Unravelling the tangle
M.S. Menon
Tags : ms menon, columnist indian express)
The Mullaperiyar controversy is a unique water dispute. The Mullaperiyar is an intrastate river, flowing only through Kerala, and therefore the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956, does not have any jurisdiction over the issue. Hence, constituting a tribunal under the act to decide on the issue too is not possible. Another peculiarity of this dispute is that it arises out of disagreement between Kerala and Tamil Nadu over the safety of the dam and reservoir operations, not over the sharing of water.
The dam is located on the Mullaperiyar river in Idukki in Kerala, but has been owned and controlled by Tamil Nadu under a lease agreement valid for 999 years, signed in 1886 by the British rulers of Madras Presidency (now Tamil Nadu) and the maharaja of Travancore (now part of Kerala). The project provides water to the drought-hit areas of Tamil Nadu and flood protection to areas in Kerala.
After Independence, though all the treaties between the British and the Indian princely states lapsed, Mullaperiyar water continued to be used by Tamil Nadu as per the terms of the agreement. In 1970, the states partly amended the provisions to revise the annual lease rent and to allow Tamil Nadu the use of Mullaperiyar water for power-generation.
Since 1970, Kerala has been arguing that the dam had outlived its lifespan and suggested the construction of a new one. In 1979, after earthquakes caused cracks in the structure, it took up the case with Tamil Nadu, raising concerns about the safety of the dam constructed using lime-surkhi. As suggested by the Central Water Commission, Tamil Nadu brought down the water level from 142 ft to 136 ft. After making due repairs, it wanted to raise the water level back to 142 ft. As Kerala did not agree to this, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court for directions to raise the level as its farmers were incurring heavy losses due to reduced availability of water. In 2006, the court permitted the raising of the water level.
In the meanwhile, Kerala promulgated a new Dam Safety Act, empowering its Dam Safety Authority (KDSA) to evaluate the safety of all old dams in the state, including the Mullaperiyar dam. The KDSA fixed the maximum water level in the reservoir at 136 ft. Reacting to this, Tamil Nadu approached the apex court, which, after issuing notice to Kerala to respond, advised the states to amicably settle the matter. In view of the wide ramifications of the case, a Constitution Bench was then set up to hear it.
In 2009, after tremors in the region, Kerala again came up with the proposal to build a new dam 1,300 ft downstream from the present structure, as its experts had cautioned that the existing dam would collapse if an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale strikes the region. According to Kerala, Tamil Nadu had, in 1979, agreed to such a proposal.
With Tamil Nadu rejecting the proposal for a new dam and seeking the raising of the water level, and Kerala continuing to harp on the safety aspect, the court appointed an empowered committee to study and report on all aspects. The study is in progress.
Recently, there have been low-intensity tremors in Idukki district and Kerala’s demand has become more vociferous. Tamil Nadu fears that if a new dam is constructed, maintained and operated by Kerala, its farmers may not receive the quantity of water that they have been getting as per the 1886 agreement. Even though Kerala has assured Tamil Nadu that the requisite water would be released, the latter’s apprehension is that provisions in the agreement may not be strictly adhered to.
With the two states unable to find a middle ground, the Central government could step in to diffuse the tension by bringing the contending parties to the negotiating table. To allay the fears of Kerala, its proposal for a new dam could be considered, and to remove the suspicions and satisfy the requirements of Tamil Nadu, the Centre could offer to set up a control board for the operation and maintenance of the new dam. The board could be constituted along the lines of the Tungabhadra Board.
Such an institutional mechanism would provide a forum for discussions to sort out differences that are likely to arise in the operation and maintenance of the project. For adequate representation, general acceptance and effective functioning, the organisation would be headed by a Central nominee with equal number of members nominated by the states. It could be empowered to make its own rules for the conduct of its business, as in the case of the Tungabhadra Board under the Centre.
The Mullaperiyar dam has benefited both the states for decades. It should not be allowed to become the cause of a serious rift between them.
The writer is former member secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, express@expressindia.com
(The Indian Express, Tuesday, December 13, 2011)
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Mullaperiyar - Way Ahead
The Pioneer
Negotiating Mullaperiyar dispute
Tamil Nadu and Kerala are at daggers drawn over the Mullaperiyar dam dispute that has become a source of needless acrimony between the two States. The Union Government should play a proactive role in defusing the looming crisis.
