




































African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Vol. 1 (3), pp. 059-063, October, 2013. 
Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 
 
 
 
 

Review 

 

Institutionalizing environmental hazards for ‘public 
needs’: Destruction of forest for drinking water supply 

in Kerala, India 
 

S. Mohammed Irshad 
 

Jamsetji Tata Centre for Disaster Management, Tata Institute of Social Science,  
Malatil and Jal A.D. Naoroji (New) Campus, Sion-Trombay Road, P. O. Box 8313, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088, India. 

 
Accepted 20 June, 2013 

 
Natural resource exploitation is increasingly being considered as a technical issue with the assumption 
that it can be compensated for. The public concern shifts towards such destruction only when it affects 
the normal course of day to day life. Immediate needs often undermine the process of institutionalizing 
knowledge to ensure conservation of natural resources. The question of immediate needs often acts as 
the determining factor in decision making. This paper is focused on such an environmentally-legal 
issue in ensuring water availability through the destruction of rain forest. This paper discusses this 
issue in detail and raises the question of failure of institutionalizing knowledge. 

 
Key words: Sustainability, institutionalizing disasters, beneficiary group, neo-liberalism. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
This paper is about the socio-environmental relationship 
in contemporary ecology management. Diversion of rain 
forest for drinking water supply scheme is discussed as a 
contradiction in environmental governance.  

Pipe water supply services are largely depending on 
perennial sources of water, especially surface flowing 
water. Fresh water eco-systems are integral parts of 
surface water and flowing water. The dependencies on 
perennial sources are also rising. Thus, drinking water 
supply providers are forced to pay less attention on 
ecology and put more efforts on ensuring water supply. 
Water polices are become incapable to protect the 
aquatic biodiversity and other vital resources. The 
ecological impact of freshwater ecosystems is 

 
 
 

 
undervalued across the world. This crises put in place 
certain recommendations, such as equitable market, 
realistic pricing and protection of ecosystems (Johnson et 
al., 2001).  

The cost of supplying water supply is generally 
calculated on the basis of neo-classical economics, 
which gives thrust on ‘full cost pricing’ based on the ‘user 
pays’ principle. This cost criterion failed to assess the 
environmental cost. Environmental and social costs are 
having multiple dimensions and implications are also 
different (Abeysuriya K et al 2008). Environmental costs 
are directly connected with the deterioration of natural 
assets due to economic activities (United Nations, 1997).  

The natural resources such  as streams,  rivers,  lakes, 
 

E-mail: mohammed.irshad@tiss.edu or mohammedirshad31@gmail.com. 
 
Abbreviations: BG, Beneficiary Group; WB, World Bank; KWA, Kerala Water Authority; O&M, operation and maintenance; KRWSA, 
Kerala Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency; SEUF, Socio Economic and Unity Foundation; JBIC, Japan Bank of International 
Cooperation.  



Irshad               059 
 
 

 
enhances its service to society (Forestry Commission: 
getting widened across the world. Climate change, 
population and unregulated consumption of freshwater 
will lead to freshwater crisis in the coming century. 
Sustainable utilisation of freshwater is depends on the 
changing culture of water management (Robert B et al 
2002). Environmental conservation programmes faces 
multiple challenged in the developing world due to the 
dependency on resources (Brooks and Roumasset 
2002).  

The market process of pure demand management do 
not just between objects (commodities or inputs) and 
objective functions (demand, supply, utility, profit), but 
rather reflect relations between living human beings 
(Zafirovski, 2000). Such relation is often challenging the 
institutions formed to meet the demand and supply. 
However, The sustainability of institutions is getting public 
support. Institutional understanding of ecology has been 
de-limited into the sustainability of collective needs rather 
than ecological equity. This paper discusses this issue 
with reference to forest vis a via drinking water provision 
in Kerala, India.  

The paper examines the role of the State in 
institutionalizing ecological damage in the neo-liberal 
development governance. This paper attempts to 
examine the institutional nature of ecological destruction 
and its consequences on governing environment. The 
neoclassical economic understanding of ecology and 
natural resource conservation do not reflect the social, 
economic and environmental realities of the world. The 
strongly integrated utilitarian approach to development 
critically destroy the value system based on ecology and 
alternatives to protect (Anthony M 1992).  

The paper focuses on the bureaucratic understanding 
of ecology and the problems of identifying alternatives. 
This paper is the result of an enquiry on a foreign funded 
drinking water supply project in Kerala, India. The project 
is called Japan Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC) 
Funded Urban Drinking water supply augmentation 
programme.  

