Cotton Seed Units Pollute Farmlands in Gadwal For Years, NGT Orders Telangana PCB To Retrieve Rs 1.3 crore Environmental Compensation

Cotton ginning and seed processing discharge industrial effluents and hazardous waste in agricultural fields for years in Jogulamba Gadwal district of Telangana

Polluting units directed by the National Green Tribunal to pay around Rs 1.3 crore Environmental Compensation 

V. Nilesh | Hyderabad 

More than Rs One crore Environmental Compensation is to be paid by 17 cotton ginning and seed processing units in Jogulamba Gadwal district of Telangana, for violation of environmental laws that continued with impunity for years. 

The cotton ginning and seed processing units discharged untreated industrial effluents and hazardous waste into the nearby agricultural farms, destroying the environment by turning the soil and groundwater acidic in the region. 

The issue came to light after P Madhusudhan Reddy of Vitalapuram village, Maldakal mandal of Jogulamba Gadwal district petitioned the National Green Tribunal seeking action against the polluting cotton ginning and seed processing units. 

Reddy had alleged that the cotton ginning and seed processing units use chemicals such as Sulphuric acid but don't process the effluents as per government norms and discharge the untreated effluents in agricultural fields. 

Reddy also raised an issue with permission granted by Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB) to the cotton ginning and seed processing units, allowing them to transport and get their effluents treated 300 kilometers away at the Jeedimetla Common Effluent Treatment Plant. 

Following the petition, the NGT set up a Joint Committee of experts to conduct an investigation into the allegations against the cotton ginning and seed processing units. 

Environmental violations observed by the Joint Committee during their inspections include: 

• Around Rs 1.3 crore levied as Environmental Compensation by the TSPCB on 17 cotton ginning and seed processing units is yet to be paid. 
  
  
• None of the units were found to be sending their effluents to the Jeedimetla CETP for treatment and more than 60 percent of the effluents generated by the units were just being discharged into agricultural lands. 
  
  
• Lagoons of acidic effluents with pH values as low as 1.29 were found abutting the compound walls of one of the units. One of the units had been storing the effluents in tanks for more than nine months rather than getting them immediately treated at the Jeedimetla CETP. 
  
  
• Few of the companies were found to be operating without a valid Consent for Operation(CFO) from the TSPCB for more than 1-2 years. 
  
  
• The industries were not maintaining any records for generation and disposal of used oil to authorized user /recycler as per the Hazardous & other wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. 
  
  
• While all the cotton ginning and seed processing units employed 40-50 workers, none of them provided basic toilet facilities for the workers. 
  
  

The Joint Committee in its report presented to the NGT recommended that all the cotton ginning and seed processing units must pay the Environmental Compensation levied on them by TSPCB for violation of environmental norms. 

Passing its order on the matter earlier this month, on February 3, the NGT directed that the polluting cotton ginning and seed processing units must pay the Environmental Compensation within 15 days, and take up all corrective steps prescribed by the Joint Committee to stop further pollution. 

The NGT also directed TSPCB to take action against the units that do not remit the environmental compensation, by initiating the proceedings for recovery of the same through District Collector by invoking Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. It further directed that the Environmental Compensation recovered from the polluting units must be utilized by TSPCB for the purpose of protecting the environment in that region, by preparing an action plan in coordination with the District Collector. 

Ends/ 

References:

1) Find the judgment copy of this NGT petition here.

When Foresters Speak The Language Of Miners

NBWL approves SCCL proposal for merger of 11 coal mines in Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary's Eco-Sensitive Zone

V Nilesh | Hyderabad 

Do officers of the Forest Department execute the duty of protecting forests, or do they just submit to the whims of their masters in the government? Like bureaucrats from other departments, they succumb to their masters' whims. I present to you one such recent example from Telangana. 

The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) in its 66th meeting held on December 31, granted approval for a coal mining project of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), 6-7 kilometers from the core area of Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary. The meetings' minutes were recently made public. 

The NBWL approval permits the merger of 11 coal mines over an area of 3,296 Hectares (including 372 Hectares of forest land) - all of it located inside the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary. 

The Sanctuary, a tiny 4 kilometer stretch on the Godavari river, covers an area of just 29 square kilometers but is home to various endangered species including Mugger Crocodile - its flagship species. 