M.S.Menon.
The history of the 116-year old Mullaperiyar dam is the story of a treaty that began with hope, but in the end got embroiled in controversies and mistrust between the participating states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The agreement signed in 1886 by the British rulers of the Madras Presidency with the Maharaja of Travancore State was unique since it was to remain valid for a period of 999 years, and it permitted diverting all the waters of the Mullaperiyar river originating and flowing through the State to the Presidency. It also provided for the leasing of 8000 acres of land of the State for the reservoir and another 100 acres to construct the dam, the stipulated annual rent for the land being Rs 40,000 per year. The lease indenture granted full right, power and liberty to the Presidency to carry out all works for the dam and appurtenant works as well as the ancillary works . The benefits claimed from this proposed eastward diversion of the river were irrigation in the rain-shadow regions of the Presidency (now Tamil Nadu) and flood mitigation in the Travancore (now Kerala) region.
After independence, though all the treaties between the British Government and the Indian Princely States stood lapsed, the Mullaperiyar waters continued to be diverted to the east. Also in 1970, Kerala and Tamil Nadu virtually ratified the 1886 agreement by partly amending the provisions to revise the annual lease rent and to allow the latter the use of river waters for power generation for which Kerala would be compensated annually for the power generated there-from.
In 1979, earth tremors in the region caused noticeable leakages from the Mullaperiyar dam, sending shock waves to the people settled downstream. As cracks appeared in the old surkhi-lime concrete dam, safety concerns were raised by the Kerala Government. At the instance of the Supreme Court and as per the suggestion of the Central Water Commission, Tamil Nadu agreed to lower the stored water level in the reservoir from 142.2 ft to 136 ft, and to carry out the due repairs.
After carrying out the strengthening measures, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court to permit it to increase the level to 142 ft, stating that the reduction in storage level and consequent reduced availability of water had put its farmers in the rain-shadow region at a great loss. In 2006, the apex court permitted Tamil Nadu to raise the water level.
Meanwhile, Kerala promulgated a new dam safety Act empowering the Kerala Dam Safety Authority to evaluate the safety of all old dams located in the State and advise the Government. It could even decommission a dam if public safety demanded. Accordingly, KDSA fixed the safe level for Mullaperiyar reservoir at 136 ft. Reacting to this development, Tamil Nadu approached the apex court, which, after issuing notice to Kerala to respond, advised the States to amicably settle the matter. Considering the wide ramifications of the case, a Constitution Bench was then set up to hear the case.
In view of fierce public protests, Kerala came up with a proposal in 2009 to build a new dam, 1300 ft. downstream of the present one to ensure safety of its people in the basin as their experts cautioned that the existing dam would collapse if an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale struck the region. According to Kerala, Tamil Nadu had in 1979, agreed on such a proposal, and it has been cleared for approval by the Union Government.
However, Tamil Nadu rejected the idea of constructing a new dam, to which Kerala again demanded in 2010 a review of the dam’s safety. The court appointed a five-member Empowered Committee to study all the issues. The study is presently in progress.
Meanwhile, low intensity tremors continue in the region, developing new cracks in the body of the dam resulting in seepage from the dam posing a threat to the villages in the basin. The public fear has reached panic-levels with experts pointing out to the alarming possibility of floods from a collapsed dam gushing to the Idukki reservoir and leading to breaches in that dam complex.
The arguments and counter arguments on the issue reveal that both the people on either side of the Western Ghats have fears on the outcome of the decisions in this regard.
Tamil Nadu’s apprehensions stem from the feeling that, if a new dam is constructed, maintained and operated by Kerala, its farmers may not get their due share of water as per the 1886 agreement, even though Kerala has assured them of the requisite water-supply. Kerala’s fear arises from the fact that the old dam is already leaking and regardless of the repairs that may be done, it would not guarantee its safety, particularly in view of the frequent tremors occurring in the region.
There is no doubt that the present dam has outlived its expected life-span and a new dam in its place is necessary, since no expert would be able to certify its safety even for a few decades.
The legal and political battles on Mullaperiyar dam are sure to continue as public resentment is putting pressure on the Governments concerned to find an acceptable solution to remove their fears.
