flood management programme (fmp)ecostatjk.nic.in/ecosurvey/evaluation report on fmp jammu.pdf · 3....

Government of Jammu & Kashmir

Physical Verification-cum-Evaluation Report

on

Flood Management Programme (FMP) Jammu Division (2008-09 to 2011-12)

Crate Revetment on river Chenab at Narsinghpura Earth Embankment on river Tawi at Ganeshuchak

Stud at River Tawi at Bhagwati Nagar Gap at River Tawi at Sampuranpur Kullian

Regional Joint Director, Evaluation & Statistics, Jammu Directorate of Economics and Statistics, J&K

Planning and Development Department

Highlights of the study

1. The Flood Management Programme (FMP) is a centrally sponsored scheme launched with the objective of providing relief from floods by executing Flood protection works, anti-erosion works and improvement in drainages of the rivers/nallahs.

2. Under the Scheme, eight Flood Management Projects have been undertaken in Jammu Province. Two Projects were started during 2007-08 and remaining 6 Projects were started during 2008-09. As per the guidelines, FMP works were expected to be completed in a time bound manner, but none of the projects have been completed so far and all the projects are still in progress. This results in cost escalation and further burden to exchequer.

3. Out of 8 projects, 2 FMP projects where the maximum amount had been incurred, i.e. FMP of Master plan on River Tawi and FMP of Master Plan on River Chenab were selected for evaluation study. The project works on River Tawi were executed by Flood Control Division Jammu and on River Chenab were executed by Flood control Division Akhnoor.

4. Approximately 12930 mtrs. of Earth embankment, 17590 mtrs Crate Revetment and 105 studs/spurs were physically verified in both the sample projects. 90% Earth embankment executed were found intact and in good condition. The remaining 10% were damaged in both the sample projects. Likewsie 75% of crate revetment were found intact and in good condition and 25% were Partially damaged. In both the sample projects, 69% of studs/spurs were found intact and in good condition and 31% were found partially damaged.

5. The sites were found genuine and works were apparently seen on ground. It was very difficult for the investigating team to locate the works executed by the executing agency in both the sample projects as the team found that there were some other embankments also created under other schemes/projects.. None of the sites had any sign boards or hoardings and practically it was impossible for the investigating team to locate and identify the works executed without the company of the field functionaries of the Executing Agency.

6. During the course of evaluation/verification, it was also observed in master plan Tawi, that the department has left some patches of land endangering the villages namely Chak Desa Singh,Wazirachak, Tope, Lakshampura, Sumb, Sampuranpur Kullian, Indru De kothey and adjoining villages. During the course of field enquiry, two crusher sites were also found where no revetment was constructed and there is an apprehension of water entering into the

villages. Similarly, in Master Plan Chenab, certain gaps of revetments at NS pura, Pangali and Chanjwan were also left behind which may endanger the villages during floods. It is, therefore, suggested that such things must be avoided as they cause heavy loss to the community as a whole. When a gap is left in embankment/revetment, it allows the water to enter into the villages thereby causing flood like situations and thus the whole purpose of creating embankment/revetments at such sites becomes meaningless and non beneficial.

7. In both the sample projects of selected sites about 4850 kanals of irrigated land and 400 kanals of un irrigated land was protected from erosion. Besides this, approx. a total of 6900 kanals of irrigated and 1050 kanals of un-irrigated land was also protected from submergence in the sample area. The department has done commendable job in protecting the irrigated and un-irrigated land from floods and converting such land for agricultural use to help the people to earn their livelihood. Land protected at newly constructed bridge at River Tawi is an example of land protection works being done by the Executing Department.

8. A total of 12 school buildings, 08 Govt. and public buildings and 07 temples were protected in the sample area. Shamshan Ghat at Bhagwati nagar, Bapu Asa Ram Ashram and Yatri Bhawan at Bhagwati nagar , pumping station at Sikanderpur were prominent buildings being protected under the project works. So far as protection to private assets is concerned, it has been observed that wherever the work has been executed, the whole village has been protected. The impact of such protection work has also been felt in the adjoining villages. Approx. 1200 houses which are situated on banks of both the rivers, 30 shops and 13200 kanals of private land were also protected through creation of revetments, embankments and studs/Spurs.

9. In order to have an assessment of the effect and impact of various activities implemented in the project areas, enquiries were made from 60 Knowledgeable Persons from 20 nearby villages of the selected sites. 3 Knowledgeable Persons from each of the selected sites as proposed in the sample design of the study were asked to express their views in respect of various components of the project and implementation process of the scheme as observed by them in their areas. The knowledgeable persons also include Panches and Sarpanches of the concerned area. The views of such people help in construing the exact picture of work being executed by the Department.

10. 100% of Knowledgeable Persons asserted that the sites selected for execution of FPW were feasible and appropriate. In all the selected sites of both the projects, 100% works were executed. So far as nature of works is concerned, these included Erosion Control Works, Submergence Works and Flood Protection works.

11. Out of 60 Knowledgeable Persons from both the sample projects, only 38% were of the view that quality of works executed was good, 57% rated them as average and only 5% opined the quality of works executed as poor.

12. 83% of Knowledgeable Persons were of the view that works were executed with the consultation of local people. 75% of Knowledgeable Persons asserted that local people were engaged in FPWs as labourers, 85% were satisfied with the works executed by the Department, 50% asserted that they have approached to the department for the execution of works in their areas and 100% believed that the works executed were beneficial for both individual and community as a whole.

13. No doubt, the Department has done a great job in preventing villages from floods, yet as revealed by certain Knowledgeable Persons that in some areas the height of embankments was too low to protect occasional huge floods. They suggested that the gaps left during execution be filled-in immediately and the repairs done on periodical basis so that embankments, revetments and studs/spurs are protected from damage . Further-more, it was also revealed by the Knowledgeable Persons during the course of physical verification that standard crate boxes were not installed which needs to be looked into.

14. Various types of assets created have got damaged in the normal course at the hands of men, Tractor trolleys and from natural factors. Repairs and maintenance of assets be provided, otherwise the assets will be damaged/washed away. The people must be made aware by organizing awareness campaigns in the project areas so that people could understand the scope and utility of these assets and work for their safety, maintenance and protection.

15. There was no provision of maintenance of assets in the projects undertaken as per the guidelines. As such, the creation of assets out of public money has no use unless some maintenance mechanism is there. As such, it is suggested that there should be a provision of maintenance of assets in the projects or it should be maintained through other schemes like MGNREGA.

16. It was observed that no plantations were made along the earth embankments. The planting of trees/plants holds the land intact and protects the soil erosion. The Department must look into this aspect and plantation must be done at both the banks of the rivers as it can lessen future expenditures on repairs and maintenance.

17. During the course of physical verification it was observed that tractors trolleys while extracting sand, stones and other materials from the rivers cause damage to the studs/spurs and embankments. This must be stopped particularly at vulnerable spots. The extraction of material at some spots may prove fruitful

where it could be allowed/encouraged. As such the Flood Control Department should classify the spots where extraction could be allowed and those where it should be strictly dis-allowed. This way the assets would be protected and also smooth flow of rivers could also be ensured.

Contents

Chapter No Description of Chapter Page No’s

I Introduction 1 – 5 II Financial/Physical Progress 6 – 16 III Field Findings 17 – 33 IV Summary of Main Findings 34 - 40 & suggestions Annexure Schedules 41 – 49

Photographs 49

____________ ____________________________________ _________

Chapter-1

Introduction

Background:

Devastation by floods is a recurrent annual phenomenon in India.

Almost every year, some or other part of the country is affected by floods.

Floods cause enormous damage to life, property-public and private and

disruptions to infrastructure, besides psychological and emotional

instability amongst the people. Rashtriya Barh Ayog (RBA) had estimated in

1980, total flood prone area in the country as 40 million hectares which was

revised further to 45.6 million hectares by the Working Group on Flood

Management set up by the Planning Commission for the 11th Five year Plan,

based upon the information furnished by the State Governments.

