The recent approval by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to reconstruct the Teesta-III dam in Sikkim has ignited significant opposition from political parties and citizen groups. The dam, located in Mangan district, was destroyed in October 2023 due to a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF), leading to catastrophic flash floods in the Teesta River. The decision to rebuild has raised concerns about environmental safety, procedural transparency, and the potential risks to local communities.
Political Opposition
In an unexpected move, the Sikkim unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which also leads the central government, has voiced strong objections to the reconstruction approval. State BJP spokesperson Passing Sherpa criticized the clearance granted by the ministry’s Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), stating that it disregards Sikkim’s fragile Himalayan ecosystem and poses significant safety risks to the populace. Sherpa emphasized that the October 2023 disaster resulted from inadequate spillway capacity and a failure to account for GLOF risks. He urged the central government to honor Article 371F, which grants special status to Sikkim, and to prioritize the state’s ecological balance and cultural heritage over corporate interests.
The Indian National Congress has also expressed apprehensions regarding the reconstruction. The party labeled the EAC’s approval as a “thoughtless clearance,” highlighting the persistent threat of disasters at the dam site. They called for a comprehensive reassessment of the project’s environmental and safety implications before proceeding.
Environmental and Safety Concerns
Critics argue that the EAC’s approval was granted without conducting a fresh public hearing, relying instead on consultations from 2006. They contend that these outdated hearings do not reflect the current environmental realities and risks, especially in the context of climate change and recent disasters. The proposed reconstruction involves building a new 118.64-meter-high concrete gravity dam to replace the previous 60-meter-high rockfill concrete dam. This significant change in design has raised questions about its potential impact on the region’s ecology and the safety of downstream communities.
The Sikkim BJP has called for the withdrawal of the EAC’s clearance until all pending technical studies, including revised Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) assessments, are completed and independently reviewed. They also advocate for fresh public consultations to ensure that the concerns of local communities are adequately addressed.
Citizen Groups’ Standpoint
Various citizen groups and environmental activists have joined the opposition, emphasizing the need for a cautious approach given the region’s vulnerability to natural disasters. They argue that rebuilding the dam without thorough environmental assessments and public engagement could lead to a repeat of past tragedies. These groups stress the importance of exploring alternative solutions that align with sustainable development principles and prioritize the safety and well-being of local communities.
Government’s Position
The central government’s decision to approve the reconstruction is rooted in the objective of restoring the 1200-MW Teesta-III hydropower project, a significant contributor to the region’s energy supply. The MoEFCC’s EAC has justified its approval by citing the need to replace the destroyed dam to maintain energy production and support regional development. However, this stance has been met with criticism for allegedly prioritizing economic considerations over environmental and safety concerns.
The controversy surrounding the Teesta-III dam reconstruction underscores the complex interplay between development objectives and environmental stewardship. The opposition from political parties, including the state’s ruling party, and citizen groups highlights the need for a more inclusive and transparent decision-making process. As Sikkim grapples with the aftermath of recent natural disasters, there is a growing call for development strategies that are ecologically sustainable and socially responsible. The situation serves as a critical reminder of the importance of balancing infrastructural development with the preservation of fragile ecosystems and the safety of vulnerable communities.
