Tag Archives: Mullaperiyar

It will be a folly to build new dam at Mullaperiyar

Posted on by

The proposal for a new dam at Mullaperiyar is not in the best interests of Kerala. It should press for phased decommissioning the dam while ensuring water supply to Tamil Nadu, at least for a few decades in reduced quantities.

A new dam means handing over the problems to another generation, about 50 to 100 years from now. This is also what the Maharaja of Travancore did by leasing land for 999 years. But that was because his hands were forced. Kerala has to see that this would not happen again.

Feasibility of new dam
Mullaperiyar dam site is in a seismically active area. Even though technologies are now available to build earthquake-resistant dams, it is still advisable not to build dams near fault lines. The area also falls in the Periyar Tiger Reserve and National Park. Various clearances including forest clearance will be required to build a dam there. An environmental impact assessment will have to be done and this is not going to be very favourable. The Gadgil Committee on Western Ghats has already called for decommissioning of old dams on the Ghats. Construction of new large dams on the Ghats is no more considered an environmentally sound proposition.

There are actually few locations along the course of the river for building a new dam. The one proposed is downstream of the present dam on land not leased to Tamil Nadu. Kerala is already saying that it would build new dam on its own and will not be willing to lease additional land to Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu will object to its losing ownership and control over the dam. Use of this land will require denotificaton of the sanctuary area required for expanding the reservoir. This, in turn, necessitates a resolution by the Legislature and approval by the Centre.

New technologies will be needed if Tamil Nadu proposes to build a dam upstream of the present one and even that will require negotiation of a new agreement between Tamil Nadu and Kerala and environmental clearances. There will be specific objections to building dams that will store water above the current full reservoir level which is fixed at 142 feet by the Supreme Court. The negotiations between Kerala and Tamil Nadu can prolong for any number of years, given their history of reviewing the Parambikulam-Aliyar Project agreement.

The construction activity, once started, is going to cause serious disturbance to wildlife in the area. This will hinder environmental clearances and invite protests. Issues like lower riparian rights of Kerala too have to be considered while proposing a new dam. (Lower riparian rights are internationally recognised. They, among other things, specify that a certain amount of water should be allowed to flow down while damming a river.)The adequacy of spillways of Idukki dam to handle additional flow too will have to be considered, especially in view of the recent change in weather patterns.

In fact, there is hardly any justification for building a new dam in national park on the Western Ghats. Full scale inter-basin diversion of river waters is not permissible even in other areas these days.

Kerala’s incapacity to build dam
Though Kerala says it can build the dam, the work would have to be entrusted to an outside party, probably to a multi-national consultancy and dam-builders. The State Water Resources did not have the capability to build such a dam in a time bound manner. Two its last projects, Edamalayar and Kallada were plagued by cost and time over-runs and corruption. The State Electricity Board too doesn’t have experienced engineers for this work, though it once had the capability. (The Board neglected its civil wing and engineers who have designed and executed large dams have all retired). The State Public Works Department is recently in the lime light for faulty construction of buildings and bridges and corruption.

Though a former Water Resources Minister had boasted that the dam could be completed in a year, nothing like that is ever going to happen in that Department. We have engineers who always stated that the Mullaperiyar dam is unsafe but could not prove before the Supreme Court that a 120-year-old dam posed sufficient risk to attract the precautionary principle! (So, the government thought that a retired jurist, who incidentally believed that the dam would be safe for another 100 years, was a better option to represent Kerala in the Committee set up by the Supreme Court.)

