Dr.S.A.Prasad REGISTERED/ACK DUE
25 March 2000
To
The Managing Director
KUIDFC
Bangalore
The Executive Director
STEM
Bangalore
ORR and Lingambudi Lake – STEM’s Report and the Public Consultative Meeting at Mysore on 21 March 2000
Sir,
About 200 citizens of Mysore, some of them representing various NGOs and Voluntary Bodies, attended the subject Meeting at 3 P.M. at the Institution of Engineers (India) premises, notwithstanding the inconvenience of the hour and the day being mid-week.
We have to bring out some points with regard to the Meeting and the Executive Summary provided by STEM.
Points
1. At the outset we would like to appreciate the work done by STEM in preparing this Report in the short span of two months. It brings out that there is a wealth of local scientific knowledge, commitment and understanding which has been intelligently utilised by STEM. However, as brought out overwhelmingly during the Meeting by informed people, there are some omissions and shortcomings that we would like to have corrected and reflected in the Final Report.
2. We would like to emphasize here that planning a 45-metres width 4-lane road to pass through a lake would have merited an EIA at the initial planning stage itself, especially as the funds are a loan from ADB, and ADB’s rules mandate an EIA in such circumstances. The entire process has been upset by official ignorance of procedures and insensitivity to social and environmental issues at some level.
3. The role of the public in conservation (the process of handing over to Forest Dept), initial protection of the Lake, plans for rehabilitation, formation of islands and extended wetland systems, selection and planting of trees and medicinal plants, environmental awareness and education has not been mentioned in the ES. The genesis of the current situation (repeated public protest from 1994, bringing the matter to the notice of ADB officials in 1999, Initial Environmental Examination conducted in 1999 by Mr. Dinesh Mahendra, and the current Rapid EIA etc.) has also not been mentioned. It is essential that both these are included in the Final Report in the interest of objectivity and completeness.
4. From perusal of the ES, the presentation of the ES at the Meeting, and the discussions that ensued at the Meeting, several points have emerged:
(a) The existing alignment (EA)
(i) divides into two the only area (park) accessible to the public,
(ii) severely restricts public access to the water edge especially for elderly and very young people,
(iii) cuts through the marshy ground at the southern end (which is a bird habitat),
(iv) passes a mere 36 metres from the bird habitat at the northern end,
(v) destroys plantation of trees and medicinal plants, and
(vi) deprives the people of about 30 acres of land.
The ES recommends EMM of shifting the EA eastward, depressing the road surface for about 1 km length by 6 metres, constructing an earthen bund with trees planted on it, providing access bridges across the road, and provision of overhead cover (e.g., creepers on steel trellis) over the road. The cost of EMM is said to be about Rs.3 crores. This estimate obviously does not include the social cost of the points mentioned above.
(b) The existence and current use of the road on the bund has not been mentioned in the ES. The EA alone is expected to significantly contribute to the air and noise pollution according to the ES. This is important, since the traffic on this road will increase as the City grows beyond the Lake, and the Lake will be sandwiched between the EA and this increasing source of noise and air pollution. This is a shortcoming of the study conducted by STEM.
(c) The EA cannot be shifted eastward because the area is already built up, and it does not reduce the adverse impact of the EA in any significant way.
(d) The ADB assisted package of diversion of sewage to ETP through trunk mains will ease the problem of eutrophication of the Lake. But at the same time, since the trunk main will pass through the protected area close to the EA at a depth of 7 metres below GL, a considerable amount of damage will be caused to the ecosystem during the execution of the work. As this compromise has already been done, the EA will cause permanent and unacceptable damage. This fact has not been brought out in the ES, and is a shortcoming.
(e) The ES has erred in ruling out SA-2 and considering only SA-3. Actually SA-2 is superior to SA-3 as it involves less re-allotment of sites since it uses the existing Vishwamanava Double Road which is wide enough to serve as part of ORR. The town planning logic of ending such a wide road at the edge of the conurbation without leading anywhere is questionable. SA-2 therefore makes use of this anomaly. An alignment that goes to the edge of the Mysore City conurbation will be even better than SA-2 since it will serve as a Bye-pass Road for more years as the City expands. This should be obvious to anybody, especially a town planner.
(f) It is significant that MUDA has not suggested any alternative alignment earlier or even after the EIA study was ordered. This will bear mention in the Final Report.
(g) It needs no expert to discern that according to the study made by STEM, the EA is not a viable alternative from any standpoint. The sole advantage of the EA appears to be the vested interest of MUDA in maintaining the status quo. The informed choice therefore now lies between various suggested alternatives, and we suggest SA-2.
5. As a responsible Voluntary Body of informed citizens, we are strongly in favour of the construction of the 26 km long ORR, and would like the work to begin immediately at the end near the Bangalore-Mysore road, while the impasse at the 1 km long Lingambudi sector is being resolved. No doubt there are administrative problems (re-allotment of sites, acquisition of land, etc.) in realigning the ORR as suggested, although these have arisen entirely due to the obduracy of MUDA officials over the years, as brought out in our previous correspondence. But we have suggested means and methods to solve these. It is pertinent to bring out that when a person of the eminence of Pope John Paul II has publicly acknowledged the mistakes made by his predecessors in the Roman Catholic Church over twenty centuries, surely MUDA can reconsider the ORR and begin action on one of the suggested alternative alignments, even if it does not publicly acknowledge its mistakes.
6. You are requested to advise MUDA accordingly, begin the work on the ORR as suggested above, and make a further comparative study between suggested alternative alignments.
Yours faithfully,
(Dr.S.A.Prasad)
President, MGP
Copy:
The Commissioner
MUDA
Mysore