Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 21 Aug 2014 18:53

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2061 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 52  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Indus Water Treaty
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2007 06:23 
Offline
Webmaster BR

Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Posts: 1246
Location: Planet Earth
Last Page of Previous Thread


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2007 06:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Posts: 571
Location: On a roller-coaster.
Pakistan to formally object to Uri-2 project at May meeting (Daily Times)
[quote]ISLAMABAD: Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said on Tuesday that Pakistan would raise its objections over the Uri-2 Power Project in Indian-held Kashmir in a meeting to be held in New Delhi in May this year.

Talking to APP over the telephone, Shah said India had started work on the project without addressing the Pakistan’s reservations. He said the start of work on the project was a violation of the Indus Water Treaty. The water commissioners of the two countries will meet in New Delhi in May and the Islamabad’s reservation over the design of the project will be taken up on the occasion, Shah added.

He said that under the Indus Water Treaty, Pakistan was given a certain amount of time to respond to designs of projects, but India had started construction work before the deadline for Pakistan’s response. :?: He said India had resorted to similar tactics in the Baglihar dam projects. “Such tactics will serve no purpose, rather they will further complicate the situation,â€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2007 06:31 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Last page of the previous thread had this post about TSP objecting to Uri-II The TSP Indus Commissioner said "Pakistan was given a certain amount of time to respond to designs of projects, but India had started construction work before the deadline for Pakistan’s response.". TSP papers were as usual lying about "INDIA’S unilateral construction of the Uri-2 Dam on the Jhelum without even informing Pakistan smacks of its characteristic highhandedness." as reported here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2007 06:23 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
TSP economist on IWT
[quote]The economist also called for experts from both sides to develop a plan to tap the power potential of the rivers in Kashmir, without disturbing the water distribution agreement of the Indus Water Treaty, and said this could be “best done within the scope of a sub-regional treatyâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2007 19:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2880
This Puki RAPE wants Pakistan to take an easy and fast ride to economic prosperity through India by getting power from Hydro projects being planned by us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2007 21:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Vipul, absolutely.

TSP's interest in J&K was only its waters, not the Muslim ummah brotherhood. Now that it is certain that they are not going to wrest the Indian-side of J&K by any which means and the failure of its efforts to stop us from building hydro-electric projects (the worse part being the validation of the Indian designs and indeed advice for more aggressive designs, if I may call so), the next best thing is to seek India's cooperation.

We should not forget that TSP stood violently against any reasonable allocation to India of its legitimate share of the Indus waters, as it has in any matter to do with India. Any hydroelectric power generated will be absorbed totally by India, not a drop of water and not a Watt of power shall go to TSP.

We shall just go ahead and exploit the treaty fully now. And, if at all we reinterpret the treaty, it shall be for a more equitable distribution of water to Bharat which has been deprived of its legitimate share by the IWT of 1960 vintage.

For the same reason, I prefer an under-sea pipeline from Iran to India for gas transportation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2007 21:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Posts: 608
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector
Rahul Shukla wrote:
[ISLAMABAD: Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said on Tuesday that Pakistan would raise its objections over the Uri-2 Power Project in Indian-held Kashmir in a meeting to be held in New Delhi in May this year.


I have a suggestion ...

for every new project that India plans, an appendix should be "cut and pasted" as "Pakistan Objects" ...

this will save time, chai and biskoot onlee ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2007 22:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14767
Location: Deepest & Highest
Alok_N wrote:
Rahul Shukla wrote:
[ISLAMABAD: Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said on Tuesday that Pakistan would raise its objections over the Uri-2 Power Project in Indian-held Kashmir in a meeting to be held in New Delhi in May this year.


I have a suggestion ...

for every new project that India plans, an appendix should be "cut and pasted" as "Pakistan Objects" ...

this will save time, chai and biskoot onlee ...