Many areas of the country are very vulnerable to floods and there is

great risk of damage to National Assets like highways, roads, railway tracks

etc. apart from damages to life and property. All these aspects were given due

consideration and addressed appropriately by the Govt. of India during the

10th plan and in consequence, the following schemes were sanctioned to

provide central assistance to flood prone states to take up flood control and

river management works in critical areas:

1) Critical Anti-Erosion works in Ganga Basin States (Centrally Sponsored

Scheme),

2) Critical Flood Control and Anti Erosion Scheme in Brahmaputra and

Barrack valley States (State Sector Scheme),

3) Implementation in Drainage in critical areas in the country ( State

Sector

Scheme)

4) Critical Anti Erosion in Coastal and other than Ganga Basin States

(State Sector Scheme)

The above schemes were merged together and a restructured scheme,

namely, “Flood Management Programme” under State Sector in Central Plan

was approved in principle, for 11th five year plan.

Scope/Coverage/Objectives of the Programme:

Under this scheme, critical flood control and River Management works

in the entire country are covered. These works include river management,

flood control, anti erosion, drainage development, anti sea erosion, flood

proofing works besides flood prone area development programme in critical

regions. It also includes restoration of damaged flood control/management

works.

Funding Pattern:

The funding pattern for central assistance to Special Category States

is 90% central share and 10% State Share, while as of other states it is 75%

central share and 25% state share. The Special category states cover North

Eastern States, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and

Uttarakhand.

Implementing Agency:

As per guidelines of the scheme, the programme is generally

implemented by Flood control/ Water Resources/Irrigation Departments of

the State Government. In exceptional and emergent cases, the work could be

entrusted to Central Govt. organizations/ undertakings with the approval of

Central Ministry of Water Resources.

In Jammu and Kashmir State, the scheme is being implemented

through Department of Irrigation and Flood Control.

Conceptualization of the study:-

In order to assess the effectiveness of the programme, the State Level

Evaluation Committee (SLEC) in its meeting held on 25-11-2011 decided to

conduct the evaluation study on ‘Flood Management Programme’ through

Directorate of Economics and Statistics during the year 2011-12. Since the

study was sanctioned at the fag end of the financial year 2011-12, the

Directorate of Economics and Statistics decided to conduct it during the

financial year 2012-13 in order to operationalise the field work effectively.

Objectives of the Study :

The study was conceived with the following objectives:

1. To assess the Physical and Financial progress of the projects under

the programme;

2. To ascertain to which extent target group of the population stood

benefitted ;

3. To assess the level of satisfaction of target group of the population

through the implementation of Flood Management Programme;

4. To physically verify and ascertain the feasibility / genuineness of soil

erosion/ Flood protection works with special reference to outcome of

works executed.

5. To assess the bottlenecks/difficulties faced, if any, during the

execution of works and suggestion of corrective measures to be taken

to explore better implementation of projects.

Source of the Data:

The official data was collected from the project authorities’ viz. Chief

Engineer/Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control, Jammu. For the

primary data, a detailed field survey was conducted to obtain information

about the assessment of the impact and effect of the programme through;

I. Physical verification of the works executed,

II. Interview of Knowledgeable Persons.

For the purpose of collection of primary and secondary data, a set of three

schedules, one for obtaining official information and remaining two for

obtaining primary data from the field were designed for the study as detailed

below:

1. Schedule for Official Data Schedule I, II and III

2. Schedule for Physical Verification Schedule IV

3. Schedule for Knowledgeable Persons Schedule V

Sample size and procedure:

There were 08 Flood Management Projects undertaken in the

Jammu Division. None of the projects was completed and all were still in

progress by the end of March, 2012. At the Ist stage, out of 08 Flood

Management Projects(FMPs) undertaken, 02 FMPs were selected, where the

maximum amount was incurred up to ending March, 2012 for instant

evaluation study. These projects were Master Plan for FPW (Flood Protection

Works) on river Tawi and Master Plan for FPW on river Chenab. At the IInd

stage, 50% of the sites where the works were executed were selected

covering thereby Soil Erosion Control Works/Flood Protection Works. At the

IIIrd stage, 3 knowledgeable persons were interviewed from each verified

spot to elicit their opinion about the implementation and effectiveness of

the programme.

Reference Period:

The reference period pertained to whole of the project implementation

period i.e.2008-09 to 2011-12.

Field Work and Tabulation:

The field work was conducted by the staff of Regional Joint Director,

Evaluation and Statistics, Jammu under her overall supervision and control.

Scrutiny and Tabulation of data:

The scrutiny and tabulation of data was done by the staff of Regional

Joint Director, Evaluation and Statistics, Jammu.

Report Writing:

The report writing was executed by Regional Joint Director,

Evaluation and Statistics, Jammu under the technical guidance and overall

supervision of Directorate of Economics and Statistics.

Analytical Tools:

The averages and other appropriate tools and techniques were applied

for analysis and drawing inferences from the data.

Chapter-1I

Physical and Financial Achievements:

Proper management of floods constitutes an important element in

National Development Activities. In order to protect human life, land and

property from flood fury in the country, the State governments had been

engaged in flood management works for the last 5 decades and a total of

18.22million hectares of area was provided a reasonable degree of protection

by the end of 10th Plan. The Working Group on Water Resources constituted

by Planning Commission had set a target to protect an additional area of

2.18 million hectares during the 11th Plan.

Government of India has also been assisting the flood prone states in

flood management and anti-erosion works for critical reaches, by providing

financial assistance to the state Governments through a number of

Centrally Sponsored Schemes.

In order to provide financial assistance to the State Governments for

undertaking Flood Management works in critical areas during the 11th Plan

period (2007-12), a state sector scheme, namely, “Flood Management

Programme” (FMP) was launched by Ministry of Water Resources under

Central Plan, at a total cost of Rs.8000 crores which was approved “in

principle” by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 01-11-2007.

In Jammu and Kashmir State, the scheme was also launched and,

accordingly, in Jammu Division, eight number of Flood Management

Programmes were undertaken by the Department of Irrigation and Flood

Control. All the projects were still in progress in March, 2012. As Jammu

and Kashmir State falls under special category states, the funding pattern is

90% central share and 10% state share.

The following are the activities that are covered under Flood Protection

Works (FPW) in Jammu division.

1. Earth Embankments:

These are man-made ridges of earth or stones which confines a waterway

alongside a road or railway line. It is a long artificial mound of stones on

earth, built to hold water back or to support a road or protect land

endangered due to floods. Further, these ridges are created on the banks

of the rivers on specific spots for protecting flood prone villages from

submerging under flood water.

Earth Embankment on FMP Tawi at Ganeshuchak

2. Crate Revetments: Crate Revetments are used to stabilize or constrain a

river. They are part of flood alleviation works in which stones are placed on

river banks to prevent erosion of natural material. These crate Revetments

form river banks and protect the adjoining villages and agricultural fields.

These artificial man made river banks also are very instrumental in stopping

Land erosion and erosion of natural river banks.

Crate Revetment on FMP Tawi at Gasitpur 3. Studs/Spurs:

The studs/ spurs are essentially anti-erosion wire created structures. The studs hold the embankment or the agriculture land from erosion, while the spurs help in deflecting the river flow. Moreover, Studs/Spurs force the water to change its direction i.e. it diverts the water to main stream which prevent the earth cutting of banks of the river.

Studs/Spur works on FMP Tawi at Seora

Table 2.0

Estimated Cost of Flood Management Projects in Jammu Division

The above table shows that there were eight number of Flood

Management Projects (PMP) undertaken in Jammu division. These included

FPW on river Tawi, river Chenab, river Ujh, FPW on major and minor nallah

in Rajouri, FPW at banganga, Dibber nallah at Chenani, left/Right banks at

river Tawi on Sidra Town and River Dera Baba Banda. Six projects were

started during the year 2008-09 and two projects namely FMP Project on

river Tawi and Chenab were started during the year 2007-08.

The total estimated cost of eight projects was Rs. 12674 lacs and the

funding pattern of all the projects was 90% central share i.e. Rs 11406.60

lacs and 10% state share i.e. Rs. 1267.40 lacs.

S No Name of the Flood Management Programme Year of Start Estimated Cost ( Rs. in lacs) State Share

Central Share

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Master Plan for FPW on River Tawi 2007-08 228.20 2053.80 2282.