Phased decommissioning
Given this scenario, the best option is to press for phased decommissioning of the old dam. Tamil Nadu has not so far accepted Kerala’s long standing demand for new dam. So, it is time that Kerala focus on the demand for decommissioning of the dam and not fall into the trap of building a new dam.
Former Union Secretary for Water Resources Ramaswamy R. Iyer has said that it will be a folly to build a new dam on Mullaperiyar. “We can start thinking of phasing it out. That means giving people time to get adjusted to this idea and seek alternative sources of economic activity, and perhaps a different pattern of development that does not require so much water,” Mr. Iyer said in an interview to Frontline magazine published in December 2011.
“Accept the fact that the dam is not going to be permanent. Explore alternative means of supporting the livelihoods of people who will be affected by the phasing out of the dam,” Mr. Iyer said.
The phased decommissioning of the dam, which he suggests, will not be without problems. Currently, there is no means to lower the reservoir level of Mullaperiyar dam beyond 136 feet other than drawing of water through tunnels by Tamil Nadu. This is because the saddle spillways are at 136 feet. The capacity of tunnels is limited to 2200 cusecs and will be inadequate to manage flows caused by floods which will exceed the capacity of tunnels.
There is a proposal that Tamil Nadu should build a new intake tunnel at the level of 50 feet from the base. (The present intake is at 104 feet and water below this level could not be drawn). The techno-economic feasibility of this proposal has been questioned by some engineers. But new technology may help, though it may be costly. The Mullaperiyar dam does not have a sluice gate at the bottom for emergency discharge of water. There was a proposal for a tunnel to downstream of Mullperiyar River for discharge of water, but it has not come up for serious consideration despite the risks posed by the dam.
It is often convenient for Kerala politicians to call for new dam. But the proposal does not suit current thinking on environment and river management. Building a new dam will be a folly as pointed out by Mr. Iyer. Instead of undertaking such a foolish proposal, Kerala should demand a time table for phased decommissioning of the old dam.

Related link: A dam has a life— Frontline report, December 2011.

Mullaperiyar: What is Pinarai Vijayan up to?

Posted on by

Pinarayi-Vijayan

Chief Minister Pinarai Vijayan

The new Chief Minister of Kerala Pinarai Vijayan has willingly courted controversy in the first week of assuming office itself over Mullaperiyar and other issues.

The essence of his statement on Mullaperiyar was that Kerala will have to take into account the finding of the empowered committee appointed by the Supreme Court that the dam was safe and future negotiations would have to be over the report of the committee and its reliability. Secondly, he said that a new dam at Mullaperiyar, which Kerala had proposed as a means to ensure safety of people of five districts in the State, was not possible without cooperation from Tamil Nadu.

Faced with strong opposition to the change in the State’s stand over Mullaperiyar, Mr. Vijayan clarified that the government was still for new dam. What he had said was that it was not possible to build a dam without cooperation from the Centre and Tamil Nadu.

There was no compulsion for Mr. Vijayan to come up with an early policy statement on Mullaperiyar as no decision was pending on the issue that needed immediate attention. He also made a statement in favour of revival of the Athirappally hydroelectric project which is strongly opposed by environmental activists and leaders of the CPI which is a constituent of the ruling coalition, the Left Democratic Front. He could have delayed taking a stand on both the issues if he wanted.

However, he apparently had political and administrative reasons for making statements on Mullaperiyar and Athirappally even at the risk of losing some goodwill. On the face of it, the statements hook his bite noire in the party V. S. Achuthanandan who had adopted stands in favour of new dam and against Athirappally project in the past. There has been a truce between Mr. Achuthanandan and Mr. Vijayan before the elections, and Mr. Achuthanandan, as Leader of the Opposition, led the campaign of the Opposition Front. However, the CPI (M) chose Mr. Vijayan as the Chief Minister.

Mr. Vijayan’s statements come at a time when the party is considering an advisory position with Cabinet rank for Mr. Achuthanandan in the Government. Mr. Vijayan’s camp has already raised the criticism that this would give rise to duel power centres. If Mr. Achuthandnan loudly opposed the policy pronouncements by Mr. Vijayan, that would be proof to support the argument. Being a seasoned politician, Mr. Achuthanandan’s reaction was measured. Yet, there is no certainty that he would get the position he desired.

In a raising a controversy, Mr. Vijayan’s political costs are limited. His party does not have much support in any of the areas that will be directly impacted by failure of Mullaperiyar dam. The sufferer is the CPI which has won seats in areas that would be hit by a failure of the Mullaperiyar dam and impacted by the Athirappally project. CPI had done a sterling performance in this election winning 70 per cent of the seats it contested. The CPI (M) knows that it would have to concede more ground to CPI as CPI comes out of political stagnation in Kerala. So, any damage done to CPI is to its advantage.

There is also speculation that the CPI (M) would like to come closer to AIADMK considering CPI (M)’s diminishing importance at the national level. It is also notable that in Devikulam constituency in Kerala, where there is a Tamil population; AIADMK secured over 11600 votes which was more than twice the margin of victory of the CPI (M) candidate in the constituency.