The Union Government can certainly defuse the situation by bringing the contending parties to negotiate on the issues involved. To allay the fears of Kerala, its proposal for a new dam could be considered. And, to remove the suspicions and satisfy the requirements of Tamil Nadu, the UPA Government could offer to set up a control board for the operation and maintenance of the new dam on the lines of the Tungabhadra Control Board set up under the Union Ministry of Water Resources.
(New Delhi- Wednesday, December 7, 2011)
Negotiating Mullaperiyar dispute
Tamil Nadu and Kerala are at daggers drawn over the Mullaperiyar dam dispute that has become a source of needless acrimony between the two States. The Union Government should play a proactive role in defusing the looming crisis.
M.S.Menon.
The history of the 116-year old Mullaperiyar dam is the story of a treaty that began with hope, but in the end got embroiled in controversies and mistrust between the participating states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The agreement signed in 1886 by the British rulers of the Madras Presidency with the Maharaja of Travancore State was unique since it was to remain valid for a period of 999 years, and it permitted diverting all the waters of the Mullaperiyar river originating and flowing through the State to the Presidency. It also provided for the leasing of 8000 acres of land of the State for the reservoir and another 100 acres to construct the dam, the stipulated annual rent for the land being Rs 40,000 per year. The lease indenture granted full right, power and liberty to the Presidency to carry out all works for the dam and appurtenant works as well as the ancillary works . The benefits claimed from this proposed eastward diversion of the river were irrigation in the rain-shadow regions of the Presidency (now Tamil Nadu) and flood mitigation in the Travancore (now Kerala) region.
After independence, though all the treaties between the British Government and the Indian Princely States stood lapsed, the Mullaperiyar waters continued to be diverted to the east. Also in 1970, Kerala and Tamil Nadu virtually ratified the 1886 agreement by partly amending the provisions to revise the annual lease rent and to allow the latter the use of river waters for power generation for which Kerala would be compensated annually for the power generated there-from.
In 1979, earth tremors in the region caused noticeable leakages from the Mullaperiyar dam, sending shock waves to the people settled downstream. As cracks appeared in the old surkhi-lime concrete dam, safety concerns were raised by the Kerala Government. At the instance of the Supreme Court and as per the suggestion of the Central Water Commission, Tamil Nadu agreed to lower the stored water level in the reservoir from 142.2 ft to 136 ft, and to carry out the due repairs.
After carrying out the strengthening measures, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court to permit it to increase the level to 142 ft, stating that the reduction in storage level and consequent reduced availability of water had put its farmers in the rain-shadow region at a great loss. In 2006, the apex court permitted Tamil Nadu to raise the water level.
Meanwhile, Kerala promulgated a new dam safety Act empowering the Kerala Dam Safety Authority to evaluate the safety of all old dams located in the State and advise the Government. It could even decommission a dam if public safety demanded. Accordingly, KDSA fixed the safe level for Mullaperiyar reservoir at 136 ft. Reacting to this development, Tamil Nadu approached the apex court, which, after issuing notice to Kerala to respond, advised the States to amicably settle the matter. Considering the wide ramifications of the case, a Constitution Bench was then set up to hear the case.
In view of fierce public protests, Kerala came up with a proposal in 2009 to build a new dam, 1300 ft. downstream of the present one to ensure safety of its people in the basin as their experts cautioned that the existing dam would collapse if an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale struck the region. According to Kerala, Tamil Nadu had in 1979, agreed on such a proposal, and it has been cleared for approval by the Union Government.
However, Tamil Nadu rejected the idea of constructing a new dam, to which Kerala again demanded in 2010 a review of the dam’s safety. The court appointed a five-member Empowered Committee to study all the issues. The study is presently in progress.
Meanwhile, low intensity tremors continue in the region, developing new cracks in the body of the dam resulting in seepage from the dam posing a threat to the villages in the basin. The public fear has reached panic-levels with experts pointing out to the alarming possibility of floods from a collapsed dam gushing to the Idukki reservoir and leading to breaches in that dam complex.
The arguments and counter arguments on the issue reveal that both the people on either side of the Western Ghats have fears on the outcome of the decisions in this regard.
Tamil Nadu’s apprehensions stem from the feeling that, if a new dam is constructed, maintained and operated by Kerala, its farmers may not get their due share of water as per the 1886 agreement, even though Kerala has assured them of the requisite water-supply. Kerala’s fear arises from the fact that the old dam is already leaking and regardless of the repairs that may be done, it would not guarantee its safety, particularly in view of the frequent tremors occurring in the region.