00

2 Master Plan for FPW on River Chenab 2007-08 194.50 1750.50 1945.00

3 Flood Protection work at Ujh from Jakhole to Pandoria

2008-09 146.30 1316.70 1463.00

4 Flood Protection work on major/minor Nallahas in Rajouri

2008-09 139.10 1251.90 1391.00

5 FPW at Ban Ganga Shri Mata Vaishnoo Devi Ji 2008-09 113.90 1025.10 1139.00

6 FPW at Chanani to Dibber in Udhampur 2008-09 149.50 1345.50 1495.00

7 FPW on L/R bank of River Tawi at Sidera Town 2008-09 146.60 1319.40 1466.00

8 Critical A/E works on River Dera Baba Banda 2008-09 149.30 1343.70 1493.00

Total 1267.40 11406.60 12674.00

Table 2.1

Releases and Expenditure of Flood Management Projects in Jammu Division

Up to 31-12 2012

The table 2.1 read with 2.0 reveals that out of total state share of Rs.

1267.40 lacs, Rs. 1237.89 lacs were allocated under all the projects which

were fully utilized as on 31-3-2012 by the project authorities. Out of total

Central share of Rs. 11406.60 lacs an amount of Rs. 6980.90 i.e. 61% was

allocated under central share which was almost fully utilized. The balance

amount of Rs. 4425.70 lacs is still to be allocated from the central share.

The Department must ensure that all required formalities are fulfilled so

that the central share is got released at the earliest.

S NO

Name of FMP

Releases up to 31-03-2012 (Rs. In lacs) Expenditure up to 31-03-2012(Rs. In lacs)

State Share

Central Share

Total State Share

Central Share

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Master Plan for FPW on River

Tawi

228.20 1229.86 1458.06 228.20 1229.86 1458.06

2 Master Plan for FPW on River Chenab

194.50 1217.75 1412.25 194.50 1217.75 1412.25


146.30 935.50 1081.80 146.30 935.50 1081.80


139.10 745.01 884.11 139.10 745.01 884.11

5 FPW at Ban Ganga Shri Mata Vaishnoo Devi Ji

113.87 625.05 738.92 113.87 625.05 738.92

6 FPW at Chenani to Dibber in Udhampur

120.03 450.00 570.03 120.03 450.00 570.03

7 FPW on L/R bank of River Tawi at Sidra Town

146.60 825.00 971.60 146.60 805.00 951.60

8 Critical A/E works on River Dera Baba Banda

149.29 952.73 1102.02 149.29 952.73 1102.02

TOTAL 1237.89 6980.90 8218.79 1237.89 6960.9 8198.79

Table 2.2

Financial Achievements made under Flood Management Programme

w.e.f. 2007-08 to 2011-12 in Jammu Division.

The above table exhibits that the total estimated cost of all the

projects sanctioned in Jammu Division was `.12674 lacs. Against this, only `.8218.79 lacs were released up to ending March, 2012. By the end of 2012, `.8198.79 lacs were utilized by the project authorities. It is pertinent to

mention that the state share was released almost in full where as the central

share is pending to the tune of `.4425.70 lacs. Out of eight projects, two

Projects where maximum funds were reportedly utilized were selected for the

purpose of evaluation auditing under the instant study. These projects were

Master Plan on FPW on River Tawi and Master Plan on FPW on River

Chenab. In Master Plan for FPW on River Tawi, `.1458.06 lacs and in Master

Plan for FPW on River Chenab, `. 1412.25 lacs had been utilized upto the

end of March, 2012.

S No Name of the Flood Management Programme

Year of Start Estimated Cost (`. In lacs)

Releases (`. In lacs)

Expenditure (`. In lacs)

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Master Plan for FPW on River Tawi

2007-08 2282.00 1458.06 1458.06

2 Master Plan for FPW on River Chenab

2007-08 1945.00 1412.25 1412.25


2008-09 1463.00 1081.80 1081.80


2008-09 1391.00 884.11 884.11

5 FPW at Ban Ganga Shri Mata Vaishnoo Devi Ji

2008-09 1139.00 738.92 738.92

6 FPW at Chanani to Dibber in Udhampur

2008-09 1495.00 570.03 570.03

7 FPW on L/R bank of River Tawi at Sidera Town

2008-09 1466.00 971.60 951.60

8 Critical A/E works on River Dera Baba Banda

2008-09 1493.00 1102.02 1102.02

Total

12674.00 8218.79 8198.79

%age 64.84 100

Table 2.3

Year-wise availability of funds and Expenditure of Sample Projects

w. e. f. 2008-09 to 2011-12

S No Name of the

Project

Year of start Availability (Rs. In lacs) Expenditure (Rs. In lacs) State Share

Central Share

Total State Share

Central Share

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 FMP Tawi 2007-08 -- -- -- -- -- --

2008-09 110.00 125.00 235.00 110.00 125.00 235.00 2009-10 75.00 387.50 462.50 75.00 387.50 462.50 2010-11 43.20 170.63 213.83 43.20 170.63 213.83 2011-12 -- 546.73 546.73 -- 546.73 546.73

Total (A) 228.20 1229.86 1458.06 228.20 1229.86 1458.06 %age 100 2 FMP

Chenab 2007-08 -- -- -- -- -- --

2008-09 44.00 400.00 444.44 44.44 400.00 444.44 2009-10 117.78 250.00 367.78 117.78 250.00 367.78 2010-11 32.28 567.75 600.03 32.28 567.75 600.03 2011-12 -- -- -- -- -- --

Total (B) 194.50 1217.75 1412.25 194.50 1217.75 1412.25 %age 100 G Total (A+B) 422.70 2447.61 2870.31 422.70 2447.61 2870.31

2282

1945

1463

1391

1139

1495

1466

1493

1458

.06

1412

.25

1081

.8

884.

11

738.

92

570.

03

971.

6

1102

.0214

58.0

6

1412

.25

1081

.8

884.

11

738.

92

570.

03 951.

6

1102

.02

FPW on River Tawi

FPW on River Chenab

FPW on Ujh FPW on Nallahas in

Rajouri

FPW at Ban Ganga

FPW at Chanani

FPW on River Tawi at Sidera

Town

Critical A/E works on River

Dera Baba Banda

Financial Achievements made under Flood Management Programme in Jammu Division w.e.f. 2007-08 to 2011-12 (Rs. in lacs)

Estimated cost Releases Expenditure

The above table indicates the year wise releases and expenditure of

both the selected projects. 100% funds were utilized by the project

authorities against the releases of Rs. 1458.06 lacs and Rs 1412.25 lacs in

case of FMP on River Tawi and FMP on River Chenab respectively up to

ending March, 2012. It is pertinent to mention that during the year 2011-

12 in FMP on Chenab project, no releases and expenditure was made, which

hampered the completion of project works in time. Such slackness must be

avoided as these projects are time frame projects which must be completed

within stipulated time so that cost must not run over expenditure. The

implementing Department must complete all formalities which are required

for getting funds released from the Central Govt. At the same time, the

Central Govt. must also release the commited amount at the earliest and

should not hold back funds unnecessarily. This much needed coordinative

effort would pave way for timely completion of the projects without involving

any cost revision.

Table 2.4

Physical Achievements of Sample Projects

S No

FMP Villages Benefited

Population Benefited

Erosion Control

Submergence Protection to Assets

Tgt (No)

Ach. ( No)

Tgt(No) Ach.( No) Tgt (Hect)

Ach. ( Hect)

Tgt (Hect)

Ach. ( Hect)

Public Assets

Pvt. Assets

Tgt (no)

Ach .(no)

Tgt (no)

Ach. (no)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 Tawi 69 60 45000 40000 450 350 8000 6500 10 08 7000 5500 2 Chenab 21 21 150000 140000 80 75 5000 4500 10 09 5000 4500 Total

90 81 195000 180000 530 425 13000 11000 20 17 12000 10000

%age 90 92.30 80 67.8 85 83

The above table reveals about the physical achievements made by the

Department up to ending March, 2012. Out of total of 90 villages which were

to be covered under flood protection works, 90% had been covered. The total

population to be covered under both the sample projects was 195000 people

out of which 92.30% was covered by the end of 2011-12. In case of soil

erosion works, 530 hectts. of land was to be protected out of which 80% was

achieved. The target of land to be protected under submergence was 13000

ha out of which 11000 hectts of land was protected from being submerged

i.e. 67.85%.

In case of Assets Protection, against a target of 20 public assets to be

protected, there was 85% achievement. As against 12000 private assets to

be protected, 83% was achieved up to ending March, 2012 as reported by

the Implementing Agency.

