|
|
 |
|
|
 |
About
SSPA |
| The
NWDT Award |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ø
Historical Context
Efforts to harness the Narmada waters
were initiated in the 1940s. Sardar
Patel envisaged the utilization of this
powerful source of water in 1946 for
irrigation and power generation. Seven
projects were identified in the initial
survey, and four of these including
Bharuch (Gujarat), Bargi, Tawa and Punasa
(Madhya Pradesh) were given priority
for further investigation.
Following studies and investigation,
Gora was selected as the site in Gujarat,
with the Full Reservoir Level (FRL)
at 161 ft. and the foundation stone
was laid by the late Prime Minister
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on April 5,
1961.
As more modernized and detailed contour
sheets became available from the Survey
of India, the possibility of raising
the dam height began to be considered
for making more optimum use of the dam.
However, inter-state disputes between
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat
over sharing of the waters hampered
the progress of the dam. The Khosla
Committee was constituted in 1965 to
resolve the disputes, but its recommendations
were not implemented. According to the
report submitted by the Committee, a
higher dam with FRL 500 was recommended.
ØThe
Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal
The
Khosla Committee was then replaced by
the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal
(NWDT) in 1969, under the Inter State
Water Disputes Act, 1956. It was
chaired by a sitting judge of the Supreme
Court of India, and was supported by
technical experts and Panels. The Tribunal
studied various issues connected with
the dam including the distribution of
water, height of the dam, provision
of water to Rajasthan and the submergence
of land and rehabilitation of oustees.
Ø
The
NWDT Award
The NWDT gave its final award in 1979 and decisions taken
by the Tribunal were binding to all
parties involved in the dispute. As
per the NWDT Award, the parameters of
the Sardar Sarovar dam could neither
be reviewed nor changed till 2025 A.D.
|
The Award given by NWDT has been considered comprehensive
and a landmark one. The Tribunal,
instead of confining its adjudication
to sharing of water and hydro-power
benefit, has taken special care to
provide for the resettlement of the
people affected by land submergence.
It prescribed a liberal and comprehensive
package of land and civic amenities
for the resettlement of oustees.
|
|
According to the Award, the responsibility of constructing
the SSP lies with Gujarat, and several regulatory and administrative authorities were prescribed
to ensure smooth implementation and effective
compliance with its provisions. After
the NWDT Award, Gujarat decided to construct the dam near Vadgam, about three
kilometers away from the original Navagam
site. The reservoir that was to be created
at this site was given the name ‘Sardar
Sarovar’.
THE LEGAL BATTLE
AND THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT
During
the course of the construction of the
dam, a Writ Petition regarding the resettlement
and rehabilitation measures was filed
in the Supreme Court of India by the
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) in 1994.
At this stage, the height of the dam
was at RL 80.3 m. Due to the court proceedings,
further dam construction was stalled,
and the dam remained at this height
until February 1999.
Gujarat was then allowed to raise the
level of the dam upto RL 85 m after
excluding the humps. In an order passed
in May 1999, the Apex Court
recorded a statement made on behalf
of Govt. of Gujarat and the Union of
India that the humps being constructed
on the dam shall not exceed 3 m.
ØTen Directions in the Majority Judgment
In October 2000 the Writ Petition was eventually disposed
off, by the majority judgment (Writ
Petition (C) No. 319 of 1994). Ten major
directions were issued in this judgment.
The basic provisions under these directions
were:
-
Construction
of the dam would continue as per the
Award of the Tribunal.
-
As
the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group
had cleared the construction up to
90 meters, the same could be undertaken
immediately. Further raising of the
height would be only pari passu
with the implementation of the
relief and rehabilitation and on the
clearance by the Relief and Rehabilitation
Sub-group. The Relief and Rehabilitation
Sub-Group would give clearance for
further construction after consulting
the three Grievances Redressal Authorities
that had already been set up.
-
The
Environment Sub-group under the Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India would consider
and give, at each stage of the construction
of the dam, environment clearance
before further construction beyond
90 meters could be undertaken.
-
The
permission to raise the dam height
beyond 90 meters would be given by
the Narmada Control Authority, from
time to time, after it obtained the
clearances from the Relief and Rehabilitation
Sub-group and the Environment Sub-group.
-
The
reports of the Grievances Redressal
Authorities had revealed that there
was a considerable slackness in land
identification and acquisition for
the rehabilitation of oustees. The
three states were directed to implement
the NWDT Award according to the packages
that had been offered by them. The
states had to comply to any direction
given by the NCA, Review Committee
or the Grievances Redressal Authorities.
-
Even
though there has been substantial
compliance with the conditions imposed
under the environment clearance the
NCA and the Environment Sub-group
would continue to monitor and ensure
that all steps were taken not only
to protect but also to restore and
improve the environment.
-
An
Action Plan would be drawn up by the
NCA within four weeks with regard
to further construction and R&R.
The Action Plan would fix a time frame
to ensure that R&R was pari passu
with the increase in the height of
the dam.
-
The
Review Committee would meet whenever
it was required to do so in the case
of any unresolved dispute presented
to the NCA. It would also meet on
a quarterly basis to oversee the progress
of the construction of the dam and
the implementation of the R&R
programmes.
-
If
for any reason serious differences
in implementation of the Award arose
and the could not be resolved in the
Review Committee, the Committee could
refer the issue to the Prime Minister
whose decision would be binding.
-
The
Grievances Redressal Authorities would
be at liberty, in case the need arose,
to issue appropriate directions to
the respective States for the implementation
of the R&R programmes. If there
was a non-implementation of its directions,
the GRAs could approach the Review
Committee for appropriate orders.
|
The Project and the Cost-Benefit Analysis
The issue cost-benefit analysis was
examined by the World Bank in 1990.
Its report said, "The argument
in favour of the Sardar Sarovar Project
is that the benefits are so large
that they substantially outweigh the
costs of the immediate human and environmental
disruption... The project has the
potential to feed as many as 20 million
people, provide domestic and industrial
water to about 30 million, employ
about 1 million, and provide valuable
peak electric power in an area with
high unmet power demand.... In addition,
recent research shows substantial
economic "multiplier" effects
(investment and employment triggered
by development) from irrigation development.
Set against the futures of about 70,000
project affected people, even without
the multiplier effect, the ratio of
beneficiaries to affected persons
is well over 100:1..."
|
|
Main Parameters of NWDT Award
Ø
Allocation of water (at
75% dependable yields) amongst the States:
Madhya Pradesh:
18.25 MAF
Gujarat: 9.00 MAF
Maharashtra: 0.25 MAF
Rajasthan: 0.50 MAF
Ø
Height of the terminal
dam (SSP): 455 ft
Ø
Full Supply Level of
Main Canal: 300 ft
Ø
Power allocation:
Madhya Pradesh:
57%
Maharashtra:
27%
Gujarat:
16%
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
About
SSPA 