There is no doubt that the present dam has outlived its expected life-span and a new dam in its place is necessary, since no expert would be able to certify its safety even for a few decades.
The legal and political battles on Mullaperiyar dam are sure to continue as public resentment is putting pressure on the Governments concerned to find an acceptable solution to remove their fears.
The Union Government can certainly defuse the situation by bringing the contending parties to negotiate on the issues involved. To allay the fears of Kerala, its proposal for a new dam could be considered. And, to remove the suspicions and satisfy the requirements of Tamil Nadu, the UPA Government could offer to set up a control board for the operation and maintenance of the new dam on the lines of the Tungabhadra Control Board set up under the Union Ministry of Water Resources.
(New Delhi- Wednesday, December 7, 2011)
Monday, October 3, 2011
water wars
IT'S TIME TO GET SERIOUS OVER WATER
Wars are rarely cost-effective or susceptible to reason. With water becoming increasingly scarce, water-wars can no longer be dismissed as a figment of imagination. Dialogue is necessary and based more on 'need' rather than 'rights'
M.S.Menon
WITH global warming altering weather patterns and affecting fresh water availability, it has often been stressed that the next war will be fought not over oil but over water.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, while addressing the first Asia-Pacific Water Summit (2007), warned that high population growth, rising consumption, pollution and poor water management posed significant threats on water availability and could be 'a potent fuel for war.' Earlier, on the occasion of World Water Day of 2002, the then UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, had also stated that "fierce national competition over water resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict".
Presently, more than 26 countries are considered as water scarce, with the projection that by the year 2025, 2/3rd of the world population is likely to live in countries with moderate or severe shortage of water.
These warnings have to be taken seriously and addressed with concern. In this connection, a recent report published by David Zhang of Hong Kong University in the Journal of the US National Academy of Sciences, after analysing the data of more than 8000 wars, is relevant. He established that resource shortage was the main cause of wars in the past.
Recorded history up to the 20th century does not, however, indicate any major war caused by disputes over use of water for drinking and other purposes, though some armed conflicts did take place such as the one that occurred around 2500 BC between the Sumerian cities of Lagash and Umme over the right to exploit the boundary of channels along the Tigris river.
Modern history, however, has documented a few major water disputes resulting in wars, such as between Egypt and Sudan on Nile waters (1958); Israel and neighbouring Arab countries on the Jordan river waters (1967); Mauritania and Senegal on the Senegal river (1989). Of late, tension has been mounting on the Chobe river waters among Mozambiq, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Trouble is also brewing among the Central Asian Republics on the waters of Amu Darya and Syr Darya draining into the Aral sea.
Many experts are not convinced though about the possibility of wars caused by water scarcity, since they feel that wars on water are not economically viable. With the cost of one day's war, they argue, alternative sources such as desalinisation plants can be constructed to meet the requirement. However, since no war is cost effective, the argument does not carry much conviction.
According to others, the global trade in 'virtual water', the water consumed for making food products, has allowed arid countries in the Middle East to meet their water requirements without resorting to war. They claim that but for this trade ,which kept Egypt, Jordan and others fed for the last 30 years, there would have been many wars in the Middle East.
The contention that export of 'virtual water' in the form of foodgrains to water-stressed countries could reduce the problem through trade is misplaced since with rising population, less water would be available for foodgrain production. It would be of interest to note that this year, about a quarter of the US grain harvest will be used not for food or fodder but to fuel automobiles. Hence food insecurity in a water stressed world, could kindle serious conflicts among the countries.
There are also optimists who feel that once basin states conclude treaties and establish water regimes, they will be resilient enough to survive conflicts. They point out that the US, Mexico, and Canada have effective institutions to resolve and settle water issues; there are also examples of trans- boundary river sharing treaties such as the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) between India and Pakistan which had survived two wars and many war like situations, the Itaipu Treaty between Paraguay and Brazil for the hydro power development in the Parana river ( 1973), etc.
The much hyped Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan is also under stress since India feels that the provisions are biased in favour of Pakistan which got a larger share of the Indus waters, thereby affecting Indian agricultural and other needs. Similarly, Paraguans have also started questioning the terms of the Itaipu treaty blaming Brazil for not paying enough for the energy it is using.
