CONSTRUCTION OF DEEP WATER PORT IN THENGAITHITTU
cTo, Puducherry
The Member Secretary, 14-02-2007.
The Puducherry Pollution Control Committee,
(Director, Science, Technology and Environment)
Puducherry.
Sir,
Sub: Construction of new Deep Water Port in Puducherry-Proposed by The
Pondicherry port Ltd.-Filing of Objection-Reg.
Ref: Public Notice of the Pondicherry Pollution Control Committee,
Dated.10, January 2007.
***
We, the sons of the soil, of Puducherry, on behalf of the citizens and affected people of the Region, submit our objections to the construction of the proposed port in Puducherry.
FISHING HARBOUR CONSTRUCTED DURING 1986-89-IMPACT:
We wish to draw your kind attention of the fact that the fishing harbor was constructed during 86-89 on the River of Ariyankuppam. It entirely destroyed the beach in front of the Puducherry town, besides endangering safety and security of the people of Puducherry. The loss of beach has its telling impact in the following ways:
1. Sea water intrusion taking place rapidly.
2. Drinking water progressively turning saline.
3. Fisher folks lost their lives and livelihoods.
The Government of Puducherry, since six years has undertaken massive work of dumping rocks on the coastline, at the cost of Public Exchequer on a large scale, without much result. Even the dredging job to retrieve the beach ended in a fiasco. But the recurring expenditure is continuing without letup The Government may well aware that so far the sand erosion has severely damaged 7 kilometers of the coast line, besides destroying houses and villages. The erosion has steadily progressing towards Mahabalipuram at a pace of 350 meters every year.
IMPENDING DANGER TO THE TOWN AND OTHER PLACES ON THE COASTLINE:
Even the small surface water port, which was built in 1986 could cause such wide spread damage, we could not imagine the impending catastrophe lurking around... With the available information, When the proposed Deep Water Port is permitted to be established and if the coastline is extended artificially by a 100 meters, the erosion may extend, jeopardizing all the buildings on the beach road of the town, including the Chief Secretariat and the Raj Nivas.The fishermen hamlets and other residential areas of all villages located within the limit on the entire stretch of the coastline will also be at potential risk.
HOW IT WILL AFFECT THE PUDUCHERRIANS ?
v Coastline acts as a Natural Barrier, protects us from cyclone, storm and tsunami. Its destruction would expose the puducherry susceptible for exponential Natural Calamities.
v Coastline prevents loss of land in a Natural Way. The Government, after construction of the port has created a situation affecting the natural phenomenon and now pumping crores of rupees in dumping rocks on a massive scale.
v Coastline is assisting us in protecting the ground water from becoming saline.
v Its absence would certainly make the sea water to penetrate into the ground and result in widespread water scarcity.
v Villages on the sea shores of Auroville suffered intrusion of sea water into their wells, as a consequence of reduced coastline there.
v In the villages near Auroville and other places, thousands of families of fishermen have lost their possessions. The fishermen could not station their catamarans and boats since the coastline has diminished in the wake of dumping of rocks on the shores of Puducherry. Their lives and livelihoods have also been lost.
v The sea shore, without discrimination, provides one and all a beautiful, serene, natural recreational ambience and space, which has been lost.
NEW DANGERS:
v With the embarking of the new Deep Water Port, the curtain for apparent, potent Natural Disaster is drawn. Further less volume of sea sand alone will reach the shores.
v Besides, the Private Player involved in the expansion of the Port activities is not going to take any responsibility for the ensuing large scale sand erosion on the anvil.
v Further, 10 million square meters of sand is required for the private player to lay an artificial coastline for undertaking their port activities on the proposed site itself.
v This much quantity of sand is what actually required for protection of the coastline of the Puducherry Town is going to be utilized by the Private Party.
