The requirements cited in the letter of June 1987 I June, 1987 that catchment area treatment programme and rehabilitation plans be drawn up and completed ahead of reservoir filling would imply that the work was to be done pari-passu. as far as catchment area treatment programme is concerned, with the filling of reservoir. Even though the filling of  reservoir started in 1994, the impoundment Award was much less than the catchment area treatment which had been affected. The status of compliance with respect to pari- passu conditions indicated that in the year 1999 the reservoir level was 88.0 meter, the impoundment area was 6881 ha (19%) and the area where catchment treatment had been carried out ;was .128230 hectares - being 71.56% of the total work required to be done. The Minutes of the Environmental Sub-group as on 28th September 1999 stated that catchment area treatment works were nearing completion in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra. Though, there was some slippage in Madhya Pradesh, however, overall works by and large were on schedule. This clearly showed that the monitoring of the catchment treatment plan was being done by the Environmental Subgroup quite effectively.

Compensatory Afforestation : The Judgement

While granting approval in 1987 to the submergence of forest land and/or diversion thereof for the SSP, the Ministry of Environment & Forests had laid down a condition that for every hectare of forestland, submerged or diverted for construction of the project, there should compensatory, afforestation on one hectare of non-forestland plus reforestation on two hectare of degraded forest. According to the State of Gujarat, it had fully complied with the condition by raising afforestation in 4650 hectares of non-forest areas and 9300 hectares in degraded forest areas before 1995-96 against the impoundment area of 19%. The pari-passu achievement of afforestation in Gujarat was stated to be 99.62%.

If afforestation was taking place on waste land or lesser quality land, it did not necessarily follow, as was contended by the petitioners, that the forests would be of lesser quality or quantity

The SSP will provide irrigation water for a cultivable command area of 1.9 million hectares in Gujarat and 75,000 hectares in Rajasthan. The introduction of fresh water to the drought-prone areas of Gujarat will create obvious benefits for the farming communities. In order to safeguard these benefits, control and monitoring was suggested by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests and Chairman of the Environment Sub-group in the following areas from time to time :

• Drainage, water logging and soil salinity;
• Water quality
• Forest loss
• Potential impact on flora and fauna
• Effects on public health
• Socio-economic impacts.

Pursuant to the above, fifty in-depth studies had been carried out by the State Governments of Gujarat and Rajasthan and some of the studies were still in progress. One of the main objectives of carrying out these studies was to prevent excessive use of ground water and water-logging.

There is no reason whatsoever as to why independent experts should be required to examine the quality, accuracy, recommendations and implementation of the studies carried out. The Narmada Control Authority and the Environmental Sub-group in particular have the advantage of having with them studies which had been carried out and there is no reasons to believe that they would not be able to handle any problem, if and when, it arises or to doubt the correctness of the studies made.

It is thought unlikely that any significant negative environmental impacts will occur over the next 30 years as a result of the project. Some possible adverse effects have been identified - the main one being the effect of flood attenuation on Hilsa migration. These needs to be monitored and more studies undertaken to better understand the conditions which trigger spawning. Beneficial impacts in this period include reduced flooding and more reliable dry season flows as well as an overall improvement of the health and well being of the people to the reliable domestic water supply, improved nutrition and enhanced economic activity."

The above report clearly demonstrates that the construction of dam would result into more regulated and perennial flow into the river with an overall beneficial impact. It is also evident that until all the dams are constructed upstream and the entire flow of river is harnessed, which is not likely in the foreseeable future, there is no question of adverse impact including the fishing activity and the petitioner's assertions in this regard are ill-conceived.

That number of studies were carried out and reports submitted. It was observe that the submergence area and catchment area on the right bank of the proposed reservoir exhibited a highly degraded ecosystem which was in contract to the left bank area where there was fairly good forest cover forming part of Shoolpaneshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. With regard to the study of fauna, the said report indicated that a well-balanced and viable ecosystem existed in the Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary. Moreover, with the construction of dam, availability and soil moisture will increase and support varieties of plants and animals.

That large number of studies had been carried out on the health of villagers including studies on water related diseases in SSP command area including the area downstream of the dam. The study of M.S. University in 1983 and other studies concluded that the most common diseases in the basin were Malaria, Scabies, Dysentery and Diarrhea. Of these only a threat to malaria needed to be of concern. The study concluded that the incidence of hygiene-related diseases other than Malaria could be reduced by better water availability. The Gujarat Work Plan covered villages within 10 KMs radius of the reservoir including re-settled population and made provisions for the monitoring, surveillance and control of Malaria. The principle features of the Gujarat Work Plan included establishment of a hospital at Kevadia near the dam site, strengthening of laboratory facility including establishment of mobile unit, residual insecticidal spraying operations etc. This showed that the area of public health was in no way being neglected.

The area of submergence was stated to be rich in archaeological remains but it still remained to be studied. It was contended that there was danger of rich historical legacy being lost and even a small increase in the dam height would threaten to submerge many of the sites listed in the report of the Archaeological Survey of India. There were stated to be five monuments which would be affected at the dam height of 90 meter or above and no work was stated to have commenced to protect any of the five monuments.