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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)