One component of the project is to increase the amount 
of pipe water supply to the urban consumers of Kerala 
Water Authority (KWA) in Thiruvanthapuram District of 
Kerala, India. However, after completing all the 
infrastructure development, KWA had faced an 
unparalleled legal hurdle to carry over the project. The 
hurdle was the availability of water in reservoir situated in 
one of the rain forests to meet the demand. Increasing 
the dam’s height at the cost of rain forest was the only 
solution left to augment the water supply. Since the 
reservoir is in the Wild Life sanctuary across the 
Karamana River, Government of Kerala had to take the 
prior consent of the Ministry of Environment and Forest,  
Government of India to increase the dam’s height. This 
issue has not met with any public criticisms and 
resistance. This is the motivation of this paper, and the 
paper tries to raise the following issues. 

Irshad 51 
 
 
 
 
2011). The gap between demand and supply for water 
 
a) How does the project influence the environmental 
governance of the State?   
b) How are the larger alternative ideas discussed in these 
types of projects?  

 
Secondary sources from Kerala Water Authority, 
discussions with the forest department staffs, Kerala 
Water Authority staff and members of Kani Tribal 
community have been used. 

 
SOURCES OF WATER AND CHALLENGES 
 
Kerala is well known for its water resources and the state 
is experiencing severe water scarcity. Protections of river 
resources are highly problematic. The annual rainfall 
availability is estimated to be about 3000 mm 
(Induchoodan, 1996). However, there is significant 
variation and a shortage of safe drinking water in many 
places of the state, besides the availability of average 
rainfall of 3,055 mm (Indian Meteorological Divisions). 

 
Ground water availability in Kerala 
 
Kerala has an annual replenishable ground water 
resource of 7,900 million cubic meters (MCM). The 
Central Ground Water Resource Board, Kerala Division 
has estimated that the net ground water availability of the 
State is 6229.04 MCM. According to Central Ground 
Water Board, only 48 per cent of the ground water 
sources in Kerala has been exploited (State Planning 
Board, 2003). Open wells are major as well as the 
traditional source of drinking water in Kerala; in fact the 
whole concept of drinking water is still attached to open 
wells. Centre For Water Resources Development And 
Management in 1989 revealed that there were three 
million wells in the state, of which 20 lakhs were private 
wells. The density of open wells is also very high in 
Kerala, with density around 250 well per sq.km in the 
coastal belt; 150 in the midlands and 25 in the highlands. 
Table 1 explains this in detail. 

 
Surface water availability in Kerala 
 
Kerala has 44 rivers, out of which 41 are west flowing 
and 3 east flowing. These rivers are characterized as 
ephemeral; so monsoon rainfall is the main source of 
survival (James, 2003) (Table 2).  

The  annual  utilizable  yield from  31  rivers is 49,199  
MCM (63% of the total), with the state’s share of 87 per 
cent (42,672). But it has been estimated that the state is 
utilizing only 25 percent of the annual utilizable yield 
(State Planning Board, 2003).  

Though Kerala has huge water sources potential, the 
natural water conservation receives less public attention 



060       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
Table 1. Ground Water Resource of Kerala as on March 2003 

km
2
/Year. 

 
Provision for domestic and industrial and other uses 1.31 
Available ground water resources for irrigation 6.59 
Net draft 1.46 
Balance ground water Resources for future use 5.13 
Level of ground water development (%) 22.17 

 
Source: Central Ground Water Board (2005). 

 
 

 
Table 2. Medium river basins of Kerala. 

 
 

River basins Length (km) 
Catchment area 

 

 
(sq. km)  

   
 

 Chaliar or Baypore 169 2788 
 

 Periyar Sivajini Hills 244 5398 
 

 Pamba Devarmalai 176 290 
 

 
Source: Central Water Commission (1999) and Ministry of Water 
Resources (2004). 

 
 

 
Table 3. Destruction of Forest Areas for Developmental 
Projects in Kerala (1980-2003) 

 
 

State 
Approved cases during 1980-2003 

 

 

Number of cases Area diverted (in hectare)  

  
 

 Kerala 182 40729.082 
 

 India 10358 872791.991 
  

Source: Department of Forests & Wildlife, Government of Kerala. 
 
 

 
Table 4. Types of forests in Kerala (Lakh ha.). 