This Chai Biskoot stuff is getting old, boring and need to go, serve Ham and Whisky in honor of Queer-e- Azam Jinnah.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2007 12:05 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
The pleading for "cooperation" on the water front is certainly becoming more pronounced now.

RAPE Sethi's turn now.

Quote:
Possibly the most significant thing Mr Burki has said in his plan is the potential for cooperative management of waters that flow through Kashmir. It is only through an economic integration of the two Kashmirs with the acquiescence of the two big neighbours that such a cooperative approach can become possible. The truth is that as far as the waters of South Asia are concerned, South Asia is one ecological system. Politically it is now three states, and if you include Nepal, four states, who hardly think of one another while worrying about scarcity of water.

It is no longer important who ‘gets’ Kashmir. It is more important to agree on allowing both parts of it to prosper so that it can look after the rivers that flow down to India and Pakistan. The prime ministers of both India and Pakistan are economists first and politicians later. They should look carefully at the thoughts of Mr Shahid Javed Burki.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2007 04:56 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Himalayan glacier meltdown catastrophic for India


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2007 08:58 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Sir Creek closer to resolution ?
[quote]India and Pakistan have agreed on a common map of a disputed border estuary flowing into the Arabian Sea, a top Indian official said on Monday, bringing the long-running feud closer to resolution.

The row over the Sir Creek estuary was discussed during talks between Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his Pakistani counterpart Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri in New Delhi on Monday on the sidelines of a South Asian conference.

“On Sir Creek, they noted that we’ve completed the joint survey,â€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2007 08:51 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
RAPE Sethi on Sir Creek
Quote:
The Sir Creek dispute — considered smaller than the other disputes lingering between India and Pakistan — might in fact prove to be the most intractable in the coming days as it becomes linked to the delineation of each country’s maritime zones. There is the issue of the territorial waters and the further extension of a much larger economic zone. Both countries have been lured into thinking that the Indian Ocean is full of natural resources which a shift of a few miles of the line drawn from the Runn could jeopardise.

Depending on how the line is drawn from Sir Creek onwards, the gain or loss to either country could be about 250 square miles of ocean and ocean floor. Pakistan claims Sir Creek on the basis of one set of maps while India draws a median line in the Creek on the basis of another set of maps. Old maps are really of no use because the dry Creek has shifted like its sands and requires a new decision by both sides. One proposal is to draw a line in the middle of the creek and agree on this as a boundary for a period of five years. After that the two should decide where the final line should be.

It would be wise to start with a temporary median line. Wisdom dictates that the 250 square miles of the ocean that are to be surrendered by the ‘losing’ party should be shared half and half.

This RAPE is quite clever-by-half (pun intended). TSP claims the entire Sir Creek as its own, as it greedily claims everything else. So, "naturally", it would claim to be the "loser" and claim 50% more from India's rightful share as well.

RAPE Sethi on Baglihar

Quote:
Lack of trust drove the two to opt for World Bank arbitration on the Baglihar Dam. But last year when the verdict came after millions spent in costs, neither side won.


Please do labour under that impression. :lol: But, the same RAPE wrote differently immediately after the verdict. Let's jog our memory.
[quote]There are lessons to be drawn from the World Bank verdict on the Baglihar Dam dispute between Pakistan and India. The verdict has mostly gone in India's favour, but it is not surprising that Pakistan has claimed Ëœvictory". The federal water and power minister, Liaquat Jatoi, says that the World Bank expert Professor Raymond Lafitte has determined that the design of Baglihar Dam violates the Indus Waters Treaty and directed India to lower the height of the proposed reservoir on the Chenab in Indian-held KashmirÂ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New Dams in TSP
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2007 12:58 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
IWT and Daimar-Basha dam
Quote:
When asked if India comes up with its objection over the proposed site of the Diamer-Bhasha dam of which maximum portion falls in Northern Areas, as New Delhi is used to claim the territory of N Areas as part of India, then what will be the strategy of World Bank while considering the credit on this mega dam, the official said that since India is the neighbour country of Pakistan and also signatory of Indus Waters Treaty and it, in case, uses the proper channel for placing its objection, then World Bank would consider point of view of India.
However, he said India had not so far raised any objection over it before the WB. He added New Delhi had not put up any objection over the construction of Mangla dam, but provided funds for the dam despite the fact that the said dam has been erected in Azad Khasmir.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2007 18:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
IWT, a redundant Treaty M.S. Menon, former Member-Secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage
Quote:
A perusal of the treaty would reveal that it is biased in favour of Pakistan, ignoring international rules on equitable distribution of waters. Against India's rightful share of more than 40 per cent of the Indus waters, we got only about 20 per cent in the allocation.

