Citizen’s Save Arkavathy to Save
Bangalore
Leo F. Saldanha and Ranjini Thomas
Environment Support Group[1],
Bangalore, India
World Environment
Day was remarkably different in Bangalore this year. A campaign lead by
Sanmathi women’s group and backed by Environment Support Group succeeded in
forcing the Chief Minister of Karnataka to withdraw the clearance granted to a
luxury villa complex within the watershed of Arkavathy river, a major source of
drinking water for the city.
At the centre of the controversy is the Delhi based
DLF Ltd., a construction company, which proposes to develop a massive housing
complex involving the development of the 270 luxury villas for the super rich
in the Arkavathy Valley. This has been
repeatedly criticised by experts and citizens groups who stress that the
pollution from this project is bound to affect significantly the water quality
in the T. G. Halli reservoir where the Arkavathy is impounded. Considering that a third of the city’s water
needs is even today provided by this source, the target of attack for long has
been S. Bangarappa. As Chief Minister
of Karnataka, it was he that accorded clearance to the project in 1991
disregarding all concerns.
This highly controversial decision of Bangarappa, a
man hounded by various State and Central enquiry agencies even today for
various corrupt deals executed during his time, has resulted in a hue and cry
from various quarters. Political
parties have chosen to pick on this decision to capitalise their short-term
gains. However, no conclusive action
emerged excepting for a Public Interest Litigation by Prof. Lakshmisagar,
presently Rajya Sabha member, as a result of which the project development was
stalled.
Public concern over Supreme Court verdict:
Following a series of Hearings the High Court of
Karnataka quashed the clearance granted to the project by Bangarappa’s
government. However, this decision was
overturned by the Supreme Court of India on a DLF appeal, with the three judge
bench citing the various pollution control measures and monitoring mechanisms
detailed in the clearance, sufficient to allay public concerns with regard to
the project.
In contrast public concerns only heightened as it
became increasingly evident that should DLF succeed in constructing their villas,
not only would the valley be urbanised beyond repair, but the effort involved
in adhering to the control measures were simply unachievable given the very
poor monitoring mechanisms in place.
Thus the threat to public health of Bangalore citizens was of a
permanent nature. Any slip on the part
of DLF, its potential residents or the monitoring agencies could have
disastrous consequences.
The huge amounts of fertilisers and pesticides used in
keeping the villa lawns green were considered one major source of
pollution. There were also fears of
leaks from the septic tanks, as the gradient of the 412-acre project site
coursed straight into the valley. Considering that there would be various
attendant facilities such as entertainment centres, markets, club-houses,
workshops, etc., point sources of pollution could be from a variety of sources.
For that matter any of the activities of the large population that would
inhabit the area could pose a threat.
With the Supreme Court decision of September 1998
backing the project clearance, DLF seemed set to initiate its project. Public fears heightened even as the
Government of Karnataka refused to commit its stance one way or the other. Rather than toe the Government line the
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) joined the citizens in
voicing concern against the project. As
a matter of fact it categorically stated that such developments if allowed
would pose a direct threat to public health concerns, for it would be an
impossible task to remedy the situation if the water got polluted.
Shifting stances of Government agencies:
The open stance of the BWSSB, coming as it did in the
aftermath of the Supreme Court verdict, raised serious worries in the public
mind as to what the Government was upto.
On its part, the Karnataka Government claimed they would not allow the
project to go through, but as weeks passed and no action followed the assurance
seemed only rhetorical. The
predicament, however, was what legal recourse the Government could legally
adopt in over-riding the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the project.
Even as this development was debated widely, the
Opposition, lead by the Bharatiya Janata Party, was remarkably silent. Except leveling allegations of corruption
against four ministers who they claimed had “nexus” with the promoters, and
threatening to expose them if the Government failed to withdraw the clearance,
they did little to initiate steps towards a solution to this vexatious issue.
As weeks passed and months rolled, it became apparent that neither the
Government nor the Opposition was serious in addressing citizens concerns. A watch and wait strategy seemed to have
been adopted in tiring the public whilst hoping the controversy would blow
over.
Prof. Lakshmisagar raised his call once more and
called for a mass public action to force the Government to withdraw the
clearance granted. Notwithstanding a
few seminars that focussed on the issue and concluded with resolutions voicing
protests, there was no energetic action in conclusively resolving the problem.