Table 2.5

Activity Wise Physical Achievements of Sample Projects

S No Name Earth Embankment Crate Revetment Studs/spur Target

(In Mtrs) Ach.

(In Mtrs)

Target (In Mtrs)

Ach. (In Mtrs)

Target (In

nos.)

Ach. (In

nos.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Tawi 32072 21010 32072 21010 89 108 2 Chenab 5485 2325 1789 11580 93 85 Total 37557 23335 33861 32590 182 193 %age 62.1 96.25 106

The above table indicates activity wise targets and achievements made

by the project authorities in sample projects. There were three types of

activities undertaken by the project authorities in the sample area, namely

earth embankments, crate revetments and stud/spur works. In case of

earth embankments in river Tawi, against the target of 32072 mtrs, 65.5%

i.e. 21010 mtrs, were achieved. In case of crate revetments, against a total

target of 32072 mtrs, nearly 65.5 % was achieved. In case of studs/spurs

works, against target of 89 studs/spurs, the project authorities had

constructed 108 studs/spurs.

In case of earth embankments in river Chenab, against the target of

5485 mtrs, 42.46% i.e. 2325 mtrs was the achievement. In case of crate

revetments, out of total target of 1789 mtrs, 647.29% i.e11580 mtrs was

achieved. In case of studs/spurs works, against target of 93 studs/spurs,

the project authorities had constructed 85 studs/spurs i.e. 91.4% was the

achievement.

Indeed the Flood Division Akhnoor has done a commendable job by

achieving 647.29% against target of 1789 mtrs of Crate revetments. It was

clarified by the Executing Agency that the works under crate Revetment were

taken-up keeping in view the priority, local condition and impact of floods

during the previous seasons, which altered the site conditions drastically by

way of making some other locations more vulnerable and alarming. This

necessitated altering the proposed works both in terms of specifications and

in terms of locations also.

Table 2.6

Activity Wise Financial Achievements and work done liability

S No

Activity FPW on River Tawi (`.. In lacs)

Work done Liabilty (`. in lacs)

FPW on River Chenab (`.. In lacs)

Work done Liabilty

Approved.Cost

Releases Exp. Approved Cost

Releases Exp.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2

Earth Embankment 1881.50

1182.30

1182.30

524.19

392.42

129.28

129.28

36.24

3

Crate Revetment 945.45

854.35

854.35

338.87

4

Stud/Spurs

332.56

265.83

265.83

34.77

547.26

428.62

428.62

97.77

5

others

68.07

10.00

10.00

--

59.87

--

--

--

Total

2282.13

1458.06

1458.06

558.96

1945.00

1412.24

1412.24

472.88

The above table reveals that in master plan Tawi, against the

approved cost of `.2282.12 lacs under all the three activities i.e. earth

embankment, crate revetments and studs/spurs, `.1458.06 lacs were

released which was fully utilized by the Executing Agency. The work done

liability as on 31st March, 2012 was `. 558.96 lacs as per the reports of the

Executing Agency.

In master plan Chenab, against the approved cost of `.1945 lacs

under three activities i.e. earth embankment, crate revetments and

studs/spurs, `.1412.24 lacs was released which was fully utilized by the

Executing Agency. It must be noted that Flood Division, Akhnoor had

installed 11580 Crate revetments against the target of just 1789 thereby

creating liability to the tune of `. 338.87 lacs. It is a matter of concern how

the Executing Agencies had exceeded the approved cost on this Component

of the Project. The total work done liability as on 31st March, 2012 was `. 472.88 lacs as reported by the Executing Agency.

Chapter-1II

Field Findings:

The Instant Evaluation Study was carried out by the Directorate of

Economics and Statistics at the behest of State Level Evaluation Committee

(SLEC) to study the impact of project activities in the project area. The Field

Findings are based on the observations & eye estimations of Evaluation

Teams, personal enquiry from the Knowledgeable Persons and the physical

verification of the assets created. The field findings can thus be categorized

into:-

I). Physical verification of the assets/Eye-estimation

II). Response of Knowledgeable Persons

I. Physical verification of the assets/Eye-estimation:

08 number of projects were taken up in Jammu Division under the

Flood Management Programme and were in progress by the end of March

2012. A total of 02 projects where maximum amount was utilized viz; FPW

on Master plan Tawi and FPW on Master plan Chenab were selected for the

purpose of current Evaluation Study.

There were three major activities taken up by the project authorities

viz; Earth Embankments, Crate Revetments and construction of

Studs/spurs to protect the project area from havoc of floods. In the

selected projects, 10 Sites from each of the sample project were selected

where Flood Protection Works were executed. The villages immediately

adjoining the sites were also selected for the purpose of getting

beneficiary/Knowledgeable persons feedback. Only those activities which

were under taken during reference period i.e. 2008-09 to 2011-12 were

considered. The number of sample selected and degree of response obtained

is indicated below:

Table 3.0

Activity Wise Sample Selection of the Selected Projects.

Sno Name of the Project

Earth Embankment Crate Revetments Studs/Spurs Achievement

(mtrs) Sample Selected (mtrs)

Achievement (mtrs)

Sample Selected (mtrs)

Achievement (Nos.)

Sample Selected

(Nos.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Master plan Tawi

21010 11850 21010 11850 108 55

2 Master Plan Chenab

2325 1080 11580 5740 85 50

Total 23335 12930 32590 17590 193

105

%age 55.40 53.97 54.40

The above table reveals that the achievement of the Department for

both the projects was 23335 mtrs under Earth embankments, 32590mtrs

under Crate revetments and 193 Studs/spurs. The sample selected for the

instant evaluation study was 12930mtrs for earth embankments,17590mtrs

for crate revetments and 105 studs/spurs respectively i.e. more than 50% of

sample was selected keeping in view the ground situation of works

executed. As the field protection works were executed on the banks of

respective rivers on vulnerable spots, the sample procedure was adapted

accordingly. Instead of going for village selection, the approach of site

selection was deemed appropriate. For this purpose, the Projects were divived

into different sites and 50% of them were selected at random. The selection of

Knowledgeable Persons was made from the villages adjacent to the selected

sites. Thus practically, keeping in view the ground situation of executed

works, site selection approach was adopted instead of village selection

approach.

The below mentioned table provides details about the selection

of sites under both the sample projects.

Table 3.1

No. of Sample Selected Sites

Sno Name of the Project Total Sites covered under the project

Sites Selected Sample %

1 2 3 4 5 1 Master plan Tawi 20 10 50% 2 Master Plan Chenab 21 10 50% Total 41 20 50%

A total of 20 Sites were covered under master plan River Tawi and 21 under

master plan Chenab, out of which 10 Sites from each project were selected for the

purpose of Physical Verification. Thus a total of 20 sites were selected from both

the selected projects.

Table 3.2

Status of Works executed in the sample projects


Sample Sites

Physically verified

Whether work existed on Ground

Status of work Identified Site is genuine

Yes No Complete In Progress

Left Half way

Yes No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Master plan Tawi 10 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 2 Master Plan Chenab 10 10 0 10 0 0 10 0

Total 20 20 0 20 0 0 20 0

%age 100 0 100 0 0 100 0

Table 3.2 reveals that out of total of 20 selected Sites from both the projects, 100% of works executed were found existing on the ground as on day of verification. In both the projects, 100% of the selected works were completed and 100% of sites where the work had been executed were found genuine and feasible by the investigating team. It is pertinent to mention that although the sites were found genuine and works were apparently seen on the ground yet it was very difficult for the investigating team to locate the works executed by the executing agency in both the sample projects. None of the sites had any sign boards or hoardings without which practically it was very difficult for any investigating team to locate the works executed without being accompanied by the Executing Agency.

Table 3.3

Physical Status of Earth Embankments in sample projects


Sample Sites

Physically verified

Earth Embankments Condition of the Embankment Length (mtrs)

Width(mtrs) Height(ft) Intact Partially Damaged

Fully Damaged

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Master plan

Tawi 10 11850 Base 20 ft

Top 10 ft 20 8 2 0


10 1080 Base 10 ft Top 7 ft

10 10 0 0

Total 20 12930 18 2 0

%age 90 10 0

Table 3.3 reveals that earth embankment was executed in both the

projects. In master plan Tawi project, 11850 mtrs of earth embankment

were physically verified from 10 selected village sites. The width of the

embankments of master plan Tawi was 20 ft at base and 10 ft at the top.