Further, using the loopholes in the treaty, Pakistan succeeded in stalling/delaying Indian projects, 30 in all, planned for the development of Jammu and Kashmir. At every stage, India agreed to the demands of Pakistan such as stopping the Tulbul project works and closing the sluices in the Salal project, only to maintain good neighbourly relations. This conciliatory approach emboldened Pakistan to allege IWT violations by India on the Baglihar hydroelectric project (450 MW).

A perusal of the verdict would reveal that while provision of sluices and gated spillway has been accepted by the expert, India would have to modify the design to reduce the height of the dam, limit the pondage and raise the level of the power intake. India has therefore to incur additional costs to carry out these changes and get reduced peak power benefits and flood moderation advantages. By awarding such a decision the expert has overlooked the very basis of the treaty i.e. the maximum utilisation of Indus waters for mutual benefit.

Years of wrangling in the interpretation of the clauses has proved beyond doubt that the treaty has outlived its utility, to address the changing geopolitical situations and emerging norms of international laws. Hence India has to insist on a review of the treaty.

The rights and obligations of the parties to a treaty are well laid down in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969 which inter alia states that "a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context in the light of its object and purpose."

If Pakistan does not agree for a review, India must draw its attention to Article 62 of the Convention which permits terminating or withdrawing from a treaty due to a fundamental change of circumstances.

Pakistan has already cut out its strategy to delay the Indian projects, next in its agenda being the Kishanganga project (J&K). Hence we cannot and should not allow our development efforts in J&K to be sabotaged by Pakistan wrongly using the provisions of a redundant treaty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2007 03:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Posts: 593
Location: USA
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/apr-2007/9/index7.php

'Water disputes can lead to next Pak-India war'

Our Monitoring Desk
FOREIGN Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri on Sunday said that Pak-India relations made good progress with the passage of time, however, he expressed the fear that the water disputes could become the cause for next wars, reports a private TV channel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2007 06:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Posts: 608
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector
packess have two options:

1. lose water

2. lose a war and lose water

knowing packees, they will consider #2 superior ... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2007 09:30 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
This business of water Op Ed in DAWN
[quote]I will refer to another water problem and another technical solution for resolving it that left a deep mark on the country. This was the problem created by the messy division of Punjab that left the province’s large and integrated irrigation system divided in two parts. India laid claim to some of the waters of the Indus River system, particularly the water that flowed into the irrigation system from the head works that were now on the Indian side of the border. Diversion of this water would have created havoc on the Pakistani side.

There is growing evidence that the British administration headed in New Delhi by Lord Louis Mountbatten went out of its way to draw the Punjab border in favour of India, particularly to make it easier for it to access water from the irrigation works that were in place.

This is one of the themes in Stanley Wolpert’s latest book on the Indian partition. He uses government papers from that period to show how Mountbatten agreed to make last minute changes in the Punjab boundary line proposed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe to accommodate India.

At one point, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, fully aware that games were being played by the administration of Jawaharlal Nehru to cripple Pakistan economically, threatened to go to war if India tinkered with the irrigation system.