Apart from political objectives, Mr. Vijayan’s statement is clearly aimed at laying the path for new initiatives. Kerala has nearly exhausted its legal options on Mullaperiyar at least for the time being. The way it conducted the cases before the Supreme Court left a lot to be desired. For example, the Supreme Court made an erroneous observation in its 2006 judgement that the waters would be contained in the Idukki dam downstream in case of failure of Mullaperiyar dam. However, Kerala failed to produce the Dam Break Analysis showing that towns and villages and a large population would be washed away, in subsequent litigation in the Court. The previous government then tried to hide reports of the Analysis, which it had commissioned, and other documents relating to the litigation from public by issuing an executive order against releasing documents on Mullaperiyar under Right to Information Act.

Now, Mr. Vijayan needs an opening to drive new policy and this could not be done without admitting the status quo following the Supreme Court orders and the impossibility of building a new dam in the near future. He has to open dialogue with Tamil Nadu. Acknowledging that there is a finding that the dam is safe is first step towards that.
Water for Tamil Nadu and safety for Kerala is slogan raised by the previous government. However, with Tamil Nadu seeking legal options and rejecting the proposal for a new dam, it had only campaign value. Mr. Vijayan has not specified what policy options he would pursue now. He probably has to reconstitute the Mullaperiyar Cell, which failed in its objective, and hold discussions with experts and lawyers before proceeding.

Even before Mr. Vijayan deprecated the proposal for new dam, there was a section of those agitating against the raising of water level in the old dam who argued that the dam should be decommissioned in a phased manner. The decommissioning should be over 50 years or so allowing Tamil Nadu the opportunity to shift its agriculture practices to modern techniques that need less water for irrigation.

Water policy expert Ramaswamy R. Iyer, who was Union Secretary for Water Resources, stated as back as in 2011 that Kerala would be repeating a folly committed more than 100 years ago by building a new dam.

Opinion is growing around the world against large dams and inter-basin diversion of river waters. The Mullaperiyar dam totally cut off flow through the river. International covenants now recognise lower riparian rights and the need to allow flow needed to maintain ecosystems and activities downstream.

Moreover, Kerala’s stand on impact on the Periyar Tiger Reserve is contradictory. On one side, it argued that the raising of the water level would harm the Reserve. On the other side, it proposed a major construction activity and impounding of water within the protected area.

It is expected that Mr. Vijayan would look into all this and come up with a new approach to the issue.

Mullaperiyar- fresh litigation will be ill-advised at this stage

Posted on by

Kerala Government plans to approach the Supreme Court yet again on the Mullaperiyar issue— this time over the alleged failures of the supervisory committee appointed by the Court to properly manage release of water from Dam through the spillways.

This is just an attempt by the politicians to buy time and hoodwink the public. The supervisory committee has representatives of Kerala and Tamil Nadu and Central Water Commission. The question of failure to issue timely warning before release of water through the spillways is a matter that the State government should be able to settle administratively, if necessary seeking intervention of the Centre. It will not be appropriate to agitate the Supreme Court now.

Moreover, it is not Kerala’s case that the Tamil Nadu did not warn it of impending release of water. There were reports that Theni Collector did so a few days ago. The complaint is that the Idukki Collector was not informed six hours before the release. Tamil Nadu apparently wanted to record that the water level touched 142 feet. When water level reached 141.9, it became imperative for Tamil Nadu to release water immediately as the inflow was very heavy. There needs to be an understanding on gradual release of water without waiting for the water level to touch 142 feet.

Kerala should also insist upon its lower riparian rights. The Expert Committee appointed by the Supreme Court had mooted construction of a tunnel to drain water into Periyar River downstream. This is also important from the point of view of safety. All modern dams have Bottom outlet tunnel which will facilitate emptying of the dam in case of an emergency—the Mullaperiyar dam does not have one, being one designed in the 19th century.

Every time Kerala has gone to Court over the Mullaperiyar issue, it has led to closure of its options. It has already lost its case that Tamil Nadu should raise the water level of Mullaperiyar beyond 136 feet only after exhausting storage at Vaigai Dam and that the spillway shutters should be opened gradually. In fact, when Kerala is arguing that the dam is not safe, it should be prepared for sudden release of water. This was what was lacking downstream of Mullaperiyar this Monday.