The SCCL is a Government coal mining company jointly owned by the Government of Telangana and Government of India on a 51:49 equity basis.  

Without going into the debate of whether the NBWL approval is justified or not, let's see how the Telangana State Forest Department officers fail to adhere to the spirit of their duties and responsibilities. 

When Foresters Speak the Language of Miners

Getting a clearance from the NBWL for taking up a project inside a Wildlife Sanctuary, National Park, or their Eco-Sensitive Zone involves site inspections by forest officers, evaluation of the project's potential impact on ecology, granting of approvals at various levels of the forest department, and plans by the project-proposer to mitigate the effects of the project. 

As part of the process of evaluating the SCCL proposal inside the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary, some of the critical project evaluation criteria on which officers of the Telangana Forest Department had to submit their views were:

• Do you agree that the present proposal of diversion of NP/WLS (national park/wildlife sanctuary) area is the best or only option and is viable
  
  
• List the likely positive and negative impacts of the proposed project giving scientific and technical justification for each impact.
  
  
• Provide comprehensive details of the impact of the proposals in terms of Sections 29 and/or Section 35(6) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as the case may be 

The Telangana forest officers who had to respond to these questions were the Forest Divisional Officer of Chennur and the District Forest Officer of Peddapalli. They simply copied SCCL's justification in support of mining and presented it as their own replies. 

When Forest Department officers present arguments of a mining company as their own in support of mining inside Eco-Sensitive Zone of a Sanctuary, be sure, our future is doomed.

Look at the similarities in the reply by the Peddapalli DFO to the question "Do you agree that the present proposal of diversion of NP/WLS (national park/wildlife sanctuary) area is the best or only option and is viable" and the justification by SCCL in favor of its mining proposal. 

Reply by the Telangana State Forest Department officer

Justification by the SCCL for its project.

Do you see the similarities between the two?

Here's another example of complacency by forest officers. Look at the replies by the Forest Divisional Officer of Chennur to questions seeking 'scientific and technical justification' and 'comprehensive details' on the impact of the mining project on the Sanctuary. 

Replies by Forest Divisional Officer of Chennur

The Chennur forest officer mentions that the project area is located upstream of the Sanctuary, that a river (Godavari river) passes through the Sanctuary, and merely mentions the need for mitigation measures. Where are the 'scientific and technical details' behind the need for mitigation measures? 

Moreover, how would the project impact its ecology, considering that it is located upstream of the Sanctuary? 

Would pollution from mining cause damage downstream? 

How harmful would that prove for the Sanctuary's mugger crocodiles? 

Who is supposed to answer these questions, if not the Forest Department officers? 

Past Records Don't Matter?

The Minutes of Meeting of the NBWL Standing Committee that approved the SCCL proposal near Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary mentions that the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) of Telangana (who is also the state's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests) "...informed the  Standing Committee that the area where the mines are located is far from  Siwaram Sanctuary and also from  Pranahita  Sanctuary,  which is a  blackbuck habitat. She  said  that  the  proposed  activity  would  not  lead  to  any  loss  of habitat  or  grazing  area  and  that  the  required  mitigation  measures  are  in place."

The NBWL Standing Committee was happy with the explanation and other paraphernalia presented by the CWW, promising that the project would have no impact on the Sanctuary, and granted its approval. 

Surprisingly, the NBWL Standing Committee did not discuss Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary's performance in the Management Effectiveness Evaluation survey by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change. The Sanctuary was ranked 19th among 37 Wildlife Sanctuaries, and National Parks evaluated in South India, scoring 64.17 percent. 

The MEE report highlighted the lack of food availability for crocodiles in the Sanctuary due to extensive fishing and other anthropogenic threats from being surrounded by agricultural fields. The NBWL Standing Committee didn't see any discussion if these matters had been mitigated. 

To Sum Up

The government has increased public transparency in Environmental, Forest, and Wildlife Clearances. Looking at the various documents available in the public domain, we can see that although the set procedures are being followed, neither the Project Proponents nor Forest Department officers adhere to the spirit of the process. Instead, Forest Department officers have clearly become facilitators of clearances for industries. 

Ends/ 

References - Find documents mentioned in the blog here:

1) Minutes of the 66th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wild Life

2) Documents related to SCCL's proposal of merging 11 coal mines

3) Replies given by the Telangana State Forest Department officials, mentioned in the blog. 