The height of the embankments was 20ft.

In master plan Chenab, 1080 mtrs of Earth embankment was

physically verified from 10 selected villages. The width of the embankments

of master plan Chenab was 10 ft at base and 7 ft at the top. The height of

the embankments was 10ft. 90% of earth embankments were found intact

and in good condition, leaving aside the paths made by tractors and trolleys

operators for their petty personal benefits which had damaged the assets at

some places.

During the course of physical verification it was observed by the

evaluation team that no name and nomenclature was present on the

embankments created causing thereby problems in locating and tracing the

embankments constructed under both the projects. The investigating team

found that there were other embankments which stood created under other

schemes/projects and identification of specific works was very difficult.

Earth Embankment and Revetment on River Tawi at Chak Sardar dessa Singh

Earth Embankment and Revetment on River Chenab at Chajwal

Table 3.4

Physical Status of Crate Revetments in sample projects


Sample Sites

Physically verified

Crate Revetments Condition of the Revetment Length (mtrs)

Width (No. of crates)

Height (ft)

Intact Partially Damaged

Fully Damaged

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Master plan

Tawi 10 11850 Base 2 no crates

Top 1 crate 10 8 2 0


10

5740 Base 3 no crates Mid. 2 no. crates

Top 1 crate

15 7 3 0

Total 20 17590 15 5 0

%age 75 25 0

In master plan Tawi project, 11850 mtrs of crate revetment was physically

verified from 10 selected village sites. The width of the crate revetments was 02

crates at base and one crate at the top. The height of the crate revetments was 10

ft. Out of 10 sites of crate revetments, 08 were found in good condition and two

were partially damaged.

In master plan Chenab, 5740 mtrs of crate revetment was physically verified

from 10 selected village sites. The width of the crate revetments was 3 crates at

base and 2 crates at the middle and one crate at the top. The height of the crate

revetments was 15ft. Out of 10 sites of crate revetments, seven were found intact

and three were partially damaged.

Out of total of 20 sites of crate revetments in both the sample projects, 75%

were found intact and in good condition and 25% were partially damaged.

During the course of verification, again in case of crate revetments, it was

found that no name and nomenclature was there for locating and tracing the crate

revetments installed/constructed under the FMP Project. It was also observed in

master plan Tawi, that the Department had left some vulnerable patches of land

uncovered which could cause damage to the villages namely Chak Desa Singh,

Wazirachak, Tope, Lakshanpura, Sumb, Sampuranpur Kullian , Indru De kothey

etc. Two sites near the two Crushers were also found left uncovered inspite of being

vulnerable. The Evaluation Teams found that water was entering into the villages

from the spot but to benefit the Crusher owners, same were left endangering the

community. Similarly In Master Plan Chenab, certain gaps of revetments at NS

pura, Pangali and Chanjwan were also left uncovered causing thereby flood water

to enter into villages.

It is, therefore, suggested that such things must be avoided as it causes heavy loss to the

community as a whole as compared to petty gains to handful of people. When such type of gap is

left in revetments, it allows the water to enter into the villages, thereby, causing flood like

situations, land erosions, loss of movable and immovable property and ultimately huge loss to

mankind and thus the whole purpose of creating revetments at such sites becomes meaningless

and non beneficial.

Gap at River Tawi at Sampuranpur Kullian

Revetment at River Chenab at Malabela

Revetment at River Chenab at Chanjwan

Table 3.5

Physical Status of Studs/Spurs in sample projects

Sno

Name of the Project

Sample Sites

Physically

verified

Total Studs

constructed in

project area

No. of Studs

verified

Studs Condition of the Studs

Length (mtrs) Width (crates) Height

(feet) Intact Partially

Damaged Fully

Damaged

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Master plan

Tawi 10 108 55 33---24

22---18 Base 5no. Mid 4no. Top 3no.

15 41 14 0


10

85 50

13---36 28---24 09---18

Base 5no. Mid 4no. Top 3no.

15 31 19 0

Total 20 193 105 72 33 0

%age 54 69 31 0

Table 3.5 reveals about the stud/spur works done by the Executing Agencies

in both the sample projects. In master plan Tawi, a total of 108 nos. of studs/spurs

were constructed out of which 55 were physically verified. Out of 55 no. of

studs/spurs physically verified, 33 nos. of studs/spurs were of 24 mtrs and 22

were of 18 mtrs in length and the height of all the studs/spurs was 15 ft. The width

of studs/spurs at base level was 5 crates, 4 crates at middle and 3 crates at the

top. Out of 55 studs/spurs at River Tawi, 41 were found intact and in good

condition and 14 were found partially damaged.

In master plan Chenab, a total of 85 nos. of studs/spurs were constructed

out of which 50 were physically verified. Out of 50 studs/spurs physically verified,

13 nos. were of 36mtrs, 28 nos. of studs/spurs were of 24 mtrs and 9 nos.

studs/spurs were of 18 mtrs in length. The height of all the studs was 15 ft. The

width of studs/spurs was 5 crates at base level, 4 crates at middle and 3 crates at

the top. Out of 50 studs/spurs physically verified at River Chenab, 31 were found

intact and 19 were partially damaged, i.e. 38% of studs/spurs were partially

damaged.

Out of total of 105 no. of studs/spurs physically verified, nearly 69% were

found intact and in good condition and 31% were partially damaged.

Studs/Spurs force the water to change its direction i.e. they divert the water to the main stream

which prevent the earth cutting of banks of the river and thus prove beneficial to protect both movable

and immovable property of the villagers. It is important to mention here that Irrigation and

Flood Control Div. Jammu had constructed 108 studs/spurs against the target of

89 on both the banks of the river Tawi.

Studs at River Tawi at Ganeshu Chak

Stud at River Chenab at Malpur

Stud at River Tawi at Bhagwati Nagar

Table 3.6

Population Benefitted and Land Protected from Erosion and Submergence in sample projects


Sample Sites

Physically

verified

Villages Benefitted

Population Benefitted

Land Erosion Protected (in Kanals)

Land protected from Submergence

(in Kanals) Irrigated Un-irrigated Irrigated Un-irrigated

1 2 3 5 6

7 8 9 10

1 Master plan Tawi

10 29 32200 1850 200 4400 800


10

21 48200 3050 200 2500 250

Total 20 50 80400 4850 400 6900 1050

While going for Physical verification of the selected sites, the Evaluation

Teams attempted, as per the stipulations of the study, to make an eye estimation of

the land protected from erosion and submergence as a result of the works executed

at each selected site. Besides this, assessment was also made in respect of the

villages who managed protection and the approximate population residing in these

villages. The aggregate figures showed that the Flood Protection Works at the

sample sites provided protection to 50 villages with a population of approximately

80400 souls. The Works executed at sample sites were able to protect 4850 kanals

of irrigated and 400 kanals of un-irrigated land from erosion. The land protected

from submergence was of the magnitude of 7950 kanals of which 6900 kanals was

of irrigated nature.

The department has done commendable job in protecting the irrigated and

un-irrigated land from floods and by converting such land for agricultural use

to help the people to earn their livelihood. Land being protected at newly

constructed bridge at River Tawi is an example of land protection works being

done by the executing department. The Flood Protection Works have no direct bearing on the increase in

productivity and production of crops. It aims at providing protection to the movable and immovable property including land

both of agricultural and non-agricultural nature. It would not be feasible to attribute any increase in the production and

productivity of crops to the Flood Control measures undertaken in any Project area. However, whatever production and

productivity levels are there in the project area, the same were given protection as a result of project works executed under

Flood Control Programme.

Land Reclaimed at Bhagwati Nagar

Table 3.7

Public and Private Assets Protected in sample projects

Sno Sample Sites Physically verified

Sample selected

sites

Public Assets Private Assets Schools Buildings Temples Houses Shops Land(in

Kanals) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Master plan Tawi 10 5 6 5 500 30 7250 2 Master Plan

Chenab 10 7 2 2 700 0 6000

Total 20 12 8 7 1200 30 13250

Table 3.7 indicates that both the private and public property was

protected by the Department by undertaking FPW on both the projects. A

total of 12 school buildings, 08 Govt. and public buildings and 07 temples

were protected in the sample area. Shamshan Ghat at Bhagwati nagar,

Bapu Asa ram Ashram and Yatri Bhawan at Bhagwati nagar , pumping

station at Sikanderpur were prominent buildings protected under the

project. So far as protection to private assets is concerned, it has been

observed that wherever the works have been executed, the whole village has

been protected. The impact of such protection works has also been felt in the

adjoining villages. Approximately 1200 houses situated on both the banks of

the rivers were given protection from floods. Besides, 30 shops and 13250

kanals of private land was also being protected through the creation of

revetments, embankments and studs/spurs.