Kerala has failed to set up monitoring facilities it proposed on earlier occasions downstream of the Dam. Around 50 monitoring installations on the dam and reservoir, under control of Tamil Nadu, are reportedly not functioning. This is an issue that Kerala should be taking up legally or administratively. Even a modern dam without functioning monitoring equipment is unsafe.

Kerala had rushed to nullify a Supreme Court order of 2006 though legislation within weeks of the Court issuing the order. The legislature in its wisdom fixed the water level at 136 feet without building up supporting material. The Kerala Dam Safety Authority, which is a quasi judicial body, on the other had could have commissioned international studies on Mullaperiyar under the law and fixed the water level appropriately which would have been difficult to question before the Supreme Court.

When the Court quashed the law, Kerala suffered a multiple blow. Its arguments had led to the Supreme Court appointing a supervisory committee. As the supervisory committee of the Supreme Court is now managing the water level, it could put blame on Tamil Nadu only if it disregarded directives of the committee. Kerala will not even be able claim damages from Tamil Nadu for any losses caused by release of water or dam failure.

Kerala had ample time to prepare internationally acceptable documents on safety of Mullaperyar Dam from 2006 and even before. But it always rushed to do studies at the last minute. When safety of the people was paramount, one of the first studies it commissioned over a short span of time after 2006 was on submergence of forests and wildlife. (An analysis of errors in that study is available here. The author had to admit before Court that he had done a copycat job of work done by a State agency.)

Though there was an erroneous observation in the 2006 judgment (See Mullaperiyar- behind the veil.) that waters from Mullaperiyar would be contained in Idukki reservoir in case of failure of the former, Kerala failed to complete and produce the Dam Break Analysis before the Supreme Court in the case filed by Tamil Nadu challenging Kerala’s dam safety law.

 

Extract from judgment
Extract from the judgment of Supreme Court in ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3 OF 2006 between Tamil Nadu and Kerala

Though the State Information Commission has ruled that this and other studies are public documents, the Principal Secretary of Water Resources Department has issued an illegal order against release of documents pertaining to the Mullaperiyar Dam as long as the issue is under litigation. Perhaps this is one reason why it wants another litigation.

As its strategies have failed so far, it is high time that it reconstituted the Mullaperiyar Special Cell with fresh talent and drew up fresh strategies.

For further reading:

Mullaperiyar: Kerala seeks review of Probable Maximum Flood

 

 

 

 

Moving NGT on Mullaperiyar can boomerang on Kerala

Posted on by

Kerala’s move to approach the National Green Tribunal against raising of the water level in Mullaperiyar dam is likely to boomerang on Kerala.

Environmental arguments similar to those against raising of reservoir level can be raised against lowering the reservoir level also.

In fact, changes to the ecosystem created by the dam and its water will be more pronounced while lowering the water level.

Kerala’s argument is that the raising of water level in the reservoir submerged nearly four decades old vegetation just above 136 feet level in Periyar Tiger Reserve. Lush vegetation including some specialised species have grown in the local environment created by lowering of the water level.

Now, let us look at what will happen if water level is reduced to 132 feet as demanded by Kerala at one point of time, or eventual phased decommissioning of dam. Lowering of the water level will result in the water table going down in many parts of Periyar Tiger Reserve. This would cause a relative drought conditions in many parts of the Sanctuary compared to the present situation and will loss of biodiversity and density of vegetation. The specialised species will not survive in its original location.

Legal position:
Environmental impact argument is something rejected by the Supreme Court in its 2006 verdict itself. However, Kerala tried to raise it again when Tamil Nadu challenged Kerala’s dam safety legislation before Supreme Court. For doing this, it commissioned a scientist from West Bengal, who produced a study report within a matter of weeks. The report had several errors and it was essentially a reproduction of arguments made by KFRI over which Kerala had argued its case earlier. Though these mistakes had been pointed out, Kerala went ahead with producing the author as a witness before the Court. During cross-examination, he admitted he had copied from the KFRI report. This meant that Kerala had no new argument or point to be presented before the Court. Now, Kerala is trying to revive its lost cause by approaching NGT.  It is not even considering the fact that Supreme Court is above NGT.