Environment Support Group and Sanmathi decided not to
let the apathetic response of the Government continue. In commemoration of the International Day of
Action for Rivers, Water and Life, coordinated by the International Rivers
Network on March 14 this year, a protest was held involving various citizens
groups at the T. G. Halli reservoir about 30 kms from Bangalore. The media supported this event with wide
coverage and this resulted in drawing public attention to the issue.
Consequently, various civic forums joined issue on the
cause. Swabhimana, a NGO collective
attached to the Bangalore Municipal Corporation, organised a Public Debate
which brought the various agencies involved in clearing the project together on
a public platform. However, little was
achieved as agencies continued to shift blame.
For instance, Dr. A. Ravindra, Commissioner of the
Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority claimed his agency could
not be blamed as it did not exist at the time of clearance. The Secretary of the Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board Mr. S. Ramaiah claimed his agency had not cleared the
project but had only offered “it’s opinion” to the Urban Development Department. And the BWSSB Chairman Sharma continued to
lament that despite their opposition to the project “the government sanctioned
clearance”.
With such banter the beneficiary seemed to be
DLF. Even though DLF did not indicate
plans for initiating the project soon, the threat remained that if permanent
solutions were ignored, it was only a matter of time before the valley would be
a lost cause.
A combination of lobbying efforts by ESG with a
citizen outreach programme of Sanmathi, helped in keeping the issue in public
focus. Indian Express took up the issue
with fervor and launched a series of articles probing the non-committal
response of the Government.
Chief Minister targeted on World Environment Day:
As the World Environment Day approached, and the
Government advertised its various achievements in aid of the environmental
cause, the opportune moment had arrived to expose their hypocritical stance a
la the DLF issue. ESG and Sanmathi lead a signature campaign urging Chief
Minister Patel to “provide a most fitting reason for
celebration” of World Environment Day “by declaring the Arkavathy basin
an ‘environmentally protected area’”. And further stated that such a move would
“not only …help in warding off immediate threats to this sensitive ecosystem,
but it would certainly protect the area for all times to come.”
A day later, the Asian Age reported that the Chief Minister
had called for the papers relating to the DLF issue. This was a very positive indicator much like the statement of the
Bangalore Development Minister Somanna who said the public demanded
cancellation of the clearance “wherever he went”. On June 6th Chief Minister Patel decided to withdraw
permission to DLF.
Whilst the ratification by the Cabinet of the CM’s decision
is expected soon, the issue remains that this may not mean that the battle has
been won in fully settling public concerns.
For the DLF project endorsed by the Supreme Court decision may still
proceed. Awake to this possibility, the
Government now proposes to amend the “necessary legislation”, which exactly has
not been clearly stated, or perhaps bring in a new legislation to accord
permanent protection to the Arkavathy valley.
Quite a messy outcome of not considering the implications in the first
instance.
The real
threat is imminent:
It is in the future, however, that the threat remains in
securing protection for the Arkavathy valley.
The city is growing at a rapid pace and it is only a matter of time
before Arkavathy is affected by the urban sprawl of Bangalore. Much of Bangalore’s suburban spread is
highly unplanned, with little regulation and often without good sanitation and
water services. With land use changes
becoming increasingly common from agriculture to housing and industrialisation,
the Arkavathy catchment is vulnerable.
As if to demonstrate this threat, even as public and media
attention was focussed on DLF, Janapriya Apartments sprung a surprise by
developing 700 flats very close to the valley!
All that the Pollution Control Board did when the matter was brought to
their notice was to order installation of a tertiary treatment plant. Such developments are bound to be more
commonplace in times to come.
A major and proximal water source of Bangalore must be
protected for all times. If such is to
be achieved, the valley must be declared “environmentally protected” and thus
out of bounds for industrialisation and urbanisation. The Environment Protection Act empowers the Ministry of
Environment and Forests to take such action for environmentally sensitive
areas. Moving beyond technical fixes,
if the Chief Minister of Karnataka took this suggestion seriously and urged the
Centre for such action, this would be a first in protecting a city’s water
source in India.
A precedent would thus be set which in time would ensure
that public health concerns would prevail over any other consideration,
especially those involving characteristically lucrative urban housing
projects.
esg/14 June 1999/1600 words
[1] Environment Support Group is a non-profit research, training and advocacy initiative that works with local communities and civil society groups on issues related to social and environmental justice concerns.
Address: 36, Reservoir Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004. Telefax; 91-80-6614855
Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.altindia.net/esg/index.htm