II .Response of the Knowledgeable Persons:

The Flood Protection Works are basically of Community Oriented

nature. A single Flood Protection Work may provide protection to different

assets of different people including houses, land, shops, schools, hospitals,

religious places, water supply lines etc. In such a situation, instead of

eliciting opinion from the beneficiaries of diverse nature, the observations of

the Evaluation Teams were deemed feasible and appropriate for assessing

the objectivity of the works executed. However, to have an assessment of the

immediate beneficiaries of the Project area, Knowledgeable Persons of the

area who incidently were the beneficiaries as well were tapped for the

purpose. The feedback of three Knowledgeable Persons from the adjacent

villages aggregating to 60 from the sample project sites was enough for

assessment of the efficiency and satisfaction parameters. They were asked to

express their views in respect of various components of the project and

implementation process of the scheme as observed by them, in their

respective areas.

Table 3.8

Sample selection of Knowledgeable Persons

Sno Name of the project Village sites covered

Sample selected per site

Total Sample selected

No. Responded %age responded

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Master plan Tawi

10 3 30 30 100

2 Master Plan Chenab 10 3 30 30 100

Total 20 3 60 60 100

%age 100

A total of 30 Knowledgeable Persons were selected from each project

covering 3 from each selected site. 60 Knowledgeable Persons were

interviewed to elicit their views regarding the implementation of the

programme. The response of Knowledgeable Persons was 100%.

Status of Knowledgeable Persons:

Knowledgeable Person is considered as one who is well versed with the local

problems of the areas. The below mentioned table reveals the occupational status

of the Knowledgeable Persons.

Table No -3.9

Occupational Status of Knowledgeable Persons

S.

No

Name of sample project No. of

Knowledgeable Persons

Self

Employed

Agriculturists Salaried Labourers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Master plan Tawi 30 10 18 0 02

2 Master Plan Chenab 30 02 24 04 0

Total 60 12 42 04 02

%age 100 20 70 6.67 3.33

The above table shows that out of 60 Knowledgeable Persons, 20% were self

employed in non-agriculture activities, 70% were employed in agriculture sector,

6.67 % belongs to salaried class, and 3.33% were labourers. It is clearly evident

from the table itself that approximately 2/3rd of the sample Knowledgeable Persons

were directly engaged in Agriculture activities. The reason for taking such number

of Knowledgeable Persons from agriculture class is that they are the people who are

directly affected by havoc of floods. The knowledgeable person also includes Panchs

and Sarpanchs of the concerned areas and the views of such people help in

construing the exact picture of work being executed by the Department.

Table 3.10

Educational qualification of Knowledgeable Persons

Sno Name of the Project Sample Size

Education Qualification Beneficiary illiterate Primary Middle Matric 10+2 Graduate+

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Master plan

Tawi 30 0 0 12 10 06 2


30 0 0 12 07 10 1

Total 60 0 0 24 17 16 3 %age 40 28.33 26.67 5

Table 3.10 reveals that out of 60 Knowledgeable Persons from both the

projects, 40% were middle pass, 28.33% were matriculate, 26.67% were 12th

pass and 5% were graduate and post graduate. The table clearly shows that

no Knowledgeable Person was illiterate, and thus all were able to

understand the ground realities as well as the impact of the various

activities being undertaken in their localities under the programme.

Table 3.11

Opinion of Knowledgeable Persons regarding works executed in sample projects

Sno Name of the project

Sample Site appropriate Status of work executed Nature of work Yes No Complete In Complete Erosion

works Submergence Flood Protection

works

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Master plan Tawi

30 30 0 30 0 30 30 30


30 30 0 30 0 30 30 30

Total 60 60 0 60 0 30 30 60 %age 100 0 100 0 100 100 100

The above table reveals that in both the sample projects, 100% of

Knowledgeable Persons asserted that the sites selected for execution of FPW were

feasible and appropriate. In all the selected sites of both the projects, 100% works

have been executed. So far as nature of works is concerned, all the KP’s reported

that the works were either Erosion Control Works, Submergence Works or Flood

Protection works.

Table 3.12

Opinion of Knowledgeable Persons on Quality of work Executed in sample projects

Sno Name of the project Sample Quality of work executed Poor Average Good

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Master plan Tawi 30 2 23 5 2 Master Plan Chenab 30 1 11 18 Total 60 3 34 23 %age 5 57 38

The above table shows that out of total of 60 Knowledgeable Persons from

both the sample projects, only 38% were of the view that quality of works executed

was good , 57% reported as average and 5% rated the quality as poor. The

Implementing Department must evolve all possible measures to ensure that

quality works are executed and no compromise on this account should be

tolerated. The supervision of each and every work by the middle level and

higher level supervisory officers must be ensured to pave way for

installation/construction of quality assets. The installation/construction of

below the standard Flood Protection Works could also be eliminated/

minimized by involving the PRIs and elected representatives in different

processes of the Programme. Maintaining the standard in the execution of

works, particularly incase of community oriented works is much desired in

view of them being exposed to all kinds of interventions. The views of

Knowledgeable Persons on the quality of works is much below the desired

levels and the Department is under obligation to order for the departmental

enquiry to establish the standardization of all the executed works under the

FMP and fix responsibility for any wrong doing. Further, to ensure that in

future the quality of works does not get compromised, all possible measures

must be put in place. The supervision of each executed work and involvement

of PRIs would definitely go a long way in improving the quality of works to a

great extent.

Earth Embankment and Revetment at River Tawi from Bhagwatinagar to Seora

Table 3.13

General opinion and views of Knowledgeable Persons

S no

Name of the project Sample Consulted with locals

Local People engaged

Satisfied with works executed

Approached for execution of works

Works beneficial

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Community Individual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 Master plan Tawi 30 24 6 20 10 26 4 20 10 30 0 2 Master Plan Chenab 30 26 4 25 05 25 5 10 20 30 0 Total 60 50 10 45 15 51 9 30 30 60 0

%age 83 17 75 25 85 15 50 50 100 0

The above table revealed about the level of satisfaction and general views of the Knowledgeable Persons towards the works executed by the project authorities. 83% of Knowledgeable Persons were of the view that works had been executed with the consultation of local people, 75% of Knowledgeable Persons asserted that local people were engaged in execution of works, 85% of Knowledgeable Persons were satisfied with the works executed by the department, 50% of Knowledgeable Persons asserted that they had approached to the department for the execution of works in their areas and 100% believed that the works executed under the programme were beneficial for both the individuals and the community as a whole.

No doubt, the Department has done a great job in preventing villages from floods, yet as revealed by certain Knowledgeable Persons that in some areas, the height of studs was below the requirements and there were also gaps which should be filled immediately. Further -more, the repairs must be done on periodical basis so that revetments and studs/spurs are protected. Besides, it was

also revealed to the evaluation team during the course of field enquiry by the Knowledgeable Persons that the standard crate boxes were not installed and they varied from site to site. The quality/standard of crate boxes was also observed poor at some sites. It is suggested that a standard size of crate boxes must be ensured to be used for undertaking such works and no compromise should be done on this account.

Chapter-1V

Summary of Findings and Suggestions

1. The programme, Flood Management Programme (FMP) is a Centrally

Sponsored Scheme, the funding pattern for central assistance to Special

Category States is 90% central share and 10% State Share, while as of

other states it is 75% central share and 25% state share. The Special

category states cover North Eastern States, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh,

Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand.

2. Eight Flood Management Projects were undertaken in Jammu Province. Two

Flood Management Projects were started during 2007-08 and remaining 06

Flood Management Projects were started during 2008-09. As per the

guidelines, FMP works were expected to be completed in a time bound

manner, but none of the projects had been completed by the end of 2011-

12.

