Uma Oya Project: Call for compensation continues
By Rathindra Kuruwita
The problems facing 17,000 families, affected by the negative environmental impacts of the Uma Oya project, have not yet been solved, Sajeewa Chamikara of the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR) told The Island.
In December 2014, a leak sprang up in its 15.2 km tunnel and due to that thousands of houses were damaged, and there was a loss of drinking and irrigation water which devastated the lives and livelihoods of thousands, he said.
Ella, Bandarawela, Hali-Ela, Haputale, Welimada, and Uva-Paranagama divisional secretariat areas were the most affected.
“These families have not yet been fully compensated, or their grievances addressed. Initially, some families were provided 500 litres of drinking water, once in two weeks. This was also stopped after a while. Now people travel long distances to find water,” Chamikara said.
On the other hand, the majority of those who lost their livelihood and saw their houses damaged have not been fully compensated. “Given that their agricultural land is dried up, people work as labourers in other areas. It is unlikely that the impacts of the leak could be fully mitigated even if the government spends colossal amounts of money,” he said.
Chamikara said the environmental and social impact of the project could have been avoided if the Mahinda Rajapaksa government carried out a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
“The EIA for Uma Oya is one of the worst in the history of the country. However, even that EIA states that the project is being implemented in a problematic geographical and geological location and further geological investigations are needed to determine whether the bedrock conditions are suitable for the construction of tunnels.
However, the government went ahead with the project and tunnelling took place in areas with metamorphic rocks which are more resistant to deformation and weathering than sedimentary rocks. Thus, the tunnelling destabilized the ground leading to cracks appearing on the surface, which in turn has caused cracks to appear on the buildings in these areas. Moreover, as ground water seeps deeper due to the destabilization, the surface water also lowers, depriving water for agriculture and general consumption.,” he claimed.
The feasibility of such a project, based on Uma Oya, was first considered in 1987. The German consulting firm LAHAMAYOR carried out the feasibility study. Once again in 1991 the Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau did a feasibility study and presented it to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) which rejected the proposal citing that it has failed to adhere to accepted international norms.
Between 2002 and 2003 a Canadian Consulting Firm SNC – LAVALIN also carried out a feasibility study to determine the possibility of a multipurpose development project, based on Uma Oya.
In all these studies attention was said on the feasibility of constructing two tanks in Puhulpola and Dayaraba. When this proposal was presented to the ADB in 1991, it rejected the proposal stating that there are numerous technical issues with the proposal and such as in transferring water between water basins.
“Iran on the other hand believed that, if money and technical assistance is provided, the Sri Lankan government would do what is best for Sri Lankans. But as we know, successive Sri Lankan governments have cared little for the wellbeing of the people,” Chamikara said.