 
Forest type Area Total area (%) 
Tropical wet evergreen forests 3.48 37.02 
Tropical moist deciduous forests 4.1 43.62 
Tropical dry deciduous forests 0.094 1 
Mountain sub tropical 0.188 2 
Plantations 1.538 16.36 
Total 9.4 100 

 
Source: Department of Forests & Wildlife, Government of Kerala. 

 
 

 
and forest protection as well. Tables 3 and 4 explain the 
nature of the forest as well as its destruction. In Kerala, 
big cash crop plantation sector like rubber is considered 
as forest area.  

Thus, the forest management policy of the state is 
heavily hinged on the interest of plantation lobby. Forest 
degradation is becoming an order of the day in the 

 
 
 
 
state; for instance from 1905 to 1965 forest degradation 
had been about 0.27% of total geographical area per 
year; in 1965 to 1973, 1%, from 1972 to 1975, 8611 sq. 
km, and from 1980 to 1982 is estimated as 7370 sq.km. 
3.17% per annum (national average during the period = 
2.79%). 
 
 
PEPPARA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 
 
Peppara Forest area is one of the 18 ‘Biological hot 
spots’ of the world. Peppara Sanctuary has great floral 
and faunal significance; now the number of hot spots is 
raised to 34. The sanctuary spreads over 53 sq.km of 
forest which forms the catchment of Peppara Reservoir. 
It was declared as a sanctuary in 1983. There are more 
than 4500 species of flowering plants found in Kerala. 
The sanctuary consists of part of Palode Reserve (24 
sq.kms) and part of Kottoor Reserve (29sq.kms). The 
total area of the sanctuary is 53 sq.km. The total water 
spread of the reservoir is 5.82 sq.km. The sanctuary is 
located at about 50kms north east of 
Thiruvananthapuram city in Nedumangad taluk (Kerala 
State, India); it is between longitude 76°40' and 77°17' 
east and latitude 80°7'and 8°53' north. The records of 
Kerala Forest Research Institute indicate that there are 
145 species of mammals of which 14 species are 
endemic to Western Ghats; 169 species of fresh water 
species; 93 amphibian species of which 40 species are 
endemic and 486 species of birds, with 16 endemic to 
Western Ghats, in addition to innumerable micro-flora 
and fauna.  

General topography of the area is hilly with elevation 
varying from 100 to 1717 m. Rainfall and other climate 
factors are similar to that of Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary. 
There are 13 tribal settlements in the sanctuary. Eleven 
are in Athirumala section and two are in Thodayar 
section. Peppara wild life sanctuary is a part of 
Agasthyamala forest. It is in Thiruvananthapuram District 
of the Kerala State, India. The forest types in the area are 
west coast tropical evergreen, west coast semi-
evergreen, southern hill-top tropical evergreen, southern 
wet temperature, Southern moist mixed deciduous and 
southern montane grasslands. The biological wealth of 
these forests is not fully explored. The presence of 
medicinal herbs is a positive aspect. One of the 7 
Medicinal Plants Conservation areas in Kerala Forests is 
in the sanctuary.  

The water supply to Thiruvananthapuram City and 
adjoining sub-urban areas depended exclusively on the 
perennial streams sprouting from the rain forest of this 
sanctuary. See Table 6 for details of the dam. 
 
 
PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES 
 
The major source of pipe water in the area is the 
Karamana River. The total production and demand and 



Irshad               061 
 
 

 
Table 5. Demand and supply of drinking water in  
Thiruvananathapuram. 

 
Year 2006 2011 2021 2036 
Demand ML 246 261 294 331 
Supply ML 151 151 151 151 
Deficiency 95 110 143 180 

 
Source: Demand and supply assessment report of 
Thiruvananathapuram. Kerala Water Authority 
2005. 

 
 
 
\ supply gap of drinking water supply in the city are as 
follows: 
 
Total production – from major schemes - 190 ML 
Miner schemes - 28 ML  
Total - 218 ML  
Loss due to leakages - 67 ML 
Supply - 151 ML  
Existing demand - 246 ML 
Demand supply gap - 95 ML 
 
Apart from that, Table 5 tells us the demand- supply 
forecast of the city.  

The aforesaid Figure 1 show the increasing demand for 
augmented drinking water supply in the 
Thiruvananthapuram urban and semi-urban areas. Hence 
increasing the dam’s storage capacity was vital for 
ensuring adequate supply of drinking water to 
Thiruvananthapuram in the coming years. 
 