3. The projects of FMP in J&K state are being executed by Department of

Irrigation and Flood Control with the objective of providing relief from

floods by executing Flood protection works, anti-erosion works and

improvement in drainages of the rivers/nallahs.

4. Out of 08 projects, 02 FMP projects where the maximum amount had been

incurred, i.e. FMP of Master plan on River Tawi and FMP of Master Plan on

River Chenab were selected for evaluation study. The project works on

River Tawi were executed by Flood Control Division, Jammu and on River

Chenab were executed by Flood Control Division, Akhnoor.

5. The total estimated cost of eight projects was `.12674 lacs out of which

90% was central share i.e. `.11406.60 lacs and 10% was state share i.e. `.1267.40 lacs.

6. Against the total estimated cost of `.12674lacs of all the projects, an

amount of `.8218.79 lacs, was released out of which `.8198.79lacs, was

utilized upto ending March, 2012.

7. The total availability of the funds of two sample projects w.e.f 2007-08 to

2011-12 was `.2870.31 lacs, up to March, 2012 which was fully utilized by

executing agencies, `.1458.06lacs incurred on Master Plan on River Tawi

and 1412.25lacs incurred on Master Plan on River Chenab.

8. On physical side, against the target of 37557 mtrs. of Earth embankment,

23335 mtrs was completed. Against the target of 33861 mtrs of crate

revetments, 32590 mtrs was completed and against the targets of 182

studs/spurs, 193 were constructed in the two sample projects.

9. The official data reveals that 81 villages with the population of 1.80 lacs.

in both the sample projects were benefited.

10. Since the works were executed on the banks of both the rivers, for selection

Purpose, the whole area of Master Plan Tawi and Chenab was divided into

sites where works were executed. A total of 41 sites were identified. Out of

41 sites, 10 sites from each project were selected for the purpose of

Physical Verification.

11. The sites were found genuine and works were apparently seen on ground.

It was very difficult for the investigating team to locate the works executed

by the executing agency in both the sample projects. None of the sites had

any sign boards or hoardings and practically it was impossible for any

investigating team to locate and identify the work executed without being

accompanied by the Executing Agency.

12. Approximately 12930 mtrs. of Earth embankment, 17590 mtrs crate

revetment and 105 studs/spurs were physically verified in both sample

projects. 90% Earth embankment works executed were found intact and in

good condition. The remaining 10% were damaged in both the sample

projects. Likewsie 75% of crate revetment works were found intact and in

good condition and 25% were partially damaged. In both sample projects,

69% of studs/spurs were found intact and in good condition and 31% were

found partially damaged.

13. No name and nomenclature was found on the site of embankments

created causing thereby problems in locating and tracing the embankments

constructed under both the projects as the team found that there were

some other embankments also created under other schemes/projects.

14. During the course of evaluation/verification, it was also observed in master

plan Tawi, that the Department had left some patches of land uncovered

endangering the villages namely Chak Desa Singh ,Wazirachak, Tope,

Lakshampura, Sumb, Sampuranpur Kullian, Indru De kothey and other

adjoining villages. During the course of field enquiry, two crusher sites

were also found where no revetments were constructed and there was an

apprehension of water entering into the villages. Similarly, in Master Plan

Chenab, certain gaps in revetments at NS pura, Pangali and Chanjwan

were also left behind which might endanger the villages during floods. It

is, therefore, suggested that such things must be avoided as it causes

heavy loss to the community as a whole. When a gap is left in

embankment/revetment, it allows the water to enter into the villages

thereby causing flood like situations and thus the whole purpose of

creating embankment/revetments at such sites becomes meaningless and

non beneficial.

15. In both the sample projects of selected sites about 4850 kanals of irrigated

land and 400 kanals of un irrigated land was protected from erosion.

Besides this, approx. a total of 6900 kanals of irrigated and 1050 kanals

of un-irrigated land was also protected from submergence in sample area.

The Department has done commendable job in protecting the irrigated and

un-irrigated land from floods and converting such land for agricultural use

to help the people to earn their livelihood. Land protected at newly

constructed bridge at River Tawi is an example of land protection works

being done by the Executing Department. The figures are purely based on

eye-estimation of Evaluation Teams made on the spot of sites.

16. A total of 12 school buildings, 08 Govt. and public buildings and 07

temples were protected in the sample area. Shamshan Ghat at Bhagwati

nagar, Bapu Asa Ram Ashram and Yatri Bhawan at Bhagwati nagar ,

pumping station at Sikanderpur were prominent buildings protected under

the project works. So far as protection to private assets is concerned, it

was observed that the work executed had protected the whole villages

which included houses, shops, commercial establishments etc. The impact

of such protection work was visible in the adjoining villages also.

Approximately 1200 houses which are situated on banks of both the rivers,

30 shops and 13200 kanals of private land were also protected through

creation of revetments, embankments and studs/Spurs.

17. In order to have an assessment of the effect and impact of various

activities implemented in the project areas, enquiries were made from 60

Knowledgeable Persons from 20 nearby villages of the selected sites. 3

Knowledgeable Persons from each of the selected sites as proposed in the

sample design of the study were asked to express their views in respect of

various components of the project and implementation process of the

scheme as observed by them in their areas.

18. 100% of Knowledgeable Persons asserted that the sites selected for

execution of FPW were feasible and appropriate. In all the selected sites of

both the projects, 100% works were executed. So far as nature of works is

concerned, these included Erosion Control Works, Submergence Works and

Flood Protection works.

19. Out of 60 Knowledgeable Persons from both the sample projects, only 38%

were of the view that quality of works executed was good, 57% rated them

as average and only 5% opined the quality of works executed as poor.

20. 83% of Knowledgeable Persons were of the view that works were executed

with the consultation of local people. 75% of Knowledgeable Persons

asserted that local people were engaged in FPWs as labourers, 85% were

satisfied with the works executed by the Department, 50% asserted that

they had approached the Department for the execution of works in their

areas and 100% believed that the works executed were beneficial for both

the individuals and the community as a whole.

21. No doubt, the department has done a great job in preventing villages from

floods, yet as revealed by certain Knowledgeable Persons that in some

areas the height of embankments was too low to protect occasional huge

floods. They suggested that the gaps left during execution be filled-in

immediately and the repairs be done on periodical basis so that

embankments, revetments and studs/spurs were protected. Further-more,

it was also revealed by the Knowledgeable Persons during the course of

physical verification that standard crate boxes were not installed which

needed to be looked into.

22. Various types of assets created have been got damaged in the normal

course at the hands of men, Tractor trolleys and from natural factors.

Repairs and maintenance of assets be provided, otherwise the assets

would be damaged/washed away. The people must be made aware by

organizing awareness campaigns in the project areas so that people could

understand the scope and utility of these assets and work for their safety,

maintenance and protection.

23. Although the provision of plantation was provided in the projects

guidelines, but to the contrary, it was observed that no plantations were

made along the earth embankments. The planting of trees/plants holds the

land intact and protects the soil erosion. The Department must look into

this aspect and plantation must be done at both the banks of the rivers as

it can lessen future expenditures on repairs and maintenance. Non

adherence of guidelines is a matter of serious concern and must be looked

into seriously by the Executing Agencies.

24. During the course of physical verification it was observed that tractors

trolleys while extracting sand, stones and other materials from the rivers

cause damage to the studs/spurs and embankments. This must be

stopped particularly at vulnerable spots. The extraction of material at some

spots may prove fruitful where it could be allowed/ encouraged. As such

the flood control Department should classify the spots where extraction

could be allowed and those where it should be strictly dis-allowed. This

way the assets would be protected besides ensuring smooth flow of rivers.

ANNEXURES

Evaluation Study on

“ Flood Management Programme” in Jammu Division.

Schedule-I (For official data)

Source-I. Chief Engineer Jammu

II.Ex. Engineer FC division concerned

Project Information

1.Name of Sample Project_________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

2.Name of FC Div./I&FC Div.(Executing Agency)________________________________

3.Name of District________________________________________________________

4.Name of constituency___________________________________________________

5.Total No. of villages benefitted a) Target___________b) Achievement____________

6.Target group of population(souls) a) Target___________b) Achievement_________

7.Total land protected(Ha)

I. Erosion Control.

a) Target___________b) Achievement_________

II. Submergence

1 a) Target___________b) Achievement_________ III). Protection of Assets:-

a) Public Assets : Target___________ b) Achievement_________ b) Private Assets : Target___________ b) Achievement_________

8.Approved cost of the project(Rs. in lakhs)___________Revised cost(Rs. in lakhs)______

9.Year-wise Availability of funds/ Expenditure during the period(2008-12)(Rs. in lakhs)

S.No.