In the meanwhile, fresh signs of trouble are brewing with China proposing to divert the Brahmaputra waters, ignoring protests from India and Bangladesh.
The existing international law is ineffective and inadequate to arrest conflicts on water. Also, the international institutions are not adequately equipped to resolve water disputes among countries. The UN would be helpless since the much talked about 'UN Convention on Non-Navigational uses of International Water Courses' adopted by it in 1997 is yet to be ratified.
The root cause of any conflict is the scarcity of the resource and in this case , it is water. Hence, the solution lies in improving its availability. For this purpose, supply and demand management aspects have to be analysed for an effective strategy and to provide for concrete solutions. These include adoption of techniques for improved water availability such as water conservation and pollution prevention, improving water use efficiency, recycling and reuse of drainage water etc. These actions are required to be taken both within and among the basin nations to avert the crisis.
(The Tribune, 25th Sept. 2011)
Wars are rarely cost-effective or susceptible to reason. With water becoming increasingly scarce, water-wars can no longer be dismissed as a figment of imagination. Dialogue is necessary and based more on 'need' rather than 'rights'
M.S.Menon
WITH global warming altering weather patterns and affecting fresh water availability, it has often been stressed that the next war will be fought not over oil but over water.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, while addressing the first Asia-Pacific Water Summit (2007), warned that high population growth, rising consumption, pollution and poor water management posed significant threats on water availability and could be 'a potent fuel for war.' Earlier, on the occasion of World Water Day of 2002, the then UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, had also stated that "fierce national competition over water resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict".
Presently, more than 26 countries are considered as water scarce, with the projection that by the year 2025, 2/3rd of the world population is likely to live in countries with moderate or severe shortage of water.
These warnings have to be taken seriously and addressed with concern. In this connection, a recent report published by David Zhang of Hong Kong University in the Journal of the US National Academy of Sciences, after analysing the data of more than 8000 wars, is relevant. He established that resource shortage was the main cause of wars in the past.
Recorded history up to the 20th century does not, however, indicate any major war caused by disputes over use of water for drinking and other purposes, though some armed conflicts did take place such as the one that occurred around 2500 BC between the Sumerian cities of Lagash and Umme over the right to exploit the boundary of channels along the Tigris river.
Modern history, however, has documented a few major water disputes resulting in wars, such as between Egypt and Sudan on Nile waters (1958); Israel and neighbouring Arab countries on the Jordan river waters (1967); Mauritania and Senegal on the Senegal river (1989). Of late, tension has been mounting on the Chobe river waters among Mozambiq, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Trouble is also brewing among the Central Asian Republics on the waters of Amu Darya and Syr Darya draining into the Aral sea.
Many experts are not convinced though about the possibility of wars caused by water scarcity, since they feel that wars on water are not economically viable. With the cost of one day's war, they argue, alternative sources such as desalinisation plants can be constructed to meet the requirement. However, since no war is cost effective, the argument does not carry much conviction.
According to others, the global trade in 'virtual water', the water consumed for making food products, has allowed arid countries in the Middle East to meet their water requirements without resorting to war. They claim that but for this trade ,which kept Egypt, Jordan and others fed for the last 30 years, there would have been many wars in the Middle East.
The contention that export of 'virtual water' in the form of foodgrains to water-stressed countries could reduce the problem through trade is misplaced since with rising population, less water would be available for foodgrain production. It would be of interest to note that this year, about a quarter of the US grain harvest will be used not for food or fodder but to fuel automobiles. Hence food insecurity in a water stressed world, could kindle serious conflicts among the countries.
There are also optimists who feel that once basin states conclude treaties and establish water regimes, they will be resilient enough to survive conflicts. They point out that the US, Mexico, and Canada have effective institutions to resolve and settle water issues; there are also examples of trans- boundary river sharing treaties such as the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) between India and Pakistan which had survived two wars and many war like situations, the Itaipu Treaty between Paraguay and Brazil for the hydro power development in the Parana river ( 1973), etc.
The much hyped Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan is also under stress since India feels that the provisions are biased in favour of Pakistan which got a larger share of the Indus waters, thereby affecting Indian agricultural and other needs. Similarly, Paraguans have also started questioning the terms of the Itaipu treaty blaming Brazil for not paying enough for the energy it is using.
