681 Glacial Lakes, but where Is the ground-level disaster plan?
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source: Internet
681 Glacial Lakes, but where Is the ground-level disaster plan?
Shimla, Aug 4,
The Centre’s decision to undertake a comprehensive assessment of 681 glacial lakes across the Himalayan region has brought into sharp focus an uncomfortable question: are disaster-management authorities moving fast enough on the ground, or are they still preparing the framework to deal with a threat that scientists have already identified as potentially catastrophic?
A high-level meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary with the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Central Water Commission (CWC) and representatives of Himalayan states has decided to undertake flow-path analysis and downstream risk assessment of all 681 identified glacial lakes and develop an integrated risk-categorisation framework.
For Himachal Pradesh, however, the meeting revealed that several critical preparedness measures are still at the proposal, technical-review or approval stage.
The state has prepared a Detailed Project Report of around Rs 105 crore for installation of Early Warning Systems (EWS) and other GLOF mitigation measures. The DPR is to be submitted to NDMA for funding support, while the state has sought technical review by the CWC and NDMA before implementation.
More significantly, Himachal has sought early approval for installation of an EWS at Ghepang/Gapang Lake, one of the state’s most closely watched glacial lakes. The request raises a fundamental question: if a lake has already been identified as posing a significant downstream risk, why should its basic early-warning mechanism still await another round of approval?
The scale of the problem extends far beyond Himachal. The state has pointed out that 59 of its 76 identified glacial lakes larger than 10 hectares lie in the Tibetan Himalayan region, making cross-border surveillance and international coordination essential.
Water released from a high-altitude lake does not recognise political boundaries, and an event originating in the Tibetan plateau can potentially travel through interconnected Himalayan river systems before reaching Indian territory.
The Centre’s decisions are significant, but they also underline the enormity of the preparedness gap. The authorities are still moving towards a “lake-to-lake” approach covering all 681 lakes, planning a dedicated GLOF workshop and working to resolve ISRO and C-DAC data and bandwidth issues required for monitoring and early warning.
Workshops, risk categorisation and data connectivity are necessary, but they cannot substitute for an operational disaster-response architecture.
The central concern is what happens in the first hour after a glacial lake bursts.
Who receives the alert? Who validates it? Which district authority orders evacuation? How are residents of isolated mountain villages alerted when communication networks fail? Which roads remain usable? Where are evacuation routes and shelters? How quickly can SDRF, NDRF, police, medical teams and engineering personnel reach the affected valleys? And, critically, what happens if a GLOF strikes a river system already carrying a high monsoon discharge?
These questions acquire greater urgency because the potential hazard is not restricted to flooding. A GLOF can carry enormous quantities of boulders, sediment, ice and debris, destroy bridges and roads and potentially affect hydropower infrastructure downstream.
A cascading failure involving a glacial lake, tributary, major river and dam could produce consequences far beyond those anticipated in a conventional flood-response plan.
The recent devastation in Nepal and the Dharali disaster in Uttarakhand have demonstrated how quickly Himalayan disasters can overwhelm modern infrastructure. Sikkim’s South Lhonak GLOF in 2023 provided another warning of the destructive potential of sudden glacial lake outbursts.
Himachal already has evidence of the changing risk. Ghepang Ghat Lake in Lahaul-Spiti expanded from 36.49 hectares in 1989 to 101.30 hectares in 2022, according to a joint assessment by the Himachal Pradesh State Disaster Management Authority and the National Remote Sensing Centre. More than 34 downstream settlements have been identified as vulnerable, with Sissu among the most exposed.
Similarly, the Vasuki and Sangla lakes have undergone measurable expansion and have been subjected to bathymetric surveys. The Sangla lake is of particular concern because a possible outburst could affect downstream settlements and hydropower infrastructure in the Baspa valley.
Also Read Development at the cost of ecology will prove unsustainable, warn experts at AU Dialogue
Environmentalists have repeatedly argued that the issue cannot be addressed through isolated technical exercises. Gumman Singh, an environmental activist, has warned that the danger arises from the combination of climate change and large-scale infrastructure development in fragile Himalayan terrain.
«“It is not only increasing climate change, attributed to carbon emissions by all nations, but states and the Central government planning mega projects in such fragile ecological regions without doing honest studies or appraisal of such catastrophic events are posing similar challenges time and again.”»
The present approach risks becoming another layer of bureaucratic risk management unless assessments are translated into time-bound, location-specific action plans.
Also Read Nepal Tragedy Puts Himachal’s Glacial Lakes Under Fresh Scrutiny
A comprehensive GLOF strategy should identify every vulnerable settlement and critical installation downstream, establish evacuation corridors and shelters, conduct mock drills, create redundant communication systems, pre-position rescue equipment and medical supplies, and clearly define the chain of command for evacuation.
It should also examine the cumulative risk posed by glacial lakes, dams, hydropower projects, roads and other infrastructure within the same river basin. A lake cannot be assessed in isolation if the flood released from it can interact with another reservoir, a dam, a bridge or a heavily populated valley downstream.
The decision to assess all 681 lakes is therefore welcome. But the Himalayan crisis is moving faster than government files.
The real test of preparedness will not be the number of workshops conducted or risk frameworks drafted. It will be whether a village receives a warning, and can evacuate safely, before the wall of water reaches it.
About the Author