3) Management Effectiveness Evaluation of National Parks & Wildlife Sanctuaries in India 2018-2019. 

Case Of The Missing Forests : 61,500 square kilometers Of Forests Are Missing in India

Representation pic. Photo by Renaldo Matamoro on Unsplash

• The difference between forest area in government records and the actual existing forest area in India is 61,500sq.km. These are the Missing Forests. 
  
  
• In Telangana state, which recorded one of the biggest positive changes in forest cover as per ISFR-2021(632sq.km), forests are missing over 6,474sq.km. 

V.Nilesh | Hyderabad

There has been a lot of hoopla recently in the media on the numbers reported in the India State of Forest Report-2021 (ISFR-2021) published by the Forest Survey of India (FSI). I present to you in this blog the case of missing forests in India.

According to the ISFR-2021, India's forest cover increased by 1,540 square kilometers(sq.km) in 2021 compared to 2019. In the same period, Telangana state's forest cover increased by 632sq.km, one of the biggest positive changes recorded among all states. 

While this minuscule increase in forest cover has become the most spoken about datapoint from ISFR-2021 in the media, a careful reading of the report reveals a lot of underlying gloom in the data that it presents.

The Case of Missing 61,500 square kilometers of Forests in India

Here's some information you weren't made aware of by the media - India's actual forest cover as studied through satellite images by the FSI is 61,500 sq.km less than the combined geographical area officially recorded by the Governments of various States and Union Territories as "forest."

What do I mean?

The ISFR provides data on 'Recorded Forest Area as per the State's records' — a state's total geographical area recorded officially as 'forest' — under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or Acts passed by state governments. 

All the States and Union Territories of India officially recognize 7,75,288sq.km area as 'forest' according to the ISFR-2021. As part of its biannual exercise of measuring forest areas in India through satellite imagery, the FSI could identify only 7,13,789sq.km of forests in 2021, which means across 61,500sq.km area where forests must exist as per government records, there are no forests! 

How much is 61,500sq.km? It is 10,000sq.km more than the landmass of Bangladesh! 

In the case of Telangana, the Recorded Forest Area by the state government is 27,688sq.km, whereas the forest area identified by FSI in 2021 was 21,214sq.km. So over 6,474sq.km of the area where forests should have existed, there are none! 

Pathetic Forest Cover in States Ranking High on Industrialization 

Industrialization does not seem to be treading a sustainable path in the states that take pride in their economic model.

Among the top-11 states of India ranked according to Gross Value Added by their factories in the Annual Survey of Industries-2017, in three states, the forest cover is less than 10% — Gujarat, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Except for Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh, forests don't even cover a quarter of their geographical area in the other eight states. 

States in Descending Order of Gross ValueAdded by Factories as per Annual Survey of Industries-2017	Forest Cover (Percentage of Geographical Area that is Forests)	Recorded Forest Area as per the State's records (in square kilometers)	Existing Forest Area as Reported in the ISFR-2021 (in square kilometers)	Missing Forests (Area in square kilometers)
Maharashtra	16.51	61,952	50,798	11,154
Gujarat	7.61	21,870	14,196	6,944
Tamil Nadu	20.31	23,188	26,419	NA
Karnataka	20.19	38,284	38,730	NA
Uttar Pradesh	6.15	17,384	14,818	2,566
Haryana	3.63	1,559	1,603	NA
Rajasthan	4.87	32,863	16,655	16,208
Uttarakhand	45.44	38,000	24,305	13,695
Madhya Pradesh	25.14	94,689	77,493	17,196
Telangana	18.93	27,688	21,214	6,474
Andhra Pradesh	18.28	37,258	29,784	7,474

As you can see in the table above, of the top-11 industrial states of India, except Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Haryana, there is a massive difference between the Recorded Forest Area and the existing forest area as per the ISFR-2021. The other eight states have 81,711sq.km of missing forests, which is a little more than the landmass of Belarus.

Why are these forests missing? Well, hopefully, a journalist interested to know the answer to this question would take it up and ask the forest department officers about it. Although one answer I'm sure about is deforestation and encroachment of forest areas.

Every edition of the ISFR reports a minor rise in the forest cover across various states of India. These improvements won't amount to much until all states recover the entire area of the missing forests, till the forest area existing on ground as seen through the satellite imagery is close to the Recorded Forest Area in government records. And even that would be just a beginning towards the long-term goal envisaged by the National Forest Policy of India, of having 33% of the country's geographical area under forest cover.