In any case it will be a win-win situation for TN. If the NGT rejects Kerala’s prayer, TN will have another handle. If it upholds Kerala’s argument, TN can use it in future against lowering of the water level or decommissioning of the dam.

Kerala’s argument goes against what the State itself is proposing to do. The new dam it is proposing to build at Mullaperiyar will submerge some areas of Periyar Tiger Reserve. It is also seeking Central clearance for raising the height of Peppera dam near Thiruvananthapuram by at least three metres submerging about 80 acres of forest. Though the area submerged by increased water level in Mullaperiyar dam is larger than these, the forests that would be submerged by the new Mullaperiyar dam or augmentation of Peppara dam are part of ecosystems that are hundreds of years old. Obviously, much more value is to be attached to the latter.

Moreover, Kerala has done the same thing that TN is doing. Water level at Idukki reservoir had remained low for about three decades. Kerala carried out augmentation scheme under Idukki project to improve inflow. None batted an eyelid, when vegetation that grew over the period was submerged by increasing water level. Besides, the area being submerged at Mullaperiyar was leased to TN much before the enactment of environmental laws.

If we really care for environment (instead just using environmental arguments with the wrong belief that it will win a case in which the key issue is safety), we should demand environmental flows downstream of Mullaperiyar dam, abandon the proposal for new dam and seek phased decommissioning of the old dam.

Mullaperiyar studies are public documents

Posted on by

The Kerala State Information Commission has ordered Kerala Irrigation Department to release study reports and documents, submitted by it before the Supreme Court in the Mullaperiyar case filed by Tamil Nadu, under Right to Information Act. (See earlier post here)

The Department had refused to provide reports including the Dam Break Analysis on the ground that they were documents of “Strategic interests of the State” which were not required to be released under the RTI Act. The Commission did not uphold this contention and points raised by the Department in very detailed 70-page affidavit.

The complaint against the Department’s stand was made to the Commission as back as  in March 2012. The hearing was taken up only by the middle of 2013 and was completed by September 2013. However, the Commission took nearly six months to issue the order.

RTI

Order of State Information Commission

Earlier posts:

Mullaperiyar: behind the veil
Mullaperiyar dam break analysis: area of submergence
Mullaperiyar: strategic failure of Kerala government
K. T. Thomas and Mullaperiyar
Mullaperiyar: Directive against disclosure of dam break analysis
Mullaperiyar and Kerala’s technical studies
Conclusions of empowered committee of SC in Mullaperiyar case

Conclusions of empowered committee of SC in Mullaperiyar case

Posted on by

The final hearing of the Mullaperiyar case is likely to begin in February next year before the Supreme Court. (The date is tentatively fixed as February 19, 2013). The report of the Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court on Mullaperiyar Dam has gone totally against Kerala. So, Kerala will have to disprove the Committee’s findings or advance fresh and acceptable arguments if it is to win the case. The Court has said that that it would not accept fresh evidence including the Dam Break Analysis.

Baby dam

Baby dam saddling the main Mullaperiyar dam. Repairs were carried out to this dam despite objection from Kerala but with tacit support by officials. Another round of repairs are underway now, reportedly with the permission of the courts.      Photo: Roy Mathew

It is notable that the Committee has suggested repairs to the dam even while holding that the dam was hydrologically, structurally and seismically safe. The repairs have already begun.

The repairs proposed include treatment of upstream surface of dam, reaming of drainage holes, instrumentation and grouting of dam body. It has also suggested “periodical monitoring, analysis and leading away the seepage from toe of the dam towards downstream “.

The Committee found that the dam has not been adversely affected by leeching of lime dissolved in seepage water and rejected Kerala’s contentions in this regard. (That leaching has occurred is something that even Tamil Nadu had admitted. The dam had already been grouted for this reason and further grouting is proposed by the Committee itself. )
It said that the precautionary principle is not applicable as the dam has been found safe, and added that the Dam Break Flood Analysis and Emergency Action Plan do serve as precautionary measures. The findings of studies by Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkie and Delhi were rejected.

The Committee said that it did not accept the scare of a dam break flood wave because the Kerala government had not prepared dam break flood analysis. (The dam break analysis has since been done and it leaves little doubt that a dam break would be catastrophic.)