THE EIA AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
v A detailed modeling study proposed in Section 2.10, of the EIA report regarding the effect of the breakwater of the proposed port will have on sediment movement, has not been done so for to asses objectively the impact on sea erosion.
v In deference to Section 2.11.4, an assessment of sediment movement and beach plan shape change to be undertaken using numerical modeling techniques.
v Detailed engineering of the breakwaters and the harbor entrance has not been worked out. More particularly, the littoral drift has not been worked out. While such is the reality, how environmental clearance to the project has been given?
v There is no economic viability of private ports on the Coromandel Coast. The ports are seriously threatened by natural and massive sand movement, from South to North direction. Without the techno-economic viability the proposed project is undertaken is not reasonable.
v Section 2.2 of the report says construction includes construction of deep water port including break waters and dredging and two deep water container berths is contrary to Section 2.1 which says that phasing and construction of the port will need to be continuously reviewed and each phase only taken up once the traffic forecasts indicate that there is sufficient demand and is commercially viable. What will happen when Pondicherry Port Ltd. Ceases to manage the assets of the Pondicherry port including the dredging and nourishment of sand to the beaches to the North of the harbor?
v While the Government gives away about 90, 00,000 cu.m dredged sand to the Private Player, how the coastal erosion would be arrested and reversed and where will the sand come?
v The declared policy of the Ministry of Environment, Government of India, states that the “polluter pays” has not been complied with the Government of Puducherry. The EIA states that the Government should retain responsibility for maintaining the dredging of the sand trap adjacent to the southern gryone and for the coastal protection works to the town as well as for pumping the sand around the port.
v The EIA report under section 5.2.4(b) states that the dredging of sea bed up to 14 m could have an impact on ground water table and could induce saline water intrusion. It is of prime importance that the issues related to sea water intrusion are of prime importance to the coastal environment of Puducherry, the environmental clearance process cannot be completed without this information.
Therefore, in the larger interest of protecting the fragile eco system of the region and in particular the people of Thengaithittu and the fisher folk of Puducherry, the proposed project should not be carried out. On the International day of Action against Dams and for Rivers, Waters and Life, we plead that the social cost would outweigh and the benefit will be only at the cost of irreversible denudation, erosion, calamities and miseries to the human race.
Yours faithfully,
The Member Secretary, 14-02-2007.
The Puducherry Pollution Control Committee,
(Director, Science, Technology and Environment)
Puducherry.
Sir,
Sub: Construction of new Deep Water Port in Puducherry-Proposed by The
Pondicherry port Ltd.-Filing of Objection-Reg.
Ref: Public Notice of the Pondicherry Pollution Control Committee,
Dated.10, January 2007.
***
We, the sons of the soil, of Puducherry, on behalf of the citizens and affected people of the Region, submit our objections to the construction of the proposed port in Puducherry.
FISHING HARBOUR CONSTRUCTED DURING 1986-89-IMPACT:
We wish to draw your kind attention of the fact that the fishing harbor was constructed during 86-89 on the River of Ariyankuppam. It entirely destroyed the beach in front of the Puducherry town, besides endangering safety and security of the people of Puducherry. The loss of beach has its telling impact in the following ways:
1. Sea water intrusion taking place rapidly.
2. Drinking water progressively turning saline.
3. Fisher folks lost their lives and livelihoods.
The Government of Puducherry, since six years has undertaken massive work of dumping rocks on the coastline, at the cost of Public Exchequer on a large scale, without much result. Even the dredging job to retrieve the beach ended in a fiasco. But the recurring expenditure is continuing without letup The Government may well aware that so far the sand erosion has severely damaged 7 kilometers of the coast line, besides destroying houses and villages. The erosion has steadily progressing towards Mahabalipuram at a pace of 350 meters every year.
IMPENDING DANGER TO THE TOWN AND OTHER PLACES ON THE COASTLINE:
Even the small surface water port, which was built in 1986 could cause such wide spread damage, we could not imagine the impending catastrophe lurking around... With the available information, When the proposed Deep Water Port is permitted to be established and if the coastline is extended artificially by a 100 meters, the erosion may extend, jeopardizing all the buildings on the beach road of the town, including the Chief Secretariat and the Raj Nivas.The fishermen hamlets and other residential areas of all villages located within the limit on the entire stretch of the coastline will also be at potential risk.