Ends/

Conservation of Telangana's Manjeera Sanctuary Essential to Prevent Extinction of Painted Storks

Painted Storks at Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary.
Courtesy: Wikipedia. By User:Ravinder Thakur, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Absence of Painted Stork Breeding in Telangana's Manjeera Sanctuary Flagged by BNHS researchers

 

In 2018, researchers from the BNHS recorded over 7,500 Painted Storks nesting at Puttigadda Island of the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary; In 2019 and 2020, the numbers dropped to ZERO

 

V Nilesh | Hyderabad

Raising the alarm over the absence of Painted Storks breeding in the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary in 2019 and 2020, a study published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society(JBNHS) has underscored the role of the Sanctuary in maintaining the global population of the species.

Cause of Worry

In March 2018, researchers from the BNHS recorded over 7,500 Painted Storks nesting at Puttigadda Island of the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary — around 30 percent of the estimated global population of the species!

In 2019 and 2020, the numbers dropped to ZERO as water levels drastically depleted and the Sanctuary dried up, according to the study Bird Ringing Programme in Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary, Telangana, India: Findings and Conservation Issues. 

This is a matter of grave concern because Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala) is listed as a 'Near Threatened' species on IUCN Red List, with an estimated global population of 24,000 mature individuals. This makes Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary one of the largest nesting sites of Painted Stork in South Asia.

If the Telangana forest department does not make efforts to ensure that Painted Storks continue to breed at the Sanctuary, the species' global population is at risk.    

It's not just the Painted Stork that is under threat. The BNHS researchers could not see the nesting of many other heronries in the Sanctuary in 2019 and 2020, recorded in large numbers in 2018. These include the Oriental Darter(Anhinga melanogaster), Asian Openbill(Anastomus oscitans), Black-headed Ibis(Threskiornis melanocephalus), and Black-crowned Night-Heron(Nycticorax nycticorax).

Significance of Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary

Birds

The Sanctuary is a crucial habitat for 286 migratory and resident bird species. The Sanctuary's significance also lies in the fact that it supports more than 1 percent population of various species of birds, according to the Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas in India by BirdLife International and BNHS.

The document mentions, "For instance, the biogeographic population of Bar-headed Goose(Anser indicus) is estimated to be between 52,000 to 60,000 (Wetlands International 2012). At Manjira, up to 500 are found regularly which is almost 1% of the population. To give a more specific example, about 3% of the non-breeding population of Ruddy Shelduck(Tadorna ferruginea) winters in Manjira. Wetlands International (2012) estimates about 50,000 individuals of this species in South Asia, and in Manjira, Vijaya Kumar & Choudhury (1995) found up to 1,500."

Mugger Crocodiles

The Sanctuary was established in 1978 to conserve Mugger Crocodile(Crocodylus palustris), listed as 'Vulnerable' on the IUCN Red List. The Mugger Crocodile population in the Sanctuary was 171 in 2017.

Fishes

A study on ichthyofaunal diversity of Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary taken up in 2015-2016 reported sightings of 57 species of fish, most of which were native species. Two are listed as 'Endangered' and four as 'Near Threatened'.

Anthropogenic Stress

The Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary, located in Siddipet district of Telangana, is a 36km stretch along the course of the Manjeera river located between two dams - Singur and Manjeera. Water from the Sanctuary serves as drinking water to nearby areas and Hyderabad. Also, farmers along the Sanctuary's shoreline use the water for irrigation.

While the Sanctuary faces stress due to anthropogenic factors during the average rainfall years, the pressure becomes severe during poor rainfall years. This affects the breeding of local and migratory birds and forces crocodiles to seek refuge in agricultural fields, endangering the lives of the creatures and humans. 

A Mugger Crocodile that ventured outside the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary, captured by the Telangana Forest department.

The study in JBNHS points out, "Besides inadequate water during low-rainfall years, extension of agricultural activities in the periphery of Manjeera, excess use of pesticides in the nearby agricultural fields, spread of invasive species such as Prosopis juliflora and Ipomoea carnea are other conservation issues facing this wetland, as observed during our study and also reported by earlier workers".

