workwas stated to have commenced to protect any of the five monuments.139. According to the State of Gujarat, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958charged the Central and/or State Department of Archaeology with responsibility for the protection of importantcultural sites. Under the Act, sites were classified into three categories as follows:Type 1: Monuments of national importance which are protected by the Central Government;Type 2: Monuments of religious or cultural importance which are protected by the State Government; andType 3: Monuments which are neither centrally nor state protected, but which are considered to be an importantpart of cultural heritage.Under the same law, authorities charged with the protection of the monuments are permitted to take suitablemeasures to ensure the preservation of any protected site under threat from decay, misuse or economic activity.29