HYDERABAD: The Sindh High Court was on Thursday informed by the Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company (SECMC) that opting for a site other than Gorano village in Tharparkar for disposal of mine effluent would be a breach of the country’s international commitments as the alternative locations were Ramsar sites.

Advocate Mayhar Kazi, representing the company, argued on the objections raised by Mr Lakho and other petitioners over the report prepared by an inquiry committee appointed by court.

The SECMC counsel informed the bench that the Gorano reservoir would be used for three years as temporary storage and afterwards the effluent release would be stopped or it would become marginal.

He stated that the company would promote bio-saline agriculture in the affected area and could build distributaries to enable the community to cultivate recommended crops within the areas falling close to the Gorano reservoir.

The counsel completed his arguments by explaining the position and responding to the queries of the bench, comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui. The bench adjourned the matter to Sept 27, when it would hear the Sindh Coal Authority (SCA) and wildlife department.

Sindh govt notification

Justice Panhwar remained concerned about the language used in the Sindh government’s Jan 18 notification appointing the four-member inquiry committee headed by Asif Hyder Shah. The judge said the court could call the author of this notification.

The notification read that it was issued pursuant upon court’s interim order ... to ensure that government interest was properly safeguarded and defended.

Justice Panhwar noted that even the counsel did not object to the language.

Advocate Kazi said that since he was not representing government, he could not explain this point but he could hint that perhaps it was a normal practice of issuance of notifications and considering the fact that the issue in fact involved interests of whole Sindh.

He said that the whole exercise of the committee was aimed at safeguarding interests of local community and the committee had done it as mandated.

He submitted in court that power plants were to be commissioned by June 2019 and without extracting groundwater through this effluent disposal scheme, the whole project could not progress.

He said that the committee had submitted a huge report comprising over 685 pages, including annexures, and not a 37-page document as was claimed by the petitioners.

He said that one committee member, Dr Ahsan Siddiqui, was a water technologist who had not recommended the reservoir water for drinking purpose.

Reservoir water quality

When Justice Panhwar asked whether it was the same quality of water consumed by people from other wells, the counsel replied in affirmative. “Absolutely sir, it is the same subsoil water,” Advocate Kazi said. The judge asked whether any comparison between the samples of water being released and those consumed by the community was there.

The counsel said that water samples were taken from varying depths. The depth of mine from where water was to be extracted was 200 metres, he argued, adding that one analysis of water was done addendum to the report of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and one by present committee and findings of both were same.

All three aquifers were to be dewatered for extraction of coal, he said.

He informed the bench that the total dissolved solids (TDSs) of seawater were 35,000ppm while the water consumed by people in Thar had 7,000ppm to 8,000ppm TDS. And that’s why the SECMC was establishing four reverse osmosis (RO) plants to cater to the needs of 4,117 people to be affected by the project. He elucidated that this very water was fit for bio-saline agriculture.

The counsel also informed the bench that Gorano reservoir was spread over an area of 1,500 acres and not 2,700 acres as was claimed by the petitioners. The Dhukarchu reservoir was spread over an area of 244 acres and no community was to be affected there simply as no village existed on the land. Initially, he said, Gorano reservoir was planned on 3,000 acres and then it was redesigned for 1,500 acres. To a query, he replied that it had a depth of an average six feet of a swimming pool.

Fish farming

When Justice Fahim Siddiqui asked whether freshwater fish could survive in the reservoir, Advocate Kazi said in fact, the fish farming proposal had come from Dr Ahsan Siddiqui and he would not comment on it.

Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2017