Himanshu Thakkar has attached herewith a letter just sent to the members of the MEF's Expert Appraisal Committee on the river valley projcets regarding the application of Andhra Pradesh to the MEF for "backdoor" clearance of the embankments to be constructed in Orissa and Chhattisgarh to "protect" the areas of these states from going under submergence due to the Polavaram project. The letter is self explanatory.

To: Mr. P. Abraham, Chairman,& All the members,Expert Appraisal Committee on River Valley & Hydroelectric projects, c/o Dr Bhowmik,Impact Assessment Division, Ministry of Environment and Forests, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003

Sub: Objections to EC for Polavaram Multi Purpose Project

Dear Chairman and members of the EAC on River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects, We have come to know from the agenda notes of the 23rd meeting of MoEF's Expert Appraisal Committee for River Valley and Hydroelectric Projects to be held on Feb 16-17, 2009 that the committee will be considering Polavaram Multipurpose Project in Andhra Pradesh by Government of Andhra Pradesh (No. J-12011/74/2005-IA.I) for the proposal for the construction of the embankments to protect the lands in Orissa and Chhattisgarh from going under submergence due to the proposed Polavaram project. We strongly oppose this application and request the EAC to reject the proposal on following grounds. 1. Change in scope of the project The proposal to build this huge length of embankments was clearly not part of the original proposal for clearance for the project. The EIA and EMP used for the public hearing and also the ones submitted before the clearance given by MEF on 25.10.2005 and 25.4.2006 did not include the proposal to build the embankments now proposed to be built in Orissa and Chhattisgarh. The proposal to build the embankments changes the basic scope of the project. Hence the new project proposal must go through fresh EIA and EMP and also public hearings in all affected districts including in Orissa and Chhattisgarh as per the EIA notification of 2006, before the project can be reconsidered for EC. Hence the current application should be rejected. 2. Land required in Orissa and Chhattisgarh A very large area of land will be required for the embankments, which includes: v For Embankment For the land on which the embankment is to be built, including freeboard, we estimate that at least 425 ha of land will be required in the two states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh v For mining of materials required for the embankments over 10 million cubic meters of homogenous soil of suitable quality and at least 1.1 million cubic meters of metal (coarse and fine) is required. The mining sources for these materials are yet to be identified. However, it will require large quantity of land for mining of this material, which will be over 100 ha. v For muck disposal The process of building the embankments will create huge quantity of muck, which will be in several lakh cubic meters. A very large area of land will be required for the disposal of this muck, which is yet to be identified. v For drainage channels Drainage channels will have to be constructed on land side of the embankments to ensure that the seepage water and also the local rainwater is diverted to the next available stream/ rivers. Land will also be required for this. However, there has been no process of survey, identification of the land required for all these purposes. The brief EIA note that has been submitted with the current proposal has been prepared without any ground survey. It is not known how much of this private land, how much is forest land, how much is gazing (and other common property) land and so on and what will be required and the what all will be the impacts of acquisition of use of this huge quantity of lands along the river banks. Hence the proposal needs to be rejected on these grounds also. 3. Maximum floods and disaster management The proposal includes having gates and pumping arrangements at some 36 places to ensure that the water from the tributaries, stream meeting the Sabari and Sileru rivers are drained into these rivers. However, this is not based on the 1-100 year High flood and probable maximum precipitation for these streams and their catchments. The assessment must include the simultaneous possibility of 1-100 year flood in the Sabari/ Sileru/ Godavari and also the tributaries meeting them. Without such assessments, the worst floods scenarios for these streams cannot be built, nor can the embankments and the drainage/ gate structures properly designed. The proposal also does not include the disaster management plans in case of a breach of embankment or non functioning of the gates/ pumps, which is very frequent, wherever embankments have been built. The proposal should also be rejected on these grounds. 