CEE April-June 2012

- five years - a phenomenon baffling even environmental scientists of the State. The Delhi– based Central Laboratory of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), which conducted an analysis of water samples collected from these rivers, said the water was highly 'acidic', rendering it unsuitable to support life forms. The latest report, submitted by the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board to the State Government and CPCB Delhi, said , "Mine run– off from coal mines are the major probable causes of water pollution in the area." "The undesirable change in water quality affects a variety of flora and fauna of the rivers. Fish, as such, are susceptible to acidity and low pH values are unsuitable for most aquatic organisms," the report said . Five years back, river Lukha in the Khliehriat sub-division turned blue and all aquatic life, including fish, died and were found floating in the river. "Acidification of natural water is mainly due to acid effluents discharged from coal mines," said the board. The State Pollution Control Board in 2007 conducted a thorough investigation into the sudden blue pigmentation of the Lukha river. The report of the investigation said. "The blue colour of the Lukha is possible because the river receives untreated waste discharge from coal mine areas of Sutnga, Ladrymbai and Sakhain, compounded by heavy rain." Incidentally, water samples collected downstream of a cement plant (Umtyrngai river) is alkaline in a nature and did not "contribute" to the acidity of Luka river, a confluence of Lunar river and Umtyrangai. The MSPCB said, "The prevailing condition of water quality in the area requires urgent need for initiating preventive and control measures to minimize impact of mining activities on water quality." It also suggested filling up of abandoned mines to prevent generation of acid mine drainage or initiate proper management of it by treating it actively or passively. Courtesy: FIMI (The Federation of Indian Mineral Industries) News Bulletin, March 15, 2012, Pp19-20. MOEF NOD MUST FOR MINING OF MINOR MINERALS IN LESS THAN 5 HA The Supreme Court has ruled that the States/Union Territories can grant and renewal of leases for mining of minor minerals for an area of less than five hectares only after getting environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). The court took note of the MoEF report which said mining of minor minerals in smaller size of mine leases is perceived to have lesser impact as compared to mining of major minerals. However, the report had said, the activity is seen to have significant adverse impact on environment. It is, therefore, necessary that the mining of minor minerals is subjected to simpler but strict regulatory regime and carried out only under an approved framework of mining plan, which should provide for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas, the report had said. The apex court bench comprising Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad said in its order on February 27 that, "all State governments/Union Territories have to give to due weightage to the MoEF recommendations (in March 2010)." "The State Governments have to frame proper rules in accordance with the recommendations, under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957," it said. The court also asked the States and UTs to submit compliance reports before it within six months. The court said "it is highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which will take care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio-assessment protocol." It asked the Centre to take steps to bring into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules 2010 at the earliest. The case pertained to a petition filed by one Deepak Kumar against the Haryana Government. It was regarding the validity of auction notices of the Haryana Government's Mines and Geology Department. The court also considered the complaint of illegal mining in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner had said mining areas earmarked are at the foothills of fragile Shivalik hills. The petitioner alleged that illegal and excessive mining has caused serious environmental degradation and ecological impact, and no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has ever taken place in areas earmarked for mining especially on the riverbeds. The apex court said it was deeply concerned since it was faced with a situation where the auction notices permitted quarrying mining and removal of sand from in– stream and upstream of several rivers, which may have serious environmental impact on rivers and riverbeds. It said sand extraction may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity and on the aquatic life. "Rivers mentioned in the auction notices are on the foothills of the fragile Shivalik hills," which is the source of many rivers, it said. Courtesy: FIMI (The Federation of Indian Mineral Industries) News Bulletin, March 15, 2012, Pp 20-21. 46