From: budaraju@cae.wisc.edu (Srinivas Budaraju)
Subject: The Big Dam Debate - A Book Review
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:54:20 CST

Summary of a review of the book "The Big Dams: Claims and Counter Claims,
B.D. Dhawan (ed), Common Wealth Publishers, New Delhi, Rs. 220" by
R. Maria Saleth, Economic and Political Weekly, July 25, 1992, PP 1607-9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book under review contains contributions made by both the proponents
and opponents of big dams from various professional backgrounds - academicians,
journalists, activists, engineers, and administrators.

The first article 'Mounting Antagonism towards Big Dams' is by Dhawan who
argues for big dams. He says that forest loss due to big dams is small
when compared to loss due to illegal felling and forest encroachment.
While ridiculing the small-dams option, he suggests an appropriate scaling-
down of the dam height to account for ecological and equity issues.

The next chapter is a criticism of Dhawan's article by Ashok K. Mitra, 
Chandrasekhar Pant, Shripad Dharmadhikary, and Nirmal Sengupta, followed
by Dhawan's rejoinder. Mitra focuses on the benefit-cost ratio (BCR)
methodology and wonders if the BCR criteria favors big dams if cost
factors for ecosystems loss, dam safety, and land loss due to waterlogging
and salinity are included. He also suggests weightages for various cost-benefit
parameters. Pant and Dharmadhikary talk about govt's reluctance to
engage in public debates and why the opposition to big dams is actually
about the very process of faulty development. Sengupta argues that Dhawan's
medium-dams option, if taken to its logical extreme, reduces to the
small-dams option. Dhawan's rejoinder is that he is trying to find a
middle ground between dam storage and land submergence. He also says that
one can't quantify non-market goods such as ecosystem loss, genetic 
diversity, social equity etc.

Arun Ghosh in 'A Plea for Open Govt: The Case of Narmada Project' talks
about the need for a public dialogue and denounces the government for 
the suppression of basic information related to the project,
(mis)use of legislations like the Official Secrets Act, etc.

Ramasamy R Iyer in 'Large Dams: The Right Perspective' talks about the
much-overlooked socio-political aspects of big dams which reinforce
the existing land inequities and create secondary displacement of
poor peasants. Iyer also suggests a radical change in the BCR methodology.
Jasveen Jairath criticizes the prevailing development strategies
which are divorced from the requirements of the masses and says that
dam height reduction, focus on BCR methodology etc, are 
attempts to technicalize an essentially social
and political issue. Iyer in his rejoinder says that envtlists should
offer viable alternatives with a detailed operational plan instead of
condemning exiting plans. [The reviewer notes here that a detailed
alternative plan need not be a precondition to recognize the limitations
of a current plan.]

R.B. Shah, in 'Role of Major Dams in Indian Economy'  presents a strong
argument in favor of large dams and citing a study conducted in the
Jonk sub-basin of the Mahanandi delta, states that construction of smaller
dams will result in more forest loss from land submergence than the case
with a large dam.

In his second paper titled 'Major and Minor Irrigation Works: Cost Aspects
of the Controversy', Dhawan concludes that if the investment made on the
private account, operating costs, and supporting investment like
electricity generation, transmission, and distribution network are
included in minor irrigation schemes, the cost advantage will decisively
favor major irrigation by a margin of 3:1. Ashok Mitra counters that
interest costs on investment during the gestation period are not
included for major irrigation projects and that there is a double
counting caused by including electricity costs both in operational
and capital costs. Dhawan replies that his calculations are not free
from error and speculation.

Manu Shroff, in 'Point, Counterpoint', answers all critics of big dams.
He claims that the Narmada Valley Project is economically justified
since its internal rate of return of 12 % is close to the opportunity
cost of capital. 

Rusi Engineer, in 'The Sardar Sarovar Controversy: Are the Critics Right?',
focuses on rehabilitation and envtl impact of big dams.

K.C. Thomas, in 'Water Resources of India and Its Development Prospects',
defends big dams since hydro-electric power generation is better and
environmentally safer than coal or gas-based power generation. He questions
the technical and economical viability of small dams and the idea of
dam height reduction. 

Kanchan Chopra in her article suggests modifications to the BCR technique to
properly account for the differential impact of a project on different
socio-economic groups, environmetal impact, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Srinivas					budaraju@cae.wisc.edu