HOW IT WILL AFFECT THE PUDUCHERRIANS ?
v Coastline acts as a Natural Barrier, protects us from cyclone, storm and tsunami. Its destruction would expose the puducherry susceptible for exponential Natural Calamities.
v Coastline prevents loss of land in a Natural Way. The Government, after construction of the port has created a situation affecting the natural phenomenon and now pumping crores of rupees in dumping rocks on a massive scale.
v Coastline is assisting us in protecting the ground water from becoming saline.
v Its absence would certainly make the sea water to penetrate into the ground and result in widespread water scarcity.
v Villages on the sea shores of Auroville suffered intrusion of sea water into their wells, as a consequence of reduced coastline there.
v In the villages near Auroville and other places, thousands of families of fishermen have lost their possessions. The fishermen could not station their catamarans and boats since the coastline has diminished in the wake of dumping of rocks on the shores of Puducherry. Their lives and livelihoods have also been lost.
v The sea shore, without discrimination, provides one and all a beautiful, serene, natural recreational ambience and space, which has been lost.
NEW DANGERS:
v With the embarking of the new Deep Water Port, the curtain for apparent, potent Natural Disaster is drawn. Further less volume of sea sand alone will reach the shores.
v Besides, the Private Player involved in the expansion of the Port activities is not going to take any responsibility for the ensuing large scale sand erosion on the anvil.
v Further, 10 million square meters of sand is required for the private player to lay an artificial coastline for undertaking their port activities on the proposed site itself.
v This much quantity of sand is what actually required for protection of the coastline of the Puducherry Town is going to be utilized by the Private Party.
THE EIA AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
v A detailed modeling study proposed in Section 2.10, of the EIA report regarding the effect of the breakwater of the proposed port will have on sediment movement, has not been done so for to asses objectively the impact on sea erosion.
v In deference to Section 2.11.4, an assessment of sediment movement and beach plan shape change to be undertaken using numerical modeling techniques.
v Detailed engineering of the breakwaters and the harbor entrance has not been worked out. More particularly, the littoral drift has not been worked out. While such is the reality, how environmental clearance to the project has been given?
v There is no economic viability of private ports on the Coromandel Coast. The ports are seriously threatened by natural and massive sand movement, from South to North direction. Without the techno-economic viability the proposed project is undertaken is not reasonable.
v Section 2.2 of the report says construction includes construction of deep water port including break waters and dredging and two deep water container berths is contrary to Section 2.1 which says that phasing and construction of the port will need to be continuously reviewed and each phase only taken up once the traffic forecasts indicate that there is sufficient demand and is commercially viable. What will happen when Pondicherry Port Ltd. Ceases to manage the assets of the Pondicherry port including the dredging and nourishment of sand to the beaches to the North of the harbor?
v While the Government gives away about 90, 00,000 cu.m dredged sand to the Private Player, how the coastal erosion would be arrested and reversed and where will the sand come?
v The declared policy of the Ministry of Environment, Government of India, states that the “polluter pays” has not been complied with the Government of Puducherry. The EIA states that the Government should retain responsibility for maintaining the dredging of the sand trap adjacent to the southern gryone and for the coastal protection works to the town as well as for pumping the sand around the port.
v The EIA report under section 5.2.4(b) states that the dredging of sea bed up to 14 m could have an impact on ground water table and could induce saline water intrusion. It is of prime importance that the issues related to sea water intrusion are of prime importance to the coastal environment of Puducherry, the environmental clearance process cannot be completed without this information.
Therefore, in the larger interest of protecting the fragile eco system of the region and in particular the people of Thengaithittu and the fisher folk of Puducherry, the proposed project should not be carried out. On the International day of Action against Dams and for Rivers, Waters and Life, we plead that the social cost would outweigh and the benefit will be only at the cost of irreversible denudation, erosion, calamities and miseries to the human race.
Yours faithfully,
Comments