It's time the Telangana government takes up the responsibility of putting conservation measures at the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary to protect the Painted Storks from extinction along with other species of birds and the Mugger Crocodiles.

This must also includes all the protection measures as mandated by law in the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Sanctuary, which extends one kilometer from its boundary covering an area of around 65sq.km. 

Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary Eco-Sensitive Zone. Source: MoEF.

Ends/

Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture: 96 Percent Marginal Farmers "Extremely Vulnerable"

 

Climate change is not just a global issue that deserves to be discussed only in fancy international summits and conferences. Its impact is local, especially the impact of climate change on agriculture, and it's going to affect the poorest the most.

According to a study conducted in Telangana, India, 96 percent Marginal farmers and 94 percent Small farmers are "Extremely Vulnerable" to the impacts of climate change. 

Also, 87 percent of Semi-medium farmers, 69 percent Medium farmers, and 26 percent Large farmers are Extremely Vulnerable to climate change, according to the study.

Marginal farmers are those who own less than 1 hectare(ha) farmland, Small farmers - 1.1ha to 2ha;  Semi-medium farmers - 2.1ha to 4 ha; Medium farmers - 4.1ha to 10 ha; Large farmers - 10ha and above.

The research paper containing findings of the study — Household Vulnerability to Climate Change and Identification of Target Beneficiaries to Implement Household-Specific Adaptation Strategies: A Quantitative Assessment —  has been published in the Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development (AJAD).  

The authors are Swamikannu Nedumaran, Ravi Nandi, Jyosthnaa Padmanabhan, Srigiri Srinivasa Reddy, Dakshina Murthy Kadiyala, and Shalander Kumar from International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, German Development Institute, Bonn, and Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University.  

As part of the study, the researchers investigated the climate change vulnerability of 6,214 households in the drought-prone districts of Telangana state - Mahabubnagar, Wanaparthy, and Nagarkurnool. 

Of the 6,214 households, 9.74 percent were marginal farm households, 17.8 were small, 32.7 percent were semi-medium, 32.59 percent were medium, and 7.11 percent were large.

Overall, 79 percent of the 6,214 surveyed households are found to be "extremely vulnerable", 11.2 percent "moderately vulnerable", and 9.65 percent were "resilient" to climate change.

Courtesy: The research paper on 'Household Vulnerability to Climate Change and Identification of Target Beneficiaries to Implement Household-Specific Adaptation Strategies: A Quantitative Assessment', published in AJAD.

Five Principal Components Of Vulnerability

For assessing the vulnerability to climate change, the researchers considered five principal components - (1) access to irrigation; (2) credit access, landholding, and income from agriculture; (3) household size and income sources; (4) access to information and climate-smart adaptation practices; and (5) social capital.

The households were classified into three clusters based on the varying degrees of impact of climate change on them - Extremely vulnerable, Moderately vulnerable, and Resilient.

Regarding the households classified as Extremely vulnerable, the researchers point out, "These households had the least access to irrigation, credit facilities, and climate information; had a smaller household size and fewer income sources; and had adopted the fewest climate-smart adaptation practices. In this category, the proportion of irrigated area to the total landholding was low. Moreover, households in Cluster 1 (extremely vulnerable) had a smaller social network compared to resilient and moderately resilient household groups."

Impact Of Climate Change On Indian Agriculture

In 2013, the Hyderabad-based Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) came out with the 'Atlas on Vulnerability of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change'.

To develop the atlas, the CRIDA researchers considered close to 40 indicators to quantify the three components of vulnerability to climate change — sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity — and developed a Vulnerability Index.

According to the atlas, of the then 572 districts in India, the vulnerability to climate change was 'Very high' (115 districts) or 'High' (115 districts) of nearly half of all the districts.  

The 'high' or 'very high' vulnerability was mainly due to a combination of the indicators - Projected decrease in July rainfall, Low Rainfall, Low groundwater availability, Projected increase in the number of drought years, Projected rise in minimum Temperature, High Net Sown Area and Low Net Irrigated Area.

What Needs To Be Done?

In their study, the ICRISAT, GDI, and ANGRAU researchers highlight three policy-level measures to combat the impact of climate change on agriculture :

Allocation of resources in the Leximin order

The researchers explain, "A Leximin rule entails redistribution to the most affected along some criterion as a matter of priority. After the needs of the most vulnerable have been met, attention is directed to redistributing to the next affected."