In the meanwhile, fresh signs of trouble are brewing with China proposing to divert the Brahmaputra waters, ignoring protests from India and Bangladesh.
The existing international law is ineffective and inadequate to arrest conflicts on water. Also, the international institutions are not adequately equipped to resolve water disputes among countries. The UN would be helpless since the much talked about 'UN Convention on Non-Navigational uses of International Water Courses' adopted by it in 1997 is yet to be ratified.
The root cause of any conflict is the scarcity of the resource and in this case , it is water. Hence, the solution lies in improving its availability. For this purpose, supply and demand management aspects have to be analysed for an effective strategy and to provide for concrete solutions. These include adoption of techniques for improved water availability such as water conservation and pollution prevention, improving water use efficiency, recycling and reuse of drainage water etc. These actions are required to be taken both within and among the basin nations to avert the crisis.
(The Tribune, 25th Sept. 2011)
Sunday, February 6, 2011
China's Dams and Indian Concerns
China’s power play
India need not be indifferent to dams
by M.S.Menon
REPORTS in the state-run People’s Daily of China have confirmed that our neighbour has started damming the Yarlung-Tsangpo (Brahmaputra river) at Zangmu for a 510 MW hydro-electric project sited in the Gyaca county of Lhoka prefecture (Tibet). The project comprises a dam which is 116 m. high, 390 m.long across the river with a power plant having six generating units and will cost US$1.18 billion.
On India’s concerns, China has given the assurance that the project is not designed to divert the Brahmaputra waters and hence will not have any impact on the river flows in the downstream reaches.
The major problems haunting China today are water and power shortages. China knows that if these two issues are not addressed adequately, the consequences would be grave and its ambition to become a super power would be in the doldrums. Hence, it has focussed its attention to exploit the huge potential available in the water-rich Tibet region to overcome the looming crisis. The Zangmu project is to be followed by five other new dams at Jiexu, Jiacha, Lengda, Zhongda and Langzhen to meet the energy needs.
The uneven spatial distribution of water and land resources is the main reason for China to be concerned about water shortage, particularly in the northern and north-western provinces, for many decades. The humid South with 700 million people has one-third of the nation’s crop land and four-fifth of its water, while the arid north with 550 million people has two-third of the crop land and one-fifth of the water.
During the seventies a Chinese General, Guo Kai, is reported to have even proposed to hammer the Himalayas with 200 nuclear warheads to blast a 2-km wide air tunnel to divert the Indian monsoon to meet the water needs. Subsequently, he had also speculated to use Tibet’s waters, particularly of the Brahmaputra, by diverting its waters at the ‘great bend’ of the river. The great western diversion proposed by Guo Kai involves the construction of a mega structure there and a tunnel through the Himalayas to divert the water and generate power, which could be used to pump water.
The burgeoning population, increased industrial development, higher demand from agriculture and pollution in the rivers have further contributed to the water woes now, forcing the Chinese to plan for diverting water from the South to the North under the South-North Diversion Project through three links: the central, eastern and western routes. China has already started the construction of the central and eastern links. The western link is the modified version of Guo Kai’s dream project and is reported to be under study.
According to experts of the China Society for Hydropower Engineering, only research has been carried out about the huge potential available at the ‘great bend’ and no plan has been prepared so far. However, Chinese official news agency, Xinhua, had in 2003 confirmed the plans for the Tsangpo Water Diversion Project with two components, viz, a power plant with an installed capacity of more than 40,000 MW in the Metok area to utilise the potential of the river falling through 3,000 m and diversion of water by pumping to the provinces of Xingjiang and Gansu.
China has been discreet about the project, but according to recent reports, the construction of a117-km Metok highway with a tunnel to the Metok site linking the Indian border to National Highway 318 from Shanghai is in full swing to negotiate the difficult terrain of the Yarlung-Tsangpo gorge, presumably to facilitate the movement of materials and machinery for the project. Also, in the map of the Grid Corporation of China for 2020 the great bend area is shown as connected to the rest of the Chinese power supply, thereby indicating Chinese plans for the project in the area.
Environmental activists, both in China and abroad, have warned against building such a huge project in a seismically active and ecologically fragile area, but the authorities are emphatic that Tibet’s resources have to be used for economic advantage. Similarly, many experts have raised doubts about the engineering possibility of constructing such a project, considering the topographical and geological conditions of the rugged, high-altitude area. But China has proved its capability to overcome such difficulties with the construction of the rail track to Tibet and the gigantic Water Diversion Project to transfer 1.8 billion water annually to the Dehuofang reservoir across the Hun river through a 85.3-km tunnel in the equally formidable mountain ranges of North-East China.