 
IMPLICATIONS OF AUGMENTATION OF WATER 
SUPPLY ON FOREST 

 

   
 

Table 6. Details of the dam.    
 

    
 

Details of the dam    
 

Length of dam 438 m   
 

Height of dam 36.5 m   
 

Top width 4.0 m   
 

Gross 70.70 Mm3    
 

Dead storage 1.6 Mm3    
 

Live storage 68.5 Mm3    
 

Hydrology    
 

Catchment area 60 Sq km   
 

Average Rain Fall 481.00 cm   
 

Annual Run off at Dam site 312.30 Million m
3
   

 

Peak Design Flood 860 m
3
/second   

 

Reservoir    
 

Full reservoir level 
+ 110.50 m 

  
 

   
 

Minimum Draw Down Level 
+ 85.25 m 

  
 

   
 

Gross Storage 70.00 Million m
3
   

 

Dead Storage 1.60 Million m
3
   

 

Live Storage at F R L 68.40 Million m
3
   

 

Water Spread Area at F R L 
849.60 Hectares   

 

   
 

 
Attaining the target is not just technical in nature; in order 
to reach this target, the storage capacity of the Peppara 
Dam would augment, which was the sole source of 
drinking water for Thiruvananthapuram. The Full 
Reservoir Level (FSL) at Peppara would go up from104.5 
to 110.5 meters. The total water that can be stored in the 
dam would then go up from 40 million metric cubes to 70 
million metric cubes. However, the issue arising here is 
that the augmentation of the dam’s capacity would result 
in submerge of 267 hectares of forest land, for which 
Kerala Water Authority has estimated that compensatory 
forestation would compensate the rain forest of Peppara 
and it would require $6 Million. (This is from the reply for 
my request under Right to Information Act from Kerala 

 
Dam 
 
Type 
 
General Bed level of river at dam 

site Length of Dam Top  
Height of Dam Above River Bed 

Top Width  
Length of Spill way Elevation 
of crest of spill way 
 
Spill way crest gate 
 
Outlet 
 
Quantity of Concrete 

 
Concrete straight 
gravity  
+ 75.50 m   
423 m   
36.50 m   
4.00 m   
49.00 m   
+ 104.50 m   
4 nos 10 m x 6 m 
size  
1 No of size 1.50 
dia  
1,80,000 m

3
 

 
Water Authority). 
 
 
Legal issue 
 
In  1972,  the  Government  of  India  had  declared  The  
Wildlife (Protection) Act, according to which “every 
specified plant or part or derivative thereof shall be the 

 
Source: Peppara Dam site 
 
 
property of the State Government if there is any offence 
committed against this Act or any rule or order made 
there-of, and, where such plant or part or derivative 
thereof has been collected or acquired from a sanctuary 
or national park declared by the Central Government, 



062       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 1. Area of Peppara Dam. Source: Broacher of Peppara 
Wild Life Sanctuary. 

 
 

 
such plant or part or derivative thereof shall be the 
property of the Central Government”. In 2002 the  
Government of India had introduced The Wildlife 
Protection Amendment Bill, which did not make any 
substantial changes in the previous bill but extended the 
purview of the wildlife protection. 
 
 
New legal task 
 
The  Government  of  Kerala  is  entrusted  to  seek  the  
Central Government’s help to amend the 1972 and 2002 
Act to augment the dam’s capacity. The State  
Government had made all efforts to get the act amended. 
Delay in getting permission would create a further 
economic crisis owing to the huge aid from JBIC. The 
project is a package of five water supply schemes 
approved for loan assistance by the Overseas Economic 
Cooperation Fund (OECF) of Japan (now the Japan Bank 
for International Cooperation) in 1996. The objectives of 
the project are to supplement and rehabilitate water 
supply systems of two urban regions namely 
Thiruvanathapuram and Kozhikode and to construct 
water supply systems for three rural regions namely, 
Meenad, Cherthala and Pattuvam including their 

 
 
 

 
adjoining villages. It is the largest ever urban Water 
Supply Project in the state. The total cost of the project is 
$ 389 million; Government of Kerala contributes $ 58.5 

million and loan component is $ 331.45 million
1
. The 

Ministry of Environment and Forest has permitted the  
Kerala Water Authority to increase the dam’s height in 
order to augment the water supply. 
 
