Kullu locals oppose reconstruction of barrage on Tirthan

The ongoing repair work of the barrage on the Tirthan, constructed by the Fisheries Department to rejuvenate the trout fish breeding farm at Hamni village in Tirthan Valley, Banjar subdivision, has sparked opposition from local residents.

Dev, a resident, expressed his concerns, alleging that after the construction of the barrage, water from the Tirthan inundated their property, damaging buildings and agricultural land. “My orchard of 4 bighas was washed away in the floods last year and we received no compensation or relief. My father could not bear the grief and passed away,” he said. Dev further criticised the department for reconstructing the barrage, which would be raised by about 18 inches compared to the previous one. He feared that the increased height of the barrage would further damage their remaining property.

He pointed out that while the department had constructed protective walls on its own side of the river, it failed to build adequate protective walls on the other side. He called for higher protective walls and a reduction in the height of the barrage.

Another local resident, Tulle Ram, revealed that he had resorted to legal action to safeguard his property. He claimed, “The dam was constructed in 2015 without the necessary permissions, and this has caused extensive damage to the properties of residents like Dev, Nokhu Singh, Tikmu Devi and Ishwar Singh. The Fisheries Department is prioritising its own infrastructure over the livelihoods of local farmers.” Villagers shared their experiences of how repeated discussions with authorities had resulted in weak, poorly built walls that offered little protection against the river’s force.

Aditya, another local, raised environmental concerns, stating that the Tirthan River is part of the Great Himalayan National Park ecozone, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. He argued that any tampering with the river would harm the region’s aquatic life and ecology. He also criticised the dumping of cement and iron into the river to create artificial streams, altering its natural course. He questioned the role of the Mining, Fisheries and Forest departments, as well as the administration and police, in the construction activities.

Kullu Fisheries Officer Duni Chand Arya defended the project, stating that permissions for the barrage had been obtained in 2012. He explained that the barrage had been damaged in last year’s floods and the ongoing work was only for restoration. Arya assured that the protective walls had safeguarded the surrounding land, including the fish farm, from the floods. He attributed the river’s change in course to a cloudburst about 700 m upstream of the barrage, which caused the damage, not the dam itself. Arya concluded by stating that all relevant facts would be presented in court.

The situation remains tense as locals continue to voice their concerns over the potential impact on their properties and the environment.