The Narmada

Valley Scheme
India
North of
Mumbai.
Sardar Sarovar Project
Team Members
Jayesh Chedda 10
Vidya Ghule 20
Payal Mehta 30
Nirmi Parikh 40
Arihant Shah 50
Manali Wyawhare 60
 Initial Budget
(1986-87)Rs 6,400 cr
Expenditure so far Rs
14,000 cr
Projected Total cost Rs

 
24,000 cr
Cost of main canal Rs 4,000
cr
Villages submerged 14
Families displaced
                                                                                                 
4,600
Irrigation for 1.91 million
hectares
Drinking water for 8,200
Diversion canal into arid Gujurat villages, 135 towns
Not just a dam!
Narmada facts

 Project began in 1979.

 3,200 dams to be built along 1,200km Narmada river.
 Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan
likely to benefit.
 Opponents says it will displace 200,000 people and
damage ecology.
 World Bank withdrew in 1993.
 To be fully complete by 2025.
 PROBLEMS
 The opponents of the dam counter that these benefits are grossly
exaggerated and would never accrue to the extent suggested by the Govt.
 Instead the project would displace more than 320,000 people and affect the
livelihood of thousands of others.
 Overall, due to related displacements by the canal system and other allied
projects, at least 1 million people are expected to be affected if the project is
completed.
 With no information forthcoming from the Govt. regarding the details of the
project, the plans for the people to be affected etc. the NBA declared its
opposition to the entire project taking into consideration the scale of adverse
impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL :
GOOD POINTS
Low rainfall, unreliable
monsoon, long dry

 
season –
Difficulties overcome by
irigation
                                    
Create new ecosystems
e.g . in reservoirs. Can be
used economically.
Create new ecosystems e.g . in reservoirs. Can be used
economically
Large water
bodies shall be
created as a result
of various dams
being constructed
on the river
Narmada & its
tributaries.

The reservoirs would, therefore, offer tremendous opportunities for fisheries

development which would ultimately benefit the fishermen socially and
economically in the respective areas.
ENVIRONMENT: Good land and
BAD POINTS vegetation
flooded and
destroyed

Drowning tree
Reservoirs may silt up quickly …
Soils may become saline in desert areas :
i.e. new farming not sustainable

Of the total area to be irrigated by

Sardar Sarovar, only some 40
percent is classified as "suitable"
and "very suitable" for irrigation.
As to the remaining 60 percent,
there are more or less severe
problems related to high salt
content in the soil or in the
groundwater.
Principal Opponents:
 Medha Patkar – Narmada Bachao Andolan 1989

 Arundhati Roy – booker price winning author

 Baba Amte – renowned social worker

 Their principal ground of opposition
 Non fulfillment of basic environmental conditions
 Insufficient studies & plans
 Local inhabitants not being taken into cnfidence
 Insufficient compensation
Final Outcome
 World bank backed out in 1995
 Supreme court gave stay order & directed the states to
complete rehabilitation process.
 In 2000, Supreme court gave the final verdict of
completion of construction according to its original
scale.
Our idea as a manager:
 To form a core committee & sub committees for direct
dialogue between local villagers and govt. agencies
 To implement a comprehensive compensation scheme
 To set into motion a full scale PR campaign:
 To garner support at national & international level
 To propagate the achievements till date
 To make local villagers fully aware of their
contribution in nation’s development
Thank You