They further explain, "Ideally, policy formulation can target identified households, and enabling policies can be rolled out to enhance the adaptive capacity of said households based on the identified reasons for vulnerability for each of the categories. Consequently, this can increase the adoption of context-specific climate-smart adaptation technologies. Compared to a "one size fits all" approach, a tailored policy approach can potentially increase the resilience of households by enhancing their adaptive capacity." 

Improved extension services

The researchers mention, "Agricultural extension services should be improved to ensure that farmers receive climate information and information on climate-smart adaptation strategies. Given the paucity of agricultural extension personnel, providing group extension, or linking extension services through producer organizations or local farmer associations, can advance the transfer of information and technologies cost-effectively. The government should work with private entities and non-government organizations with proven extension models in public-private partnerships."

Improving low-cost technologies

According to the researchers, "There is a need to explore opportunities for donors to invest in low-cost infrastructure such as improved irrigation systems, improving credit access, and establishing more weather stations that can precisely predict weather conditions in a specific village or groups of villages."

21 years since formation, Lake Protection Committee yet to issue final notification for 3,306 lakes in Hyderabad Metropolitan region

Final notification issued only for 226 lakes out of 3,532 lakes in HMDA limits by the Lake Protection Committee. 

Hyderabad

September 3, 2021: 

It has been 21 years since the "Lake Protection Committee" was formed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). However, the HMDA could manage to issue official notifications for only 226 lakes out of the 3,532 lakes under its jurisdiction - meaning 3,306 lakes are yet to be notified.  

In Hyderabad, the Lake Protection Committee issued final notifications for just 18 lakes, of the total 28 lakes the Committee recognizes in the city. 

This shocking fact comes to light as the National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) took up a case Suo Motu, based on a report on "Indiscriminate encroachment of tanks and ponds" in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits and other municipalities, in the Telugu newspaper, Eenadu.

The Executive Engineer of the HMDA's Lake Protection Committee in his reply to the NGT provided details that there are 3,532 lakes under the HMDA limits, of which preliminary notification has been issued for 2,139 lakes. The final notification has been issued for 226 lakes.

Here's a break up of the lakes: 

What is the responsibility of the Lake Protection Committee?

The letter puts forward the mandates of the Lake Protection Committee formed by the HMDA on April 6, 2010, in compliance with the orders issued by the High Court (in WP no. 9386/2007).

According to the letter the responsibilities of the Lake Protection Committee are:

- Listing all lakes in the HMDA area 

- Demarcation of the Full Tank Level of the lakes (FTL is the maximum water-spread area of a lake that is based on historical records) 

- Protection of FTL from encroachment 

- Taking up wide publicity and awareness campaigns on the protection of the lakes

Why the delay?

The letter says that the delay is on account of the delay by Revenue department officials towards the Certification of cadastral maps of the lakes prepared by a private agency hired by the HMDA.

Another reason is the delay in the officials of the Irrigation and Revenue departments coming to an understanding over the Full Tank Level area of the lakes.

What is the big deal here?

The official notification by HMDA demarcating the Full Tank Levels of lakes will serve as official documents pointing out the territory of all lakes, in which no construction will be allowed. They will play an essential role in preventing encroachments of lakes. They can also be used as reference points in litigations involving encroachments of lakes.

Why must the lakes not be encroached?

Lakes in Hyderabad/HMDA limits are a network of water bodies. These interconnected water bodies play an essential role during heavy rains in preventing flooding of residential areas.

As rains/heavy rains occur, the rainwater from residential areas, open spaces, roads, etc. runs off into the lakes and gets collected there. When these lakes overflow, the excess water flows through the channels between lakes - also known as stormwater drains or nallas - and reaches other lakes. This way, the excess water gets balanced.

Unfortunately, due to the encroachment of lakes, they do not have enough space to contain the excess rainwater. On top of this, the nallas are also encroached in the city at many places. As a result, there is not enough space for water from the lakes to flow to the interconnected lakes.

All of this leads to flooding!

The situation becomes worse with intense rains due to climate change. To get an idea about it, read Worse yet to come? Climate change to aggravate flooding in Hyderabad, and Climate change causing increase in rainfall in city.

Here's the letter by Executive Engineer of Lake Protection Committee that I refer in this article:

Ends/