Cement factory site a wetland’
The Gujarat government, even before the expert appraisal committee (EAC), had vehemently stuck to its stand that the status of the land allotted to Nirma cement plant ‘was and is wasteland’. The committee report stated that the government neglected the ground reality and stood by the revenue records which were the basis for the allocation of the land.
In its 88-page report, the panel has noted that the Gujarat officials maintained that the area cannot be classified as a wetland or a water body just because a dyke had been constructed 10 years ago to keep out salinity. The officer argued that the government was taking several measures to resolve salinity-related issues and improve ecology. A copy of the report is with TOI.
The committee headed by Professor CR Babu has as its members, Dr Asad R Rahamani, director, Bombay Natural History Society; Dr Parikshit Gautam, director, freshwater and wetlands, WWF-India; Dr Ligia Noronha director resources, regulations and global securities, TERI; Brij Gopal, coordinator, Centre for Inland Water in South Asia; Dr E J James, director, water institute, Karunya University in Coimbatore and Dr P B Rastogi, director, environment ministery.
The panel noted that it is of the view that the site is and ought to have been appropriately re-classified as wetland or water body at least after the construction of the dyke. The report also noted that site in question supports aquatic flora and fauna and species that thrive in fresh water tracts. The report observed that it was a wetland and a water body. The approval accorded may be revoked, the committee said.
Questions apex court wanted panel to answer
The Expert Appraisal Committee which was formed under the direction of the Supreme Court was asked to address five questions.
Whether the land in question was wetland or water body?
EAC states that the land in question is a wetland. The plant lies within the wetland/water body created in 2000, by the constriction of Samadhiala Bandhara as a salinity ingress control structure. The report stated that the salinity control department of Gujarat constructed a 200 meter-long concrete structure across the Motapak creek.
The freshwater runoff from the river Shen Shuri locally known as Han Hori and its catchment area created a freshwater reservoir of 62.3 million cubic feet and total water spread area of 244 hectares.
The dyke was foreseen by the state water resources department to benefit the farmers by lift irrigation of 300 hectares of cultivable land in villages Samadhiala, Patwa and Doliya.
The EAC said they walked the 2.5 km stretch and found various wetland plants apart from couple of thousand birds of about 25 species. The report noted that the government had plans to link the Malan, Samadhiala, Nikol and Kalsar dykes.
Whether the project could come up on such wetland/water bodies if so, what would be its impact on environment? Would it lead to environmental degradation?
The EAC report said that no such project whether industrial or otherwise, should be allowed within a wetland/water body. The National Water Policy 2002 gives priority to drinking and irrigation. The EAC said that this wetland supports fairly rich and important biodiversity and livelihood of the local communities.
“Therefore it is not desirable to have a cement plant in this wetland and as well as immediate vicinity,” said the report. The report stated that the impact of the project and the environment degradation caused by it will extend to the agricultural productivity in different ways. Mahuva is known for taking two crops a year. The EAC stated that there are no plans for the disposal and treatment of sewerage.
If at all project could come up, what steps the user agency should take in the interest of “environment protection”? The EAC did not answer this question as it was of the opinion that the plant cannot be permitted to operate from the present site and noted “the project cannot and should not come up in the present area”.
The precise current status of the project may also be indicated by the expert body.
EAC stated that the project cost of the project was estimated to be around Rs 995 crore and of these Rs 493 crore has already been committed on the plant. The EAC noted, “It can be seen that work has proceeded on the cement plant. The report stated that the unused material supplied at site and the equipment delivered there can be shifted and can be used.
The EAC stated “it will be very detailed exercise to assess the loss to the company, but as a rough guess, we consider that such amount may not excess Rs 100 crore,” said the report
The Gujarat government, even before the expert appraisal committee (EAC), had vehemently stuck to its stand that the status of the land allotted to Nirma cement plant ‘was and is wasteland’. The committee report stated that the government neglected the ground reality and stood by the revenue records which were the basis for the allocation of the land.
In its 88-page report, the panel has noted that the Gujarat officials maintained that the area cannot be classified as a wetland or a water body just because a dyke had been constructed 10 years ago to keep out salinity. The officer argued that the government was taking several measures to resolve salinity-related issues and improve ecology. A copy of the report is with TOI.
The committee headed by Professor CR Babu has as its members, Dr Asad R Rahamani, director, Bombay Natural History Society; Dr Parikshit Gautam, director, freshwater and wetlands, WWF-India; Dr Ligia Noronha director resources, regulations and global securities, TERI; Brij Gopal, coordinator, Centre for Inland Water in South Asia; Dr E J James, director, water institute, Karunya University in Coimbatore and Dr P B Rastogi, director, environment ministery.
The panel noted that it is of the view that the site is and ought to have been appropriately re-classified as wetland or water body at least after the construction of the dyke. The report also noted that site in question supports aquatic flora and fauna and species that thrive in fresh water tracts. The report observed that it was a wetland and a water body. The approval accorded may be revoked, the committee said.
Questions apex court wanted panel to answer
The Expert Appraisal Committee which was formed under the direction of the Supreme Court was asked to address five questions.
Whether the land in question was wetland or water body?
EAC states that the land in question is a wetland. The plant lies within the wetland/water body created in 2000, by the constriction of Samadhiala Bandhara as a salinity ingress control structure. The report stated that the salinity control department of Gujarat constructed a 200 meter-long concrete structure across the Motapak creek.
The freshwater runoff from the river Shen Shuri locally known as Han Hori and its catchment area created a freshwater reservoir of 62.3 million cubic feet and total water spread area of 244 hectares.
The dyke was foreseen by the state water resources department to benefit the farmers by lift irrigation of 300 hectares of cultivable land in villages Samadhiala, Patwa and Doliya.
The EAC said they walked the 2.5 km stretch and found various wetland plants apart from couple of thousand birds of about 25 species. The report noted that the government had plans to link the Malan, Samadhiala, Nikol and Kalsar dykes.
Whether the project could come up on such wetland/water bodies if so, what would be its impact on environment? Would it lead to environmental degradation?
The EAC report said that no such project whether industrial or otherwise, should be allowed within a wetland/water body. The National Water Policy 2002 gives priority to drinking and irrigation. The EAC said that this wetland supports fairly rich and important biodiversity and livelihood of the local communities.
“Therefore it is not desirable to have a cement plant in this wetland and as well as immediate vicinity,” said the report. The report stated that the impact of the project and the environment degradation caused by it will extend to the agricultural productivity in different ways. Mahuva is known for taking two crops a year. The EAC stated that there are no plans for the disposal and treatment of sewerage.
If at all project could come up, what steps the user agency should take in the interest of “environment protection”? The EAC did not answer this question as it was of the opinion that the plant cannot be permitted to operate from the present site and noted “the project cannot and should not come up in the present area”.
The precise current status of the project may also be indicated by the expert body.
EAC stated that the project cost of the project was estimated to be around Rs 995 crore and of these Rs 493 crore has already been committed on the plant. The EAC noted, “It can be seen that work has proceeded on the cement plant. The report stated that the unused material supplied at site and the equipment delivered there can be shifted and can be used.
The EAC stated “it will be very detailed exercise to assess the loss to the company, but as a rough guess, we consider that such amount may not excess Rs 100 crore,” said the report
No comments:
Post a Comment