River Regulation Zone v1.

1
Rajesh Ramamoorthy Citizen consumer and civic Action Group (CAG)

Assessment of the RRZ Notification of the MoEF.

Rivers have been part of Indian civilization. In a country with a large population, it
plays a vital role and supports a variety of purposes including drinking water and
sustaining livelihoods.

There are several parts to a river system – source, tributaries, the river, floodplains,
wetlands and mouth. The draft of the River Regulation Zone (RRZ) Notification deals
with management of floodplains.

Floodplains.
Floodplain refers to the land adjoining a river or water channel that is subject to
flooding during periods of high discharge. This means that floodplains may be
inundated with water only during certain periods while remaining dry during the rest
of the year.

Floodplains are an important component of river ecosystems. They play multiple

roles such as helping absorb excess water during flooding, act as filters improving
water quality and provide a habitat for wildlife. Floodplains depending on the stretch
of the river could nurture diverse eco-systems such as forest areas, grasslands etc.,
support sustenance agriculture, replenish / feed water bodies such as lakes and
ponds and recharge groundwater.

Decreasing river flows are due to a multitude of reasons and range from the
presence of dams upstream to the loss of catchment areas. These have made
floodplains increasingly vulnerable. Further, the growing demand for land has meant
that floodplains are used for “development” activities (beyond traditional occupations
such as agriculture, fisheries and animal grazing) and generate waste and effluents
that impact large areas affecting several species including humans.

Legislation on rivers.
Rivers in India have been legislated both at the national level and state level. Rules
for regulating development on floodplains can be found as early as 1984. For
example, the River Conservancy Act of 1884 covered the states of Tamil Nadu and
Andhra Pradesh. It directed surveys, defined limits for the river (which was termed
"river-bed") including any construction or plantation within the river-bed that could be
permitted by officers (called Conservators of Rivers).

The Central Water Commission (CWC), a part of the Ministry of Water Resources
(MoWR) had circulated a model bill for floodplain zoning in 1975. This proposed
delineating areas which are subject to flooding - including classification of land with
reference to relative risk of floodplain – and use intended to safeguard the health,
safety and property of the general public. This bill, on notification and passing by the
State government, would prohibit or restrict the activities in the floodplain. This saw
little interest. Among the few states that enacted the bill, except Manipur, none
enforced the legislation.

In 2001, the concept of floodplain protection through a notification - along the lines of
the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification - emerged during a national
workshop at Delhi. It resulted in a note submitted to the Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MoEF). A couple of meetings were called by National River Conservation
Directorate (NRCD) but evoked no action.

In a press release dated 8th August 2011, the minister of MoEF in a response to a
River Regulation Zone v1.1
Rajesh Ramamoorthy Citizen consumer and civic Action Group (CAG)

question posed in the Lok Sabha stated that they will now manage riverfronts as well
as constitute an expert group for formulation of guidelines for management of river
fronts through river regulation zones. This was coined "River Zone Control Act". In
addition, they received suggestions for the protection of floodplains from NGOs with
specific reference to the Yamuna which had come under increasing threat.

The National Water Policy, 2012 includes a section of the conservation of rivers and
river corridors which also mentioned that encroachments and diversion of water
bodies must not be allowed and promoted restoration to the extent feasible.

State Pollution Control Boards have also taken measures to regulate industries
located on floodplains with the intention of reducing water pollution. As early as 1989,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board passed an order stating that no industry causing
serious water pollution should be permitted within 1 km of reservoirs, rivers and
public drinking water sources. Maharashtra Pollution Control board framed a River
Regulation Zone policy for the state in 2000 (later revised in 2009) based on the
designated best use as per water quality for rivers, high flood line and categorizing
industry based on their pollution levels. However, this was later withdrawn based on
a resolution passed by the state government dated February 3rd, 2015.

State and ULB powers vis a vis floodplains.

With floodplains, it is also important to look at relevant land use legislation which
comes under the ambit of states. State Town and Country Planning Acts were
enacted by the states based on Model Laws in 1962 (later revised in 1985) floated by
central agencies.

The 74th Constitution Amendment Act, 1992 further promoted devolution of powers
to urban local bodies to formulate district and metropolitan plans. However, states
have been slow in adopting reforms and amending their acts as suggested in Urban
and Regional Development Plan Formulation and Implementation (URDPFI). These
guidelines, first released in 1996, were subsequently revised in 2014 to reflect more
recent trends in urban development. The URDPFI 2014 guidelines for buffer zones
recommends zoning in order to regulate land use in the floodplains identified based
on last 50 or 100 year flooded area of water bodies or river.

