Despite the technical and environmental odds stacked up against it, there has been no let-up in the Kerala State Electricity Board’s efforts to build a seventh dam on the Chalakudy river that will spell doom for the picturesque Athirappilly waterfalls

A couple of hours’ drive from the concrete jungle of Kochi takes you to a real forest where a committed group of locals is fighting what could be a decisive battle to save the famous Athirappilly waterfalls. The battle lines have seemingly been drawn, as the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) prepares to move in heavy earth machinery to build what will be the seventh dam across the 144-km-long Chalakudy river.

Leading the ongoing protest is Ammini, 62, who cannot live without the gushing sound of water falling over the red rocks. Around a million tourists are attracted to the area each year, supporting a small market where this mother-of-three runs a kiosk that serves coffee and snacks to visitors.

As you drive upstream of the waterfalls, you see red flags pitched amidst the forest undergrowth, marking the dam site. About 86% of the water flowing in the river will be capped, leaving the Athirappilly to run dry like Karnataka’s ill-fated Jog falls.

But the KSEB is adamant. Not without reason has it revised the detailed project report (DPR) four times since 1989 while facing two court strictures, the first of which suspended the environmental clearance given in 1998 while the second quashed similar clearance given in 2005.

But vested interests have apparently worked overtime within the KSEB. A case in point is the fact that the Ministry of Environment and Forests’ environmental clearance, following a Water and Power Consultancy Services’ environment impact assessment on the third DPR, drafted in 1999, was surprisingly held valid for obtaining technical clearance for the project on the basis of the modified DPR in 2003. Such discrepancies are commonplace.

It is alleged that the KSEB has managed to manipulate data in its quest to secure fresh clearance each time it hits a judicial roadblock. While the high court quashed the previous environment clearance, the latest clearance obtained in 2007 has come up for hearing just as an indefinite satyagraha at the site completes a month. It is worth mentioning here that the public hearing convened on the court’s directive had twice rejected the project.

There has been no let-up in the board’s efforts to implement the project. A report by the River Research Centre (RRC) in Thrissur contends that the proposed 163 MW hydroelectric project will be the least efficient power project in Kerala, with a plant load factor of 16%. Cost overruns make the project financially unviable too -- the present cost of Rs 700 crore is already five times the original estimate.

Despite the technical odds stacked up against it, the project keeps receiving a push in the corridors of power. The fact that it is hornbill habitat (home to four distinct species), that it supports 104 different fish species and that it is a frequented elephant corridor with a high density of 2.1 elephants per sq km appears to be of little consequence to the powers-that-be.

The proposed dam will displace 78 families belonging to the Kadar tribe, primitive hunter-gatherers endemic to the river valley. With only 1,500 members surviving, the tribe faces repeated displacement with each new project assigned to the river. With six projects already commissioned, and the seventh in-waiting, the Chalakudy has earned the dubious distinction of being the most dammed river in the country.

“It is an avoidable blunder,” says Dr Latha Anantha of the River Research Centre (RRC). “Seven per cent reduction in prevailing transmission losses from existing power projects could contribute an additional 1,000 MW of power.” Damming, deforestation and heavy sand mining in the watersheds of 44 rivers in God’s own country have contributed to an increasing number of floods and drought in recent years.

More and more reasons crop up for dropping the project. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged land use change, brought on by deforestation and submergence, as one of the critical factors affecting climate change. With the Council on Climate Change, convened by the prime minister, apprised of such matters, projects like this must be rejected outright. Is anyone listening?

-- Sudhirendar Sharma

InfoChange News & Features, March 2008