A technical solution was found to the problem during the tenure of President Ayub Khan when the two countries signed the Indus Water Treaty which apportioned three rivers of the system (the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab) to Pakistan and the remaining three (the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej) to India. In addition a multi-billion dollar scheme for building replacement works in Pakistan was agreed to by the two sides. To be implemented under the supervision of the World Bank, the vast programme envisaged the construction of link canals to transport water from the western to the eastern rivers. This meant cutting across the natural flow of water and contributed to the aggravation of the water-logging problem that was by then already very severe.

Tubewell technology arrived in the country in the early sixties in part to deal with the salinity and water logging problems. In the middle of that decade, Pakistan inaugurated the Salinity Control and Reclamation Project developed by Roger Revelle.The concept behind the project was a simple one. Large-bore tubewells were sunk in the saline areas and water brought out by them was thrown into the canals thus diluting its salinity. This helped to lower the water table and reduced soil-salinity. The farming community eagerly adopted this technology for their own use, augmenting with subsoil water the water that was available through the extensive system of canals. This eased the water constraint in many areas and also helped to place a check on the spread of salinity.

However, before the project could be declared a success, its ill effects began to be noted. Among them was the depletion of the aquifers formed over millions of years. Some of the water is “fossil waterâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2007 11:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Admission of defeat
Quote:
. . . . . there has been no progress on the core dispute, except the Baglihar Dam case which Pakistan has lost in World Bank arbitration.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 May 2007 16:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 256
Quote:
Power project in doldrums
By Khaleeq Kiani

ISLAMABAD, May 2: The $1.5 billion Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project in Azad Kashmir is in the doldrums following the inability of the government and Wapda to award contract for its construction, which may result in Pakistan losing its priority rights over Jhelum waters.

A project of the Water and Power Development Authority, the 969MW project has been hanging in the balance for six years, although it is considered crucial to secure Pakistan’s priority rights over Neelum waters — a tributary of the river Jhelum — threatened by the Indian move to use its waters for power generation and diversion. ( Still pretending they have that right. :D )

Sources told Dawn Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz had taken up the project with the Chinese leadership during his recent visit and the complexities relating to Chinese bidders, but the outcome was not encouraging. The prime minister later told reporters that the Neelum-Jhelum project was not discussed with China.

Adviser to the Prime Minister on Finance Dr Salman Shah separately told Dawn that financing for the project was available in the form of offers from Qatar and the Middle East, but Wapda had been asked to take a decision on the bidder as well as project structure.

He confirmed that the lowest bidder had not been able to arrange credit for the project. He, however, declined to comment on the second lowest bid, saying the government would arrange financing when Wapda took a decision on technical issues.

The bidding for the project was held about a year ago. The contract could not be signed with the lowest bidder that quoted $1.3 billion price for the project because it failed to arrange required buyer’s credit -– a pre-condition under the bidding.As a result, discussions were held with the second lowest bidder that offered $1.8 billion along with buyer’s credit of about $700 million. However, the talks failed when Wapda found that the manufacturer of the plan and machinery for both the bidders quoted incredibly higher rates in case of the second bidder.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/03/top7.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 May 2007 02:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6027
Location: Still in transit....
This Neelum project is one of those pie in the sky projects that cloud cuckoo land proposes to obfuscate the real issue.

They do not have the technology, ability or money to build them.

This is what causes the random casting about for a savior from *deleted* to Qatar! Really! Qatar!

The real aggravation for the RAPE such as Burki is that India has the Money, Capability and will to build just about any dam it chooses to on just about any river.

The Neelum project for instance calls for a 32 km long tunnel built under the Neelum River, Crossing under the Jhelum and Muzzafarabad and exiting at the lower bend of the Jhelum. This when the longest tunnel in TSP land is the Kojak Tunnel near Chaman built in , wait for it, 1891. It is 4 KM long and was built using Welsh Mining Engineers, Sikh and Bihari Labor and Indian money, it is also just 4 km long.