4. Social impacts No assessment of the social impacts of building the embankment have been done. The building of embankments are bound to cause huge social impacts in terms of loss of hundreds of Ha of land (private, forest, common property lands) for the various purposes described above, in terms of flooding when the gates/ pumps do not function, in terms of lack of access to the river, in terms of additional siltation and stagnation of the river, in terms of loss of navigation to the other side and so on. Any clearance without assessing all the social impacts would also be in violation of the clearance from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) dated 17.4.2007, which clearly states, "The Government of Andhra Pradesh, under the technical guidance of the Central Water Commission shall ensure that no submergence and displacement of people including Scheduled Tribes (STs) takes place in the territories of States of Orissa and Chhattisgarh and the population of these two States including STs does not get adversely affected in any manner, either by changes in drainage regime or by any kind of primary/secondary displacement." Since the huge area of land required for the embankments and other aspects will have very substantial impacts on the tribal people staying in the area, any clearance without such assessment and consent of the affected people will be in violation of the MOTA condition and also in violation of the rights of the people, National R&R policy and also the EIA notification of 2006. 5. Public hearings in Orissa, Chhattisgarh This proposal will entail significant social and environmental impacts in the lands of Orissa and Chhattisgarh, and a public hearing for such impacts is mandatory under the EIA notification 2006 and such public hearing has never happened. Hence the proposal does not qualify for consideration. 6. Consent of the states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh The embankments are to be built on the soils of these states, but there is no consent from these states for this proposal. In fact the reports of the public hearing in the states are supposed to come to the MoEF from the respective state govts, which is not the case currently. Hence the proposal does not qualify to be considered. 7. Violation of High Court order The proposal would also be in violation of the Orissa High Court order in WP 3669 of 2006, where the High Court has said that the AP can take up the project without any impact on any land/ village/ area of Orissa. The proposed embankments are to be built on the lands of Orissa and will have huge impacts on the areas, people and lands of Orissa. Hence the embankments would also be in violation of the orders of High Court of Orissa and the proposal should be rejected on that count too. 8. Violation of the FCA Since the consent of the state govts of Orissa and Chhattisgarh is not available, it is not even clear if some of the hundreds of Ha of land required for the proposed embankment would be coming from forest land. The Forest clearance for the project has clearly stated that "In no case, there should be any submergence of forest land in Orissa and Chhattisgarh". Use of forest land for building of embankment would also be violation of the forest clearance letter and FCA. The forest clearance may be separate from the environmental clearance, but the environmental impact assessment is at least supposed to make an unequivocal statement about how much forest land would be required and impacts thereof, which is not the case in current situation. Hence the proposal does not qualify to be considered for EC as it would violate the EIA notification 2006. 9. Impacts in Andhra Pradesh The building of embankment will also have additional impacts within Andhra Pradesh, particularly on the area along the opposite bank of Sileru river from Orissa, where the proposal is to build the embankment on Orissa side, but not on AP side. As the brief desk top EIA note (which cannot be considered an EIA by any stretch of imagination) attached with the proposal states, the embankments can have a number of impacts, including, change in flow velocity, changes in riverbed levels due to silt deposition and consequent flood levels and so on. These changes will be experienced by the AP portion along the Sileru River, on the opposite bank from Orissa right from the beginning of impoundment and these impacts also need to be assessed, which has not been done either by the earlier EIA or the brief note attached with the current application. 10. Efficacy of Embankments Experience from other places (including Bihar, UP, Assam, Orissa, among others) shows that embankments are at best temporary measure for protection of the area that they are supposed to protect and also they create more problems than solve. There are serious questions if the proposed embankments are the best options for protecting the lands and people of Orissa and Chhattisgarh. There is no application of mind on this issue on the part of the project proponent (Andhra Pradesh) or others concerned at any stage. More importantly, the very people for whose protection this are supposed to be are not part of this process, or the state where these are to be created are part of this process. In this situation it would indeed be very shocking and in complete violation of the rights of the people and constitution of India if the EAC gives clearance to this proposal. Under these circumstances, the current application should be rejected and the project authorities should be asked to redo the whole EIA, hold public hearings in ALL the affected districts and than get back with an application for fresh clearance. In the meantime, the earlier clearance granted to the project should stand revoked in view of the change in scope of the project. We would be happy to come and explain these issues before the EAC if necessary. We will also look forward to your response on this. I would like to request Dr Bhowmik to ensure that all the members of the expert committee gets a copy of this before the meeting of the River Valley EAC committee On 16-17 Feb 2009.

Thanking you, Sincerely, Swarup Bhattacharya For SANDRP