Cumulatively, the project will require over 17,000 ha. (170 sq. km.) of land and cost an estimated Rs. 907 crores. A total of 244 ha. of the Melghat Tiger Reserve is in the stated submergence area. The Melghat Tiger Reserve is part of an important wildlife corridor in the Satpura range, and the reservoir created by the Kharia-Gutighat dam will sever this, isolating what wildlife it doesn't drown, as the backwaters and distribution canals will disconnect wildlife corridors.
Melghat and the surrounding forests are already facing threats from poaching and logging by the illegal timber mafia and by the Territorial Wing of the forest department. This project could be the death-knell for these forests, which are critical to tiger breeding in Central India. Apart from disconnecting wildlife corridors with the forests of Madhya Pradesh, secondary pressure exerted on the forests by those displaced will also rise sharply.
Part of the Melghat Sanctuary was denotified in 1994, including the 244 ha. of Project Tiger area that will be submerged. Conservationists who had access to the dam's future plans had pointed this out years ago but the government denied intentions of building the dam, or that there was an ulterior motive to the denotification.
Ironically, the Executive Summary of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report states that the dam will "benefit" the Melghat Tiger Reserve as "a perennial water source will be made available to wild animals" and the creation of a permanent water body will attract migratory water birds!
As with most large dams there will be large-scale displacement of predominantly tribal people, with 72 villages (a population of 54,132 according to the 1991 census) to be either partially or completely submerged.
Even a cursory glance at the EIA report bares deep flaws inherent in the EIA system. While the report lists a wide array of species to be affected, the Executive Summary and its conclusions laud the project as a boon for the area and dismiss the costs as justifiable. This is a direct consequence of EIA consultants being paid by project proponents, bringing their impartiality into question. Conservationists have long argued that EIAs should be conducted by independent consultants appointed from a panel approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the costs recovered from the project proponents separately.
Even on the agricultural front, the EIA admits that the land to be submerged is rich, yielding a variety of crops. As many as 14 rare plants are located in the region, the report mentions. Eight species of mammals, six species of birds and two reptile species under Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 are found in the submergence zone. The Ukai dam built further downstream on the Tapi is not performing to capacity, primarily because its catchment area is in ruins. The same fate is bound to befall the Kharia-Gutighat dam. The damage done would not help to meet either long term irrigation, flood control or power needs.
Clearly, the project is ill-advised and if it were to be cleared, the only beneficiaries would be the timber and construction lobby that could earn perhaps over Rs. 1,000 crores from the submergence zone, which is more than the project cost. The other group that would benefit are the retinue of consultants and contractors who have learned to exploit India's irrational fascination for large dams. But for the tigers in the Satpura ranges of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, it would mean the end of the road.
All concerned readers who would like to object to the Upper Tapi Stage II Project are encouraged to Write a letter.