Conclusions of the Report in full at Expert-Eyes.org
Appraisal and analysis of various studies by EC Committee(Chapter VI of report)
Report of the Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court– all chapters
Mullaperiyar Dam break analysis by IIT Roorkee
Structural stability analysis of Mullaperiyar dam

Mullaperiyar and Kerala’s technical studies

Posted on by

Why did the empowered committee accept the studies done by Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu in preference to the finding of the professors of Indian Institute of Technology (Roorkee and Delhi)? Was it bias? Or did not it have something to do with the quality of the studies.

It is well known that some of the studies were done quickly, just months before they were to be presented before they were to be submitted to the court. The draft of the first part had come with several mistakes that  officials of the Mullaperiyar Special Cell (Kerala) had to go to Delhi to get them corrected. The second part of the seismic stability studies could not even be completed and submitted to the Supreme Court in time.

Expert-Eyes had earlier discussed the errors in the article  Mullaperiyar and environmental impact of raising the water level. Readers and experts can look at the structural stability analysis at http://expert-eyes.org/mullaperiyar/tremours/index.html

Why did the reputed experts of IIT wanted the study to be restricted to official use only. Were they avoiding public scrutiny? If one looks at the executive summary, it has more background than findings. Though Water Resources Minister P. J. Joseph had told a press conference in reply to questions that the Irrigation Design and Research Board would publish the PMF and flood routing studies on Mullaperiyar Dam done by IIT, Delhi, and Seismic Stability of Mullaperiyar Composite Dam done by IIT, Roorkee, on its Web site; it is yet to do so. The Department is also refusing to release copies of these and other studies under the Right to Information Act.

See:
Mullaperiyar: Directive against disclosure of dam break analysis
Mullaperiyar: behind the veil
IIT Roorkee seismic report has (only) value of paper says TN

 

Mullaperiyar: Directive against disclosure of dam break analysis

Posted on by

Additional Chief Secretary (Water Resources) of Kerala K. Jayakumar (now the Chief Secretary) has directed that the Dam Break Analysis (Mullaperiyar dam to Idukki Reservoir) should be denied to applicants seeking copies of it under the Right to Information Act.

The Additional Chief Secretary cites Clause 8 (b) of the Act for denying the public copies of the dam break analysis. However, there is no such Clause in the Act. There is, however, a clause 1(b) under Section 8 which states that information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court could be denied to applicants. But, the Office of the Chief Engineer (Inter-State Waters) has failed to provide copies of any court order forbidding publication of the Analysis.

Order against disclosure of Mullaperiyar dam break analysis

Order against disclosure of Mullaperiyar dam break analysis

Moreover, the analysis in question has been placed before the Assembly, and so, it has become a public document in every sense of the term. Moreover, Water Resources Minister P. J. Joseph himself had held a press conference disclosing findings in the Analysis at Thodupuzha.

It is also notable that it is the practice world over to publicise results of dam break analysis and inundation studies so that the people are aware of the risks and safe areas. In some countries, it is mandatory to do such analysis and prepare evacuation plans at the time of construction of dams itself. These plans are always brought to the notice of the people and local authorities.

This blog has published map showing  area of submergence from the report of the Mullapeiryar Dam Break Analysis. Mullaperiyar Dam Break Analysis

The full report of the dam break analysis is at Expert-Eyes.Org
You may also want to  read: Mullaperiyar: behind the veil

K. T. Thomas and Mullaperiyar

Posted on by

Member of the empowered committee of the Supreme Court on Mullaperiyar K. T. Thomas has stated in an interview to Malayala Manorama that the Mullaperiyar dam will stand for another 100 years.  This should surprise many.

Mullaperiyar dam

Mullaperiyar dam

According to experts, the normal life of a well-built concrete dam is about 60 years. None could predict the life span of a composite dam like Mullaperiyar with accuracy. However, there is enough evidence about the weakness of the old structure which actually stands supported by the concrete backup built by Tamil Nadu as part of strengthening measures. The Central Water Commission itself had acknowledged the weakness of the old structure in 1979, and if the backup would support the waters, its life span is only less than 60 years. (The strengthening measures were proposed for keeping the dam in service for 30 years at water levels higher than 136 feet.) Studies by the IIT, Roorkee and IIT Delhi showed that the composite structure could not stand a once in a 100-year flood or earthquake of the magnitude of 6.5 on the Richter scale.  Mr. Thomas ignored these findings.