China has every right to build dams in its part of the Brahmaputra and is not answerable to India since it is not bound by any treaty on water sharing with India. The joint declaration made in 2006 between the two enables only sharing hydrological data, which is not adequate to address our concerns.
True, we have been assured that these dams are meant only for power generation, but the disturbing fact is that China maintains a strategic silence on its river diversion plans. For example, in the past they were denying any plan for the Zangmu project in spite of satellite images showing activities in the project area. Only now they have confirmed it.
India has to be concerned about the Chinese projects because the reservoir operations could cause wide water-level fluctuations in the river downstream to upset the operations of the hydel schemes in Arunachal Pradesh. The experience of the co-basin states in the Mekong basin will be an eye-opener in this regard. The operations of the Chinese projects on the Mekong affected their agriculture, fisheries and tourism projects downstream and, when these governments protested, China denied the allegations.
Also, if the Chinese divert lean-season flows outside the basin for their projects, the schemes in Arunachal Pradesh would have to be shut down for want of minimum river flows, and if they release heavy discharges into a flooded Brahmaputra downstream, vast areas would be submerged in Arunachal Pradesh as was experienced in the year 2000. Unfortunately, at present there is no international law for trans-boundary rivers to control such unilateral actions.
India has also to remain prepared to face situations during possible conflicts since China always plans its infrastructure projects for dual use to meet the requirements of peace time and war as has been enunciated by Chairman Mao.
The moot question, therefore, is: Are we to remain satisfied with China’s assurances, or are we to take action to face such eventualities? Experience has taught us to remain prepared to deal with such situations. Hence, instead of remaining complacent with the Chinese assurances, let us get ready with plans to address these issues.
Indian experts had earlier identified and proposed a project with a large storage potential on the Siang (Brahmaputra) in Arunachal Pradesh which had adequate capacity to absorb the flood flows and also to even out water-level fluctuations caused by upstream projects. But the Indian government does not seem to be keen on this project, citing environmental objections.
Considering the strategic importance of the project, let us be ready with the project by implementing it expeditiously instead of waiting for the catastrophe to occur. Happenings in the Mekong basin and even our experience with floods in the past have already warned us. India cannot afford to ignore the likely threats from the liquid bombs ticking away in Tibet, having enough potential to become weapons of mass destruction.
(The Tribune, Chandigarh, dated 28th january, 2011)
India need not be indifferent to dams
by M.S.Menon
REPORTS in the state-run People’s Daily of China have confirmed that our neighbour has started damming the Yarlung-Tsangpo (Brahmaputra river) at Zangmu for a 510 MW hydro-electric project sited in the Gyaca county of Lhoka prefecture (Tibet). The project comprises a dam which is 116 m. high, 390 m.long across the river with a power plant having six generating units and will cost US$1.18 billion.
On India’s concerns, China has given the assurance that the project is not designed to divert the Brahmaputra waters and hence will not have any impact on the river flows in the downstream reaches.
The major problems haunting China today are water and power shortages. China knows that if these two issues are not addressed adequately, the consequences would be grave and its ambition to become a super power would be in the doldrums. Hence, it has focussed its attention to exploit the huge potential available in the water-rich Tibet region to overcome the looming crisis. The Zangmu project is to be followed by five other new dams at Jiexu, Jiacha, Lengda, Zhongda and Langzhen to meet the energy needs.
The uneven spatial distribution of water and land resources is the main reason for China to be concerned about water shortage, particularly in the northern and north-western provinces, for many decades. The humid South with 700 million people has one-third of the nation’s crop land and four-fifth of its water, while the arid north with 550 million people has two-third of the crop land and one-fifth of the water.
During the seventies a Chinese General, Guo Kai, is reported to have even proposed to hammer the Himalayas with 200 nuclear warheads to blast a 2-km wide air tunnel to divert the Indian monsoon to meet the water needs. Subsequently, he had also speculated to use Tibet’s waters, particularly of the Brahmaputra, by diverting its waters at the ‘great bend’ of the river. The great western diversion proposed by Guo Kai involves the construction of a mega structure there and a tunnel through the Himalayas to divert the water and generate power, which could be used to pump water.