It is interesting to note that multiple efforts to regulate floodplains have seen little
progress since both land and water are state subjects. The onus seems to lie on
respective States/Union Territories to take steps towards regulation of rivers within
their jurisdiction. The National Green Tribunal in the case of Akash Vashishtha & Anr.
Vs. Union of India & Ors stated that it is an admitted position in law that construction
upon floodplain area is prohibited and passed an order restraining any illegal and
unauthorized construction, be it temporary or permanent, on the flood plain zone of
the Yamuna in 2013.

“River Regulation Zone” (RRZ) notification.

The floods in Uttarakhand (2013) and Kashmir as well as Pune (2014) were the
trigger for the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to
release a “River Regulation Zone” (RRZ) notification draft under the Environment
Protection Act (EPA), 1986.

The RRZ notification intends to regulate developmental and industrial activities upto
5 kms from the banks of the river stretches having floodplains and an equivalent area
for mountain/hill stretches under three River Conservation Zones (RCZ) demarcated
with reference to the Highest Flood Level (HFL) with a 100 year return period.
River Regulation Zone v1.1
Rajesh Ramamoorthy Citizen consumer and civic Action Group (CAG)

Observations:
The Prohibited Activity Zone (RCZ-PA) in the immediate vicinity of the river is offered
the highest protection (recommending that existing activities and constructions in the
zone should adhere to the notification) with less stringent measures / leniency for
areas beyond the RCZ-PA.

A lot of attention has been paid to regulating new developments within the three
zones although it seems more a case of pushing activities outside the RCZ-PA
therefore the definition of the limits of the RCZ-PA is key.

It would have been better, both in conception and for implementation, if the RRZ
notification focused on regulating the RCZ-PA along with partial or full areas under
the Restricted Activity Zone (RCZ-RA I) and delegated the management of
Regulated Activity Zone (RCZ-RA II) to existing local planning authorities.

The preparation of flood zone maps for all rivers in each state has been long overdue
and the inclusion of a timeframe of 24 months is a welcome step. The notification
touches upon gravel and sand extraction by taking the permission grant route after
due assessment of sediment influx and annual replenishment capacity. Surprisingly,
no reference is made to Sustainable Sand Mining Management guidelines circulated
by the MoEFCC in 2015 which attempts to ensure that gravel and sand mining is
carried out in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner.

Suggestions for further inclusions to the draft RRZ.

● Measures for National and State RCZ authorities to handle conflict resolution
between stakeholders.
● Procedures for the necessary coordination between the several
implementation state authorities/agencies including procedures for
accountability.
● Measures to address the lack of institutional capacity at the district level, as is
evident that the proposals regulating development in the zones are to be
forwarded to State RCZ authorities.
● Scope for increased citizen participation (beyond the representation by NGOs
opted into the authorities) ranging from participatory preparation of RCZ
management plans to reporting violations and addressing grievances.
Procedures and time frame for dealing with complaints from the public.
● Steps to ensure primary importance (in addition to the recognition and
permits currently in the draft) to traditional occupation supporting local
livelihoods.
● Restoration of floodplains should be one of the core objectives instead of the
mere mention in the formulation of procedures by the State RCZ authorities
as currently in the draft.
● Ways and instruments to resolve the overlapping jurisdiction and provisions
with the State Town and Country Planning regulations as well as existing
master plans, demarcating zone boundaries for the implementation of the
RRZ notification. The MoEFCC needs to learn from its experience with the
CRZ notification and include the recommendations from the Shailesh Nayak
committee report.

Way Forward.
On January 8th this year, the draft notification was circulated to States/Union
Territories for comments. In May, the minister for MoEFCC in a response to question
raised in the Rajya Sabha stated “10 states have responded to it. Some have raised
objections. Some have supported it. We have written to the remaining 19 states to
give their response. As soon as the responses come, we will hold a meeting.” The
River Regulation Zone v1.1
Rajesh Ramamoorthy Citizen consumer and civic Action Group (CAG)

states’ response is not surprisingly to say the least. Clearly there needs to a revised
notification draft and a proactive consultative approach by the MoEFCC on an issue
that has become critical and has seen public interest rise in the aftermath of flooding
in major Indian cities. Also importantly, in the context of climate change and the
likelihood of unexpected weather patterns, this legislation requires short and long
term goals that can be achieved with the support of both state administration and
citizen participation.

* In 2014, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was renamed the Union Ministry of
Environment ,Forests and Climate Change acknowledging the challenge that climate change poses.