George Mallory, the mountaineer immortalised as someone who may have been the first to summit the Mt Everest was once asked: “Why do you climb mountains?” He is famously said to have replied: “Because they are there”. A much-distorted version of this may well apply to large dams, which often seem to be built for no reason except for the fact that “a site where a dam can be built is there”. At least this is certainly true in the case of the Athirapally dam and hydropower project proposed on the Chalakudy river in Kerala. Nothing else can explain why has the Government of Kerala decided to revive this project, which had been all but declared as scrapped.
The Chalakudy river, even though just about 145 km in length, is heavily dammed with six dams already existing in the basin. The proposed 163-MW Athirapally dam would be the seventh and would be located six kms above the magnificent Athirapally waterfall, and just 500 meters upstream of the famous Vazhachal rapids.
The project has faced intense opposition since 1985, just after it was first proposed. The opposition has highlighted how the project will severely impact the rich and unique biodiversity of the basin, hurt the economy of the area, threaten the survival of the already endangered Kadar tribal population there, and significantly reduce the flow of water destroying the splendour and the attraction of the very identity of the river – the Athirapally and Vazhachal waterfalls.
These impacts have been documented extensively and in great detail. The project holds the dubious distinction of having had its environmental clearance set aside twice (in October 2001 and March 2006), and having the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issuing a show cause notice to it in 2010 asking why the environmental clearance, finally issued for the third time in 2007, should not be revoked and the project foreclosed, due to its impact on the Kadar tribes and the rich bio-diversity.
Those who know the working of the MoEF will understand how rare this action is, as the ministry is mostly habituated to stand by and watch the destruction of the richest and the most unique habitats and ecology. It is another matter that this character of the MoEF led to the withdrawal of the notice in October 2015, and extended the validity of the environmental clearance to 2017.
Yet, such has been the intensity and support that the campaign has received in the state, often cutting across the political lines, that no work took place on the project even as 2017 came and went, and the environmental clearance lapsed. What is also unique about this movement — under the banner of the Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi, and driven by one of India’s finest activist, the late Latha Anatha — is that it did not stop at challenging the construction of the Athirapally dam, but expanded to include a vision and plan for the restoration and conservation of the entire basin, at the same time ensuring that livelihood opportunities of the local communities were enhanced.
One of the pioneering efforts of the movement was to develop a reservoir operation protocol for the existing dams in the basin so that the river flow was enhanced from an ecological point of view and, at the same time, the water supply to the downstream Chalakudy River Diversion Scheme, an irrigation scheme supplying to some 14,000 ha, improved. This protocol found resonance even in the official circles. The project was virtually as good as scrapped.
It is against this background that the Government of Kerala has issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on June 4, 2020, to the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL) “permitting “the KSEBL to proceed with the implementation of the Athirapally Hydro Electric Project”. The NOC states that the project would “address the peak load requirements of the state to a large extent”.
This reasoning seems to be highly misleading. The projections by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), as part of its latest 19th Electric Power Survey, project the peak electricity demand of Kerala at around 7,000 MW in the year 2030, the year when the Athirapally project could be earliest commissioned even with most optimistic assumptions. This means the project will meet about 2.3% of the state’s peak demand. And even this electricity will come at an excessively high financial cost – not counting the social and environmental costs.
The project’s cost was pegged at Rs 386 crore at the 2004-05 rate in the CEA Techno-Economic Clearance. Today, this cost would have gone up manifold. We do not have access to the latest official estimates, but local activists mention that the government statements in 2016 had pegged the cost at Rs 1,500 crore.
If we look at the other hydropower projects being executed in Kerala – the 60 MW Pallivasal project and the 40 MW Thottiyar projects — their average costs are around Rs 8.3 crores/MW, and, at the same level, the Athirapally project cost would be around Rs 1,350 crore, at today’s prices. The cost, by the time it is completed, could be much higher. The NOC by the Kerala government says that the construction period for the Athirapally project is a “minimum seven years” after obtaining all the clearances. The Kerala government’s track record in implementing hydropower projects is also telling; just like most other hydropower projects in the country, the two projects under implementation in the state mentioned above have had a time overrun of 11 and 9 years respectively, and are still not complete.
Meanwhile, the prices of other sources of electricity, mainly solar and storage, have come down sharply in the past years and continue to fall. A recent study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) states, “the total (projected) prices (PV system plus battery storing 25% of PV energy) are Rs 3.94/kWh in 2020, Rs 3.32/kWh in 2025, and Rs 2.83/kWh in 2030. Such low battery storage prices could disrupt how India plans to meet its growing energy needs.”
Indeed, these prices of electricity are lower than that from the many existing hydropower projects and certainly less than that from new hydropower projects. These are with storage, so they also meet the demands of peaking. These prices indicate that even today, power from Athirapally would be costlier, and by the time the project is ready, it would be a white elephant. There is no economic case for the Athirapally project, in view of its high costs, and more so when we see that much cheaper alternatives are available.
But Athirapally is one of those projects where the issue of alternatives really does not matter. The project’s impacts are so destructive that even in the absence of any alternatives, the project should be scrapped. When cheaper alternatives are available, it is utter folly to go ahead with the project.
The Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (Madhav Gadgil) Committee Report 2011) notes the area’s “biodiversity richness, the high conservation value, the highly-significant fish fauna … the bird fauna with 75% of the endemics of the Western Ghats, and the unique riverine ecosystem not seen in other areas in the state”, and recommends that “the Athirapilly -Vazhachal area should be protected as such and the permission for the proposed hydro-electric project at Athirappilly should not be given … the Chalakudy River should be declared as a fish diversity rich area …”
This will be the most sensible, rationale, and worthy decision in the case of the Athirapally project.
Shripad Dharmadhikary is an activist, researcher, and coordinator of the Manthan Adhyayan Kendra that studies water and energy policies. He writes extensively on issues of water, environment and development.
