Hyderabad activist cautions CM Revanth on 2019 Musi River restoration study

Activist Lubna Sarwat questioned the basis of taking 1.5 lakh cusecs as the maximum discharges from the Musi River between Bapughat and Nagole.

Hyderabad: Congress leader and environmental activist Dr Lubna Sarwath has cautioned chief minister A Revanth Reddy not to consider the report on the maximum discharges from the Musi River between the Bapughat and Nagole as authentic while going ahead with the Musi Riverfront Development Project.

The report was sought by the engineer-in-chief of the irrigation department, which was submitted by Shankar Naik, the chief engineer of Hydrology, to the then director of Musi Riverfront Development Corporation (MRDC). The study was done by CIST Infrastructure consultancy, taking 1.5 lakh cusecs as the basis for the maximum discharges from the Musi River.

Lubna questioned how that data could be accurate when the maximum discharge from the Himayathsagar dam alone was 1.5 lakh cusecs, and from the Osamansagar dam, it was 90,000 cusecs. She also added that the inflows from the various source points on the north and south banks of the Musi River.

Also Read
Why the Nizam’s Museum in Hyderabad is a must see for travellers

She reminded that the comparative flood flow of September 26, 1908, to September 28, 1908, was said to be around 4.5 lakh cusecs. That was the period when the great Musi floods happened.

“The restoration study and work for Musi River with 1.5 lac cusecs discharge as the base does not seem appropriate,” she observed.

She has advised the chief minister to exercise caution regarding the reports produced during the BRS government and to remain vigilant about officials who may mislead him. Sarwat also raised concerns about the credibility of CIST Infrastructure in managing the study, particularly given the absence of any information available online. She noted that CIST Infrastructure lacked a website, making it difficult to verify the company’s credentials for handling such a study.

Furthermore, she pointed out that the report was not accessible to the public on either the MRDC or the irrigation department’s websites, which is a requirement under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act.

.