The burgeoning population, increased industrial development, higher demand from agriculture and pollution in the rivers have further contributed to the water woes now, forcing the Chinese to plan for diverting water from the South to the North under the South-North Diversion Project through three links: the central, eastern and western routes. China has already started the construction of the central and eastern links. The western link is the modified version of Guo Kai’s dream project and is reported to be under study.
According to experts of the China Society for Hydropower Engineering, only research has been carried out about the huge potential available at the ‘great bend’ and no plan has been prepared so far. However, Chinese official news agency, Xinhua, had in 2003 confirmed the plans for the Tsangpo Water Diversion Project with two components, viz, a power plant with an installed capacity of more than 40,000 MW in the Metok area to utilise the potential of the river falling through 3,000 m and diversion of water by pumping to the provinces of Xingjiang and Gansu.
China has been discreet about the project, but according to recent reports, the construction of a117-km Metok highway with a tunnel to the Metok site linking the Indian border to National Highway 318 from Shanghai is in full swing to negotiate the difficult terrain of the Yarlung-Tsangpo gorge, presumably to facilitate the movement of materials and machinery for the project. Also, in the map of the Grid Corporation of China for 2020 the great bend area is shown as connected to the rest of the Chinese power supply, thereby indicating Chinese plans for the project in the area.
Environmental activists, both in China and abroad, have warned against building such a huge project in a seismically active and ecologically fragile area, but the authorities are emphatic that Tibet’s resources have to be used for economic advantage. Similarly, many experts have raised doubts about the engineering possibility of constructing such a project, considering the topographical and geological conditions of the rugged, high-altitude area. But China has proved its capability to overcome such difficulties with the construction of the rail track to Tibet and the gigantic Water Diversion Project to transfer 1.8 billion water annually to the Dehuofang reservoir across the Hun river through a 85.3-km tunnel in the equally formidable mountain ranges of North-East China.
China has every right to build dams in its part of the Brahmaputra and is not answerable to India since it is not bound by any treaty on water sharing with India. The joint declaration made in 2006 between the two enables only sharing hydrological data, which is not adequate to address our concerns.
True, we have been assured that these dams are meant only for power generation, but the disturbing fact is that China maintains a strategic silence on its river diversion plans. For example, in the past they were denying any plan for the Zangmu project in spite of satellite images showing activities in the project area. Only now they have confirmed it.
India has to be concerned about the Chinese projects because the reservoir operations could cause wide water-level fluctuations in the river downstream to upset the operations of the hydel schemes in Arunachal Pradesh. The experience of the co-basin states in the Mekong basin will be an eye-opener in this regard. The operations of the Chinese projects on the Mekong affected their agriculture, fisheries and tourism projects downstream and, when these governments protested, China denied the allegations.
Also, if the Chinese divert lean-season flows outside the basin for their projects, the schemes in Arunachal Pradesh would have to be shut down for want of minimum river flows, and if they release heavy discharges into a flooded Brahmaputra downstream, vast areas would be submerged in Arunachal Pradesh as was experienced in the year 2000. Unfortunately, at present there is no international law for trans-boundary rivers to control such unilateral actions.
India has also to remain prepared to face situations during possible conflicts since China always plans its infrastructure projects for dual use to meet the requirements of peace time and war as has been enunciated by Chairman Mao.
The moot question, therefore, is: Are we to remain satisfied with China’s assurances, or are we to take action to face such eventualities? Experience has taught us to remain prepared to deal with such situations. Hence, instead of remaining complacent with the Chinese assurances, let us get ready with plans to address these issues.
Indian experts had earlier identified and proposed a project with a large storage potential on the Siang (Brahmaputra) in Arunachal Pradesh which had adequate capacity to absorb the flood flows and also to even out water-level fluctuations caused by upstream projects. But the Indian government does not seem to be keen on this project, citing environmental objections.
Considering the strategic importance of the project, let us be ready with the project by implementing it expeditiously instead of waiting for the catastrophe to occur. Happenings in the Mekong basin and even our experience with floods in the past have already warned us. India cannot afford to ignore the likely threats from the liquid bombs ticking away in Tibet, having enough potential to become weapons of mass destruction.
(The Tribune, Chandigarh, dated 28th january, 2011)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)