Mother Nature is at it again in Uttarakhand. The last week has seen a 24% surplus in rainfall, which has meant rivers running at dangerous levels and landslides endangering lives. For a state that was still coming to terms with last year’s disasters, which led to the deaths of more than 5,500 people, the problems simply don’t end.
A new report from the state’s Disaster Management and Mitigation Centre suggests the blame should lie squarely with the way that humans have picked development over prudence in the hills, whether it is living right next to river beds or cutting into valleys to build roads.
“With clear disregard to the threat of floods and landslides, we have consciously chosen to initiate developmental initiatives over river terraces and low lying areas that were hitherto reserved only for cultivation,” the report, which looked into mass instability in the Rudraprayag district, said. “This decision judiciously saved the cost of site development and material transportation but then it was a major compromise on safety.”
Rudraprayag is no stranger to disasters. It sees regular landslides every year and the 2013 calamity, when Uttarakhand received approximately 2,000 mm of rainfall in a period of five days — more than what it usually received in an entire monsoon season – left more than 4,000 people missing in this district alone.
“Repeated devastation and losses due to natural hazards suggests that the area is inherently vulnerable and fragile. In case well-planned and scientifically sound mitigation measures are not taken, possibility of the area being affected by hazards in future cannot be ruled out,” the report said.
In much earlier times, according to the report, the locals, through their trial-and-error, had found a way to inhabit the place without disturbing the land so much that it would cause disasters. Earlier inhabitants used to build channels of jungle guls (canals) that would drain water away instead of allowing it to build up and cause a landslide.
“Despite the economy of the region being traditionally dependent upon pastoralism and agriculture that are mainly practiced in upper and lower valley slopes, people traditionally never settled down in the proximity of streams and rivers,” the report said. “They always settled down over firm ground in the upper and middle slopes even though both the source of water and agricultural lands were located on middle and lower slopes of the valley.”
In the past few decades, these rules have begun to be ignored, primarily because of economic compulsions. This has meant that people have begun to construct buildings and live over river terraces and low-lying areas that would have earlier just been left for cultivation.
This has a direct correlation on both the cause of landslides and other disasters, as well as their potential damage. The report found that most of the landslides, up to 34% in the district, had been the result of bank erosion by rivers, but as much as 29% of them were caused by a change in the angle of repose, which is the natural acuteness of the slope. These are often changed when the valley is cut up in order to build roads on it, weakening the strength of the land.
“Inherent instability of hillslopes, that is attributed to geological and tectonic set up of the terrain together with high relative relief and precipitation, is often aggravated by infrastructure development works that result in change in angle of repose of the slopes,” the report said. “In case adequate mitigation measures are not taken these are likely to make hills chronically prone to landslides.”
The report also found that when hydropower projects are being built along river courses in the hills, the companies often dump excavated rock masses along the stream. This then aggravates the erosional power of the river: “It is therefore extremely important that adequate attention be paid on safe disposal of excavated rock mass.”
Eventually the Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre’s report concludes that development in the hill areas should not be carried out in such a way that the safety of inhabitants is threatened.
“The hills are witnessing a lopsided growth whereby proliferation of hastily built, not-so-legal constructions with scant regard to safety measures is becoming common place and probability of major disasters is on the rise,” the report said. “This trend if allowed to continue unabated, is sure to result in a threatening situation.”
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
A new report from the state’s Disaster Management and Mitigation Centre suggests the blame should lie squarely with the way that humans have picked development over prudence in the hills, whether it is living right next to river beds or cutting into valleys to build roads.
“With clear disregard to the threat of floods and landslides, we have consciously chosen to initiate developmental initiatives over river terraces and low lying areas that were hitherto reserved only for cultivation,” the report, which looked into mass instability in the Rudraprayag district, said. “This decision judiciously saved the cost of site development and material transportation but then it was a major compromise on safety.”
Rudraprayag is no stranger to disasters. It sees regular landslides every year and the 2013 calamity, when Uttarakhand received approximately 2,000 mm of rainfall in a period of five days — more than what it usually received in an entire monsoon season – left more than 4,000 people missing in this district alone.
“Repeated devastation and losses due to natural hazards suggests that the area is inherently vulnerable and fragile. In case well-planned and scientifically sound mitigation measures are not taken, possibility of the area being affected by hazards in future cannot be ruled out,” the report said.
In much earlier times, according to the report, the locals, through their trial-and-error, had found a way to inhabit the place without disturbing the land so much that it would cause disasters. Earlier inhabitants used to build channels of jungle guls (canals) that would drain water away instead of allowing it to build up and cause a landslide.
“Despite the economy of the region being traditionally dependent upon pastoralism and agriculture that are mainly practiced in upper and lower valley slopes, people traditionally never settled down in the proximity of streams and rivers,” the report said. “They always settled down over firm ground in the upper and middle slopes even though both the source of water and agricultural lands were located on middle and lower slopes of the valley.”
In the past few decades, these rules have begun to be ignored, primarily because of economic compulsions. This has meant that people have begun to construct buildings and live over river terraces and low-lying areas that would have earlier just been left for cultivation.
This has a direct correlation on both the cause of landslides and other disasters, as well as their potential damage. The report found that most of the landslides, up to 34% in the district, had been the result of bank erosion by rivers, but as much as 29% of them were caused by a change in the angle of repose, which is the natural acuteness of the slope. These are often changed when the valley is cut up in order to build roads on it, weakening the strength of the land.
“Inherent instability of hillslopes, that is attributed to geological and tectonic set up of the terrain together with high relative relief and precipitation, is often aggravated by infrastructure development works that result in change in angle of repose of the slopes,” the report said. “In case adequate mitigation measures are not taken these are likely to make hills chronically prone to landslides.”
The report also found that when hydropower projects are being built along river courses in the hills, the companies often dump excavated rock masses along the stream. This then aggravates the erosional power of the river: “It is therefore extremely important that adequate attention be paid on safe disposal of excavated rock mass.”
Eventually the Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre’s report concludes that development in the hill areas should not be carried out in such a way that the safety of inhabitants is threatened.
“The hills are witnessing a lopsided growth whereby proliferation of hastily built, not-so-legal constructions with scant regard to safety measures is becoming common place and probability of major disasters is on the rise,” the report said. “This trend if allowed to continue unabated, is sure to result in a threatening situation.”