This is part of the reason for this desperate quest to 'share' India's portion of the rivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 May 2007 00:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2880
Pakistan set for another H&D blow.

India, Pak to lock horns over Kishanganga, Uri projects

Srinagar, May 5: Pakistan and India are set to lock horns at the Permanent Commission of Indus Waters (PCIW) level this month over the Kishanganga and Uri-2 hydropower projects, the prominent Pakistani daily The News said Saturday.

â€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 May 2007 05:58 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
TSP minister continues to tell lies, as usual
[quote]Water and Power Minister Liaqat Jatoi on Friday told the National Assembly that India may consider implementation of World Bank’s decision to redesign the controversial Baglihar dam.

Replying to opposition’s questions, the minister said it was a great success that Raymond Lafitte, the WB-appointed Swiss neutral expert, had given a decision on Baglihar dam in Pakistan’s favour. Jatoi said Pakistan would challenge India in international forums if it did not follow the WB guidelines and redesigned the dam.

The PPP-P’s Sherry Rehman criticised Jatoi saying his ministry could not present a satisfactory version of WB’s decision on the dam so far. “Pakistan is exerting pressure on India to follow the decision but if India does not, Pakistan has many options open under the Indus Basin Treaty,â€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 May 2007 10:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 996
Vipul wrote:
Pakistan set for another H&D blow.

India, Pak to lock horns over Kishanganga, Uri projects

In the modified design, India has excluded the facility of water storage for the Kishanganga hydropower project as demanded by Pakistan.


Did we remove the storage? if yes, why the hell?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2007 13:16 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 12 Oct 2006 11:56
Posts: 5
X-posting

Rahul Shukla wrote:
Rs 5b released for mobilization of machinery (Pak Observer)
Quote:
Islamabad—In a positive development, the government has released Rs 5 billion for mobilization of a Chinese company with its equipments and heavy machinery to the site of the most strategic and important Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower project for initiating the construction work to ensure the water priority rights of Neelum river that comes from India, a senior government official told Pakistan Observer.

Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower project has already been delayed for many years and if the delay further continues, then it would brighten chances for India to easily manage to have the water priority rights of River Neelum under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. Neelum River is called as Ganga River in India where India is constructing the Kishanganga hydropower project.

The government came up with the decision to release Rs 5 billion with immediate effect when Wapda asked government to immediately provide over Rs 5 billion for the mobilization of a Chinese company to the site of Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower project.

Although Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have shown their willingness to fund this very important project, but there still exists a stalemate on the issue of arranging foreign funding for this very important project even after the finalization of the Chinese consortium, M/s China Ge
zhouba (group) Co Ltd. China and CMEC, China (CGGC-CMEC) for construction, as the selected consortium and the government have miserably failed to arrange finances.

The official said that in case government fails to manage the required funding, then government would complete this project from its own resources, keeping in view the importance of the project.

Under the treaty, country first completing the hydel project on River Neelum (River Ganga) would automatically gain the priority water rights.
The Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower project is proposed on the Neelum River, which is called the Ganga river in held Kashmir and on the same river, India is building the Kishanganga hydropower project. India is reported to have completed 60-65 percent construction of Kishanganga hydropower project, but Pakistan’s authorities concerned so far have miserably failed to initiate the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower project.

“Pakistan now needs to embark upon this project with speedy pace so that this mega project could be completed prior to the completion of Kishanganga project to ensure the priority water rights.




Can anyone of the gurus kindly explain the correct legalities of the Indus water treaty with respect to the ganga river?

Thanks in advance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2007 19:59 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Ravikun, this is to do with "prior usage". Hence the urgency.

The IWT has the following provision in Annexure E:

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 7, any Storage Work to be constructed on a Tributary of The Jhelum on which Pakistan has any Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use shall be so designed and operated as not to adversely affect the then existing Agricultural Use or hydroelectric use on that Tributary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Sir Creek
PostