Hydropower vs Forest: The Cost of 32,000 Trees in Maharashtra's Sahyadris

Meeting a compensatory planting requirement is not the same as preserving a natural forest, writes Pratik Kad.

Protecting forests and restoring degraded catchments should complement the transition to renewable energy, not be treated as an afterthought, writes Pratik Kad.

(Photo Courtesy: Ankit Salvi)

India needs renewable energy, but the proposed felling of nearly 32,000 trees for a 3,000 MW pumped-storage hydropower project in Karjat in Maharashtra's Raigad district raises an important question. Are we adequately accounting for the effects of infrastructure on mountain ecosystems that help us cope with climate change?

Developed by Torrent Energy Storage Solutions, a subsidiary of Gujarat-based Torrent Power, the proposed Saidongar-I project has drawn opposition over forest loss and its potential effects on local ecosystems. It reportedly requires approximately 233 hectares of forest land across villages, including Pali, Kothal, Khalati, Saidongar, and Dhak.

This project’s proximity to Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary has also raised concerns. Reports have described the site as lying in the sanctuary’s buffer zone, while the company maintains that it is outside the sanctuary and its eco-sensitive zone. This distinction matters, but a location outside a protected area does not automatically mean an absence of ecological value.

Forests in buffer zones and surrounding landscapes can support biodiversity, habitat connectivity, and local watersheds, making their potential loss worthy of careful scientific assessment.

Why Mountain Forests Matter?

I see this controversy as more than a debate over how many trees are being cut down. It is about how changing the land surface can affect the surrounding climate and water cycle.

Forests influence how the land absorbs solar energy, exchanges heat and moisture with the atmosphere, and responds to rainfall. Their roots and leaf litter help protect soil, while vegetation affects runoff and the movement of water through the catchment. In mountainous terrain, where steep slopes and complex topography interact with heavy rainfall, these processes are important.

Removing forest cover and disturbing soil can increase erosion and change runoff patterns. Excavation, tunnelling, blasting and changes to natural drainage may add to these pressures, especially during intense monsoon rainfall. The precise effects depend on local geology, soil, vegetation, and the scale of disturbance.

It would be wrong to claim that cutting trees will automatically cause drought or dry up local wells. But that uncertainty makes a proper assessment more important, not less.

For the Saidongar area, authorities should make the projects hydrological assessments available and monitor streamflow and erosion where relevant. These observations would help establish whether construction is changing local environmental conditions.

Heavy Rain Does Not Guarantee Water Security

The Western Ghats shape Maharashtra’s rainfall distribution. Moist monsoon winds produce heavy rainfall along the windward slopes, while areas farther inland receive less precipitation because of the rain-shadow effect.

Even where rainfall is abundant, water availability varies across seasons and years.

Intense rainfall over a short period does not guarantee sufficient water during the dry months.

Forests influence this seasonal cycle, but their relationship with groundwater is not straightforward. Vegetation can protect soil, affect infiltration, and influence how water moves through a catchment.

Climate change adds to the challenge. Changes in rainfall intensity and dry spells are affecting both water availability and the risks associated with extreme rainfall. In steep terrain, poorly managed construction can worsen erosion and sediment movement during heavy downpours.

Maharashtra’s Drought

The debate over the Karjat project is taking place as Maharashtra faces a serious drought situation.

In September, the state declared 265 talukas drought-affected. By mid-October, reports said the number had increased to 305 talukas, reflecting the scale of the rainfall deficit and agricultural distress across the state.

The government also announced relief measures and water-management interventions.

This drought cannot be attributed to forest clearance for a single project. It does, however, underline why water security must be considered alongside energy planning.

Rainfall deficits, prolonged dry spells, rising temperatures, land-use changes, and the condition of local watersheds can all influence water availability although their relative contributions vary by region.

In Maharashtra, where farmers are already confronting water stress, infrastructure decisions should be informed by a thorough understanding of how mountain catchments store, move, and release water. The environmental assessment of the Saidongar project should, therefore, examine potential changes to drainage, streamflow and erosion, as well as the implications for local water resources. These questions deserve particular attention in a landscape shaped by intense monsoon rainfall followed by a long dry season.

Energy security and water security cannot be planned in isolation. Maharashtra needs reliable electricity, but it also needs resilient watersheds and landscapes that can help communities cope with increasingly challenging climatic conditions.

The Paradox of Clean Energy

Pumped-storage hydropower can help India integrate more solar and wind power into its electricity system. Water is pumped to an upper reservoir when electricity is available and released through turbines when power is needed. This provides storage and helps balance fluctuations in renewable generation.

The Maharashtra government and Torrent Power have defended the Karjat project on the grounds of its energy-storage benefits and proposed environmental safeguards. But, being outside a protected-area boundary does not, by itself, settle the question of wider ecological impacts. Those depend on the forests affected, habitat connections, drainage and the project's construction footprint.

This is where the climate-policy contradiction emerges. Energy storage can help reduce emissions by enabling greater use of renewable electricity. Forests, meanwhile, support biodiversity and can help maintain soil and watershed functions that contribute to climate resilience. Mitigation and adaptation are both necessary. A project that supports the first should not be exempt from scrutiny of its effects on the second.

This does not mean that every project involving forest clearance should be rejected. It means that its benefits must be weighed against its environmental costs, and that less damaging locations or designs should be considered wherever feasible.

Can Planting More Trees Replace a Forest?

Nature-based solutions offer another way to address climate risks while restoring and protecting ecosystems. Forest conservation, the restoration of degraded landscapes, and watershed management can help maintain soil stability, regulate water flows, and support biodiversity.

In mountain regions such as the Sahyadris, these functions are particularly important under a changing climate.

But nature-based solutions must be designed around local ecological conditions and cannot be reduced to planting trees to compensate for forest clearance. Protecting an existing natural forest is not equivalent to creating plantation elsewhere.

Nor should these solutions become a justification for avoidable environmental damage. Protecting forests and restoring degraded catchments should complement the transition to renewable energy, not be treated as an afterthought.

The government has proposed planting 90,000 trees to compensate for the forest clearance. However, an established forest contains mature trees, developed soils, and interconnected habitats that take decades to form.

Newly planted trees cannot immediately replace these ecological functions. Meeting a compensatory planting requirement is not the same as preserving a natural forest. 

Political Leadership and Climate Literacy

Defending the project, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadanavis has argued that its long-term clean energy benefits outweigh the environmental damage. However, such assurances raise questions when they are not backed by transparent scientific evidence.

Promises of compensatory planting cannot substitute for a credible assessment of ecological costs, particularly in light of concerns raised over earlier projects, including Tapovan. Public anger is growing when official statements appear to offer reassurance without adequately addressing the scientific questions at stake.

All ministers must make the project’s environmental assessments publicly available. They should explain how the impacts on catchment hydrology, biodiversity, and forest connectivity have been evaluated.

Climate and scientific literacy cannot be optional in decisions of this scale. Regulatory approval is not proof that environmental costs are negligible—and political assurances cannot replace independent scientific scrutiny. Responsible leadership means confronting the evidence, acknowledging uncertainty, and being accountable for the long-term consequences of decisions made today.

The Western Ghats Need Consistent Protection

The recent dispute comes amid the Centres continuing effort to identify ecologically sensitive areas across the Western Ghats.

Draft Notification S.O. 4106(E) issued on 27 July 2026 proposes to designate approximately 56,825.7 sq km across six states as an ecologically sensitive area, including 17,340 sq km in Maharashtra.

The notification remains a draft. Its proposed restrictions should not be treated as final legal prohibitions. Nor does the draft alone establish that the Karjat project violates the law.

The government should clarify how the project relates to the proposed designation and publish the relevant clearances, tree-felling records and environmental assessments.

The larger issue is whether infrastructure decisions in ecologically important mountain landscapes adequately account for cumulative environmental impacts, rather than assessing each project in isolation.

India’s clean energy transition is necessary, but its success should not be measured only by the electricity stored or emissions avoided. It must also be judged by whether development protects the natural systems that help communities adapt to climate change.

Clean energy is essential. So is protecting the landscapes that sustain us. Maharashtra must plan for both.

(Dr Pratik Kad is a climate scientist specialising in climate dynamics, extreme events, and impacts. He serves as Vice-President of APECS, an Executive Committee member of YESS, and a working group member for WCRP's Regional Information for Society (RIfS). This is an opinion piece and views expressed are the author's own. The Quint does not endorse nor is responsible for them.)