VIJAYAWADA: Noting that Purushottapatnam, Chintalapudi and Pattiseema lift irrigation schemes need environment clearances (ECs) as they are not a part of the Polavaram Irrigation Project, as argued by the Andhra Pradesh government, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) appointed a committee to estimate the penalty to be levied for executing the projects without EC.
The tribunal also directed that the penalty be collected and an 'action taken report' be furnished within six months, and posted the matter to April 12, 2021. The principal bench of the tribunal, headed by justice AK Goel, on Wednesday continued the hearing on the petitions filed by former Congress minister Vatti Vasanth Kumar - against the three lift irrigation schemes (LIS) alleging damage to the Godavari delta - and farmers - alleging damage to their land.
While Supreme Court advocate Sravan Kumar represented the petitioners, AP was represented by senior advocate Venkataramani. The bench examined the joint report submitted by a committee, with members of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and IIT, constituted earlier (as per NGT order dated February 20, 2020) to determine if EC was required.
In the report submitted dated April 28, 2020, the committee noted that the Purushottapatnam LIS involved irrigation component and would need EC as per an EIA notification in 2006. It added that consent to establish (CoE) and consent to operate (CoE) were to be obtained from the Pollution Control Board, and clearance was to be obtained from the Central Water Commission.
The committee also noted that though the AP government said the pumps would be dismantled after the completion of the Polavaram Project, there was no clarity on dismantling the pipeline laid in Stage-I of the project. It noted that the CWC said the project was never cleared/accepted and that it was not appraised as a part of the Polavaram Project.
It noted that the Purushottapatnam lift was stopped after the intervention of the Centre. The panel suggested that the same be continued until statutory clearance is obtained. AP contended that the report furnished by the committee does not reflect an accurate picture and added that it is yet to submit its views. In the past, an EC was not required.
However, the tribunal considered the report submitted by the committee it appointed and directed AP to obtain ECs for the projects. While Pattiseema and Chintalapudi LIS were in operation, the bench was informed that lifting from Purushottapatnam was stopped last year following a show cause notice from the Union ministry.
The tribunal asked that the Purushottapatnam project be operated after obtaining EC, while EC could be obtained for the other two immediately since they were under operation. The tribunal appointed a committee with members from MoEF, district Collectors of East and West Godavari and APPCB to assess the damage and penalty, and also directed that the penalty be collected in six months.
Committee report inaccurate: Government
The Andhra Pradesh government contended that the report furnished by the committee does not reflect an accurate picture and added that it is yet to submit its views