---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFUSION ON THIRD MANDOVI BRIDGE by Stephen Dias In the newspapers and on TV, the people of Panjim and Porvorim have been told that there is no hindrance in the continuance of work on the 3rd Mandovi bridge. However, this seems to be merely a campaign by those in power, who want to allay fears that all is not well in the bridge construction work. Has the project received a nod from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) or has the NGT still not given their green signal towards continuance of work on the bridge? While the public is being given the impression that requisite permission has been obtained from the Coastal Zone Management Authority twice, and also that the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) has cleared the continuance of work, matters are not so clear. An imminent geologist and former expert member of the GCZMA, Dr. Antonio Mascarenhas, who was a former scientist of NIO, is of the view that despite his detailed report and suggestions to higher authorities (reported previously in Herald 10th August 2016 copy enclosed), his advice has been sidetracked or ignored. In a similar way the position of NIO is also not clear. NIO, when asked to do so, conducts supporting research and surveys with respect to implementation of certain works and shares their findings with Government bodies. However their scope is limited to the specific requests that are made. In fact NIO conducted geophysical surveys, like seismic studies, for both the existing bridges and I was a member of the team as the instrumentation expert. This time it appears that they were asked only to do a morphological study, studying the hydro dynamic shape of the bottom of the river in that area. And even if the GCZMA and NIO have given clearance, can the NGT be superseded by these organizations, or do we have to get permission in toto from the NGT? It is my belief the NGT overrides the authority of the GCZMA and the NIO. Give us a clear and detailed picture of the permission obtained from the NGT and other organizations with respect to work done on the 3rd Mandovi Bridge. The report in The Goan on 3rd November, 2016, about the morphological study done by NIO, seems very vague. Painstaking and comprehensive studies have to be done over a period of time and without shortcuts, since this bridge should weather the elements for a long duration. Any infrastructure wherein huge amounts of money are spent, and where the lives of people will depend on it daily, should be asked to confirm to the highest standards possible. Stephen Dias Retired NIO (TO- E-1) Dona Paula Hon. Dy.Chairman OF GSIDC and MLA Sidharth Kuncolienkar replies to my mail; 2 Attachments QUOTE; From: Sidharth Kuncalienker <[email protected]> Date: 6 November 2016 at 14:38 Subject: Re: Confusion on Third Mandovi Bridge To: Stephen Dias <[email protected]> Dear Stephen-bab, GSIDC has carried out all the relevant studies pertaining to bridge erection in River Mandovi. The same have been presented to hon'ble NGT. We should beleive in our systems. We do not intend to harm our environment. Moreover the 3rd Mandovi bridge will provide through passage to traffic originating from North Goa whic goes to South Goa directly without any obstructions like Pundlik Nagar junction, KTC junction or Merces junction. The savings in time, fuel, pollution will itself prove to be beneficial to environment. I hope this issue is taken in true spirit rather than in creation of blockages on technical grounds. Hope you will appreciate. Regards, Sidharth
