Enigma of 'final clearance' of major irrigation projects

By M.Madan Mohan

HUBLI, JUNE 29. At what stage is a major irrigation project said to have received final "clearance?" Connotations of the same and confusion over understanding what "clearance" implies has provided grist for a spate of controversies over the execution of the Krishna Basin projects in Karnataka.

What makes matters worse is that the word "clearance" is being bandied about with no one bothering to explain what it means. While those in the know of things are reticent about explaining the multiplicity of clearances involved in the process, the uninitiated fail to notice the change in the terminology used by those in authority in describing "clearances."

It, therefore, comes as a surprise to be told by informed sources that there are as many has half-a-dozen clearances one may have to obtain from different agencies of the Union Government before a project is said to have been finally cleared by the Centre. The number of clearances depends on what the State Government proposes and the scheme demands.

It starts from the moment a proposal goes from the State Government to the Central Water Commission (CWC). It has to be first cleared for hydrology and by the CWC's Gates Committee. Then, the proposal comes up before the Technical Appraisal Committee and the Advisory Committee both in the CWC.

Then comes investment clearance from the Planning Commission, with the proposal again returning to the CWC. The Union Ministry of Water Resources comes at the end to give its final approval. If the project envisages submersion of forest areas, a separate clearance is needed from the Union Ministry of Forests and Environment, which has to be obtained even after getting a go- ahead signal from the Union Ministry of Water Resources. Sometimes the Water Resources Ministry holds up the project for want of environmental clearance.

No project has any prospects of being approved or implemented unless it receives clearance in Hydrology, and to erect gates, and the type of gates to be errected is vetted by the Gates Committee. In this context, when the State Government pursued the proposal to generate hydel power from the water available between the 519-metre and the 524-metre level of the Alamatti Dam, it obtained clearance only from the Gates Committee. This was what the State Government implied when it talked of obtaining "clearance" for the project. It is only when a project has been vetted by the Technical Appraisal Committee and the Advisory Committee that the stage is set for the Planning Commission to clear the project for investment.

Known as "investment clearance," this action of the Planning Commission, has the limited purpose of enabling the State Government to go ahead in tying up the funding arrangement from different agencies. This was what Karnataka obtained, when it decided to raise the height of the Alamatti Dam to 524-metre to implement the plan for generating of hydel power. But the Supreme Court has cleared the height of the Alamatti Dam at 519.6 metres notwithstanding the investment clearance given by the Planning Commission for raising the dam height to 524 metres.

What, however, clinches the issue is the clearance from the Union Ministry of Water Resources based on recommendations of the CWC and that of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. Even the type of "clearance," that Karnataka says that the Centre has given to the projects undertaken by Andhra Pradesh for utilising the surplus waters of the Krishna (which is currently a matter of controversy) is not free from confusion.

Enquiries with officials reveal that the Srisailam RBC was cleared by the Planning Commission and CWC in 1981. As for the Pulinchintala Diversion project and the Bhima Lift Irrigation Project, a "conditional clearance" was given by the Planning Commission in 1995-96 mainly because of Andhra Pradesh's contention that it wanted to utilise 29 tmcft. of water out of the "savings" accruing from the modernisation of the Krishna Cuddappah Canal. But there has been no report if Andhra Pradesh has fulfilled these conditions and obtained "clearance" later on.

The Telugu Ganga Project and the Srisailam Left Bank Canal Project, continue to remain "unapproved" as neither the CWC nor the Planning Commission has cleared them. This was

more or less confirmed in a communication received by the State Government from the Union Minister of State for Water Resources, Mr. Arjun Charan Sethi, a few months ago.

So everyone was surprised when the Chief Minister, Mr. S.M.Krishna, recently hauled the Centre over the coals for its "partisan attitude" against Karnataka, and for its giving "clearance" to three Andhra Pradesh projects.

Was the Chief Minister talking about the "clearances" at different levels already received, in which case, his comments could be considered as belated reaction of the State Government? Or was there anything new, which had occurred in the interrgnum between Mr. Sethi's letter and the time the Chief Minister went public with his caustic remarks against the Centre?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Revision in train timings, numbers from July 1
Next     : Move ahead aggressively, IT industry told