In his report, Mr. Thomas says that the capacity of the Idukki reservoir is 75 tmc and water level in the reservoir had never exceeded 54 tmc. Both these averments are wrong. The capacity of the Idukki reservoir is 70.5 tmc at full reservoir level. It can reach 74.4 tmc at maximum water level. However, water would have to be regulated once it reaches full reservoir level.

The water level in the reservoir had exceeded 70.5 tmc twice and the spillways had been opened. On several occasions, it had crossed 54 tmc. Then, why did Mr. Thomas quote these figures. Is it to substantiate the argument that waters from the Mullaperiyar (11 tmc) would be contained in Idukki reservoir, in case of a failure?

The argument that the former judge actually raises is that the Mullaperiyar reservoir level should be kept at 136 feet so that Idukki could get waters for power generation. This had never been the argument of Kerala and it had never got even five per cent of the water from Mullaperiyar.  (It is also notable that the former judge has suggested that an intake tunnel should be constructed at 50 feet from the base of the dam.  Even without such a tunnel Tamil Nadu is drawing almost all the waters from the dam. With such a tunnel, it will not have to spare any waters for Kerala.)

Kerala wanted the level to be kept at 136 feet for safety reasons. However, the argument that the dam is unsafe had been rejected by the Committee. So, it may be better for Kerala to change the demand for new dam as neither the Centre nor Tamil Nadu are going to agree to that given the findings of the Committee.

So, it should call for phased decommissioning of the dam on the basis of continuous evaluation of the condition of the dam by a competent body like the Dam Safety Commission. (A tunnel at a lower level as proposed by Mr. Thomas could aid this by allowing Tamil Nadu to draw water at current levels for years).  Kerala should also press for its lower riparian rights and a good share of its own waters which had been denied to it through an agreement between a weak princely State and a colonial power.

Mullaperiyar: strategic failure of Kerala government

Posted on by

The report of the empowered committee of the Supreme Court is the result of a strategic failure from the part of the Kerala government.

The Central Water Commission was actually the opposite party in the case for Kerala. Yet, it failed to prevent those associated with the Commission from undertaking safety related assessment of the Mullaperiyar dam.  (Technical members of the Committee C.D. Thatte and D. K. Mehta were former Secretary to the Ministry of Water Resources and retired Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission respectively.)

Kerala nominated retired Supreme Court Judge K. T. Thomas to the committee. This was a strategic mistake as what Kerala needed was a man who could understand and judge technical matters and argue on technical issues.  Kerala could have better argued legal points before the Court itself instead of having a legal luminary in the committee. It seems that Mr. Thomas did not push forward any legal issues. He failed to express his views strongly on technical matters, he being not a technical expert.  The result is the finding by essentially by Mr. Thatte and Mehta that the dam is structurally and hydrologically safe.

In the process, they ignored studies by IIT, Roorkie and IIT Delhi which had found that the dam was not structurally and hydrologically safe.  It was true that they had done the studies in a hurry and this affected its quality. However, there were irrefutable facts in their reports which the twosome has ignored.

Core sampling and its examination for strength was important in determining whether the dam was strong enough to withstand earthquakes and higher water levels.  During drilling, proper samples could not be obtained except from the foundation, apparently because portions of the old dam were hollow.  However, it seems that the committee submitted its report before the results of the study came in.  Kerala should have insisted that the report should wait the finding of the study.

Now, Kerala would find it extremely difficult to argue technical points before the Court. The Court cannot be convinced easily that the dam is unsafe, as judges would attach value to the report of the empowered committee.

It may also be worth examining why Kerala made strategic mistakes.  The government had always failure to act in time and in a coordinated manner. Its engineers did not see eye-to-eye on several matters. Its lawyers were not often briefed properly by its engineers. Politicians concentrated on playing to the gallery and there were often allegations against both the politicians and officials who were in charge of fighting the Mullaperiyar case over the past two decades.  It is also worth noting that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa herself had alleged that Kerala politicians had land in areas irrigated by waters from Mullapeiryar.

For further reading:
Mullaperiyar– in search of truth
Mullaperiyar and dam safety
Mullaperiyar dam dispute
http://keralaviews.wordpress.com/tag/mullaperiyar/