Year Outlay Actual Availability Expenditure

Reasons for shortfall in C/S S/S Total C/S S/S Total

availability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2008-09

2 2009-10

3 2010-11

4 2011-12

5 Total

10. Balance cost of the project yet to be released_______________________________

11. Work done liability if any as on 31.03.2012_________________________________

12.Cost overrun if any_____________________________________________________

13.Reasons for cost overrun_______________________________________________

14.Target date of completion______________________________________________

5.Actual date of completion_______________________________________________

16. Reasons for time overrun if any_________________________________________

17. Man days potential

Labour component Physical Progress Financial Progress

Target Achievement Allocation Expdt.

Skilled

Un –skilled

Total

Signature of the concerned HOD/ Xen.

Evaluation Study on

“ Flood Management Programme” in Jammu Division.

Schedule-II (For official data)

Source- Ex. Engineer FC division concerned

Workwise Information


__________________________________________________________

2.Name of FC Div./I&FC Div.(Executing Agency)_________________________________

3.Name of District________________________________________________________


5.Name of sample work___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

6. Identification of sample work

i)Name of Nallah________________________________________________

ii) Name of village with actual site where executed_____________________

_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

a) C.D Block________________________________________

b) Constituency_____________________________________

7.Estimated cost of work(Rs. in lakhs)________________________________________

8. Total Funds released ( Rs. in lakhs)_________________________________________

9.Cumulative expdt. Ending 31.03.2012_______________________________________

10.Balance cost if any______________________________________________________

11.Work done liability if any_________________________________________________

12. Year-wise breakup of Availability of Funds(Rs. in lakhs).

S.No. Year Availability of funds

Expenditure

During the year

Cumulative

expenditure

01 2008-09

02 2009-10

03 2010-11

04 2011-12

13.Date of start of sample work_______________________________________________

14.Target date of completion_________________________________________________

15.Actual date of completion_________________________________________________

16.If under progress expected date of completion________________________________

17.Reasons for cost overrun if any_____________________________________________

18. Reasons for time overrun if any__________________________________________

19.No. of villages benefitted

i) Target____________________

ii) Ach. _____________________

20..Population benefitted(Souls)

i) Target__________________

ii) Ach. ____________________

21. Nature of work (Tick relevant)

i) Erosion control

ii) Submergence

iii) Protection to assets(public/private)

22. Erosion Control

Land protected(Ha)

i) Target__________________

ii) Achievement_____________

23 . Submergence

Land protected(Ha)

i) Target__________________

ii) Achievement_____________

24.Protection to assets

i) Details of Public assets with location

a)_______________________________________________________

b)_______________________________________________________

c)_______________________________________________________

d)_______________________________________________________

ii) Details of Private assets with location

a)_______________________________________________________

b)_______________________________________________________

c)_______________________________________________________

d)_______________________________________________________

25.Man days potential

Labour component Physical Progress Financial Progress

Target Achievement Allocation Expdt.

Skilled

Un –skilled

Total

26. Item wise details of sample work

S. No. Item of work/components

Unit Approved cost

Expdt. Work done, liability if

any

Signature of the concerned Ex.Er.

Evaluation Study

on

“ Flood Management Programme” Jammu Division

Schedule-III (For official data)

Source --Ex. Engineer FC division

Project List of Works


_________________________________________________


3.Name of District________________________________________________________


5.Locational list of works.

S.No.

Name of Nallah

Name of village /habitation

Name of work

Actual location of site

Estimated cost

Cumulative expdt.

Date of start of work

Date of completion

Work done

liability if any

Nature of work

Erosion/submergence/

protection to assets

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Signature of the concerned Ex. Engineer(FCD/I&FC)

Note: The detail of all the enlisted works be provided as per schedule II.

Evaluation Study

on

“Flood Management Programme”

Jammu Division

Schedule-IV (For physical

verification of sample works)


_________________________________________________


3.Name of District________________________________________________________


5.Name of village ________________________________________________________

6.Name of Nallah_________________________________________________________

7.Name of sample work ___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

8. Name of actual site where sample work executed____________________________

____________________________

______________________________

9.Estmated cost (Rs. in lakhs)________________________________________________

10. Expdt. (Rs. in lakhs) ____________________________________________________

11.Physical status of sample work on ground

a) Work existing on ground (Yes/No)_______________________________

b) Complete/ Under progress/Left half way (Tick mark) ________________

c) Condition of work found intact/ Partially damaged/Fully damaged (Tick mark)

d)Identification of site feasible and genuine(Yes/No)________________________

e) Length__________Width_______Height____(In ft.)

f) Type of work( Cement concrete/Crate work/ Earth Embarkment/ Studs/Spurs/others(Specify ___________) [Tick mark]

g) Quality of work(Tick mark)

Good /Average/Poor

12.No. of villages benefitted

i) Target____________________

ii) Ach. _____________________

13.Population benefitted(Souls)

i ) Target____________________

ii) Ach. _____________________

14) Nature of work (Tick relevant)

i) Erosion control

ii) Submergence

iii) Protection to assets(public/private)

15). Erosion Control

i) Land protected(Kanals)

a) Irrigated_______________

b) un-irrigated_____________

c) others_________________

16) Submergence (Land protected(Kanals)

a) Irrigated_______________

b) un-irrigated_____________

c) others_________________

17.Protection to assets

i) Details of Public assets with location

a)______________________________________________________

b)______________________________________________________

c)______________________________________________________

d)_______________________________________________________

ii) Details of Private assets with location

a)_______________________________________________________

b)______________________________________________________

c)______________________________________________________

d)______________________________________________________

18) Views of verifying officer / official_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

Signature of the verifying officer/official Signature of supervisor

Name_______________________ Name_______________________

Desig._______________________ Desig.______________________

Date________________________

Date________________________

Evaluation Study

on

“Flood Management Programme”

Jammu Division

Schedule-V (For Knowledgeable person)


_________________________________________________


3.Name of District________________________________________________________


5.Name of village ________________________________________________________

6.Name of Nallah________________________________________________________

7.Name of sample work __________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

8. Name of actual site where sample work executed____________________________

_____________________________

9. Name of the knowledgeable person________________________________________

10.Parentage____________________________________________________________

11.Residential address

a) village____________________________________

b) Mohallah_________________________________

c) C.D. block_________________________________

12. Occupation status_____________________________________________________

13. Education status______________________________________________________

14. Opinion/ Views of knowledgeable person

a) Execution of work at identified site is feasible and genuine(Yes /No)

b) Executed work- Complete/Incomplete(Tick relevant)

c)Nature of work, Erosion control/Submergence/ Flood protection works(Protection to public/

private assets) [Tick relevant]

d) Quality of work – Average/Poor/Good [Tick relevant]

e) Erosion control,

i) Land protected (in kanals ). Irrigated________ Un-irrigated________

others___________

f) Submergence,

i) Land protected (in kanals ). Irrigated________ Un –irrigated________

Others_________

g) Flood protection works

Details of public/private assets protected

i) public assets _____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

ii) Private assets_____________________________________

_____________________________________

__________________________________

h.Year of execution_________________________________________________

i.Year of completion________________________________________________

j. Executing agency_________________________________________________

k. Whether Cosultation done with locals before execution (Yes/No

l. Whether Engagement of labourers within the local area (Yes/ No)

m. Whether Satisfied over execution of sample work (Yes / No)

n. Whether Approached to executing agency for execution of sample work (Yes/No)

o . Whether Work executed is community benefited/ individual one(Tick mark)

p. Comments if any further____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

Signature/Thumb Impression of Knowledgeable person

Signature of the verifying officer/official Signature of supervisor

Name_______________________

Name_______________________

Desig._______________________

Desig.______________________

Date________________________

Date________________________

Earth Revetment and Crate revetment at Gasitpur

Stud/spur works on River Chenab at Pargwal

flood management programme (fmp)ecostatjk.nic.in/ecosurvey/evaluation report on fmp jammu.pdf · 3....

Documents