 
DISPLACEMENT OF TRIBAL 
 
About 100 Kani Tribal families were displaced in 1981 as 
part of Peppara Dam construction and they were offered 
5 acres of land as compensation. There has been no 
attempt by the Government of Kerala and KWA to 
distribute the land. The community settled themselves 
near the area close to the dam. There are about 13 Kani 
settlements in the reservoir area, of which 7 are within 
the close vicinity of the reservoir and facing the second 
phase of displacement. The displacement and livelihood 
laws of the Kani community have not been critically 
looked into while taking decisions on augmenting the 
drinking water supply.  

The study raises the following issue for further 
discussion. The question is how do we define the ‘water 
need’ vis a vis forest/ecology? If we pose this question to 
the society, the likely answer would be in favour of water 
and not the forest. Thus an ecology hardly becomes an 
issue. Providers of water supply (Government) and 
beneficiaries (consumers) are equally responsible for 
this. Thus the following are the likely implications of the 
issue: 
 
1. The possibility of institutionalising ecological hazards: 
The forest submerges have been introduced to the public 
not as an institutional failure but as part of a 
government’s programme. This new perspective 
eventually institutionalizes the ecological hazards.   
2. Lack of public protest: The urban consumers are not 
raising voice in favour of forest and the Kani community’s 
displacement has not been considered as a social issue.   
3. Challenges in the long term ecological sustainability: 
The crucial impact of these types of institutionalizations is 
that it would undermine the need of long term ecological 
management in particular.   
4. Compensatory afforestation: The money offered by KWA 
to forest department for compensatory forestation needs to 
be critically looked at. Replacing the rain forest in Peppara is 
in fact an ambiguous statement, and indeed   
there are hardly any models available to justify this 

argument
2
.  

 

 
1 Loan Agreement between Government of India and JBIC for 
Kerala 

  

2 The chief forest officer said that KWA would give Rs 30 
Crore for compensation and forest department would spend the 
money through social forestry department. 

 



Irshad               063 
 
 

 
5. Lack of search for alternatives: Search for alternatives 
is completely set aside in the project. KWA and JBIC 
units are paying little interest in alternatives such as 
rainwater harvesting, leakage detection of KWA supply 
lines. Of course this may not be sufficient enough to meet 
the growing demand for water; however, these 
alternatives are able to meet the partial demand for 
household water requirements. Nevertheless, the larger 
impact of this type of project is that it would never allow 
such alternative to get institutionalised. Such institutions 
get less importance in environmental governance 
(Goldsmith: 1992). 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 
Ms. Meena S Nair and Ms. Usha for supporting the field 
work and details of tribal displacement. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Abeysuriya KCM, Juliet W (2008). Expanding Economic Perspectives 

For Sustainability In Urban Water And Sanitation. Development 
51:23-29.  

Anthony M. (1992) Economics, Ecology and Sustainable Development: 
Are They Compatible? Environ. Values 1(2):157-170.  

Brooks K, James R (2002). Valuing indirect ecosystem services: the 
case of tropical watersheds. Environ. Dev. Econom. 7(4):701-714. 

Irshad 55 
 
 
 

 
Forestry Commission (2011). Edinburgh Guidelines Fourth Edition. 
Goldsmith AA (1992). Institutions and planned socioeconomic change: 

Four Approaches. Public Admin. Rev. 52(6):582-587.  
Induchoodan NC (1996). Ecological studies on the sacred groves of 

Kerala, research thesis of Pondicherry University.  
James CJ (2003). Water Management in Sooryamoorthy R and Antony 

(eds.). Managing Water and Water Users: Experience from Kerala’s 
Maryland: University Press of America.  

Johnson N, Carmen R, Jaime E (2001). Managing water for people and 
nature science, new series. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 292(5519):1071.  

Kerala Water Authority's Demand Supply Analysis of 
Thiruvanathapuram (2005). Prepared by KWA Engineers. Kerala 
Water Authority. p. 1. 

Robert BJ, Stephen RC, Clifford ND, Diane MMR (2002). Water In A 
Changing World” Issues in Ecology 9 pp.  

State Planning Board (2003). Economic Review, Government of Kerala, 
Thiruvanathapuram. Kerala. India.  

Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 amended in 2002. Ministry of 
Environment and Forest, Government of India p. 1.  

Zafirovski MZ (2000). An Alternative Sociological Perspective on 
Economic Value: Price Formation as a Social Process' International 
J. Pol. Cult. Soc. 14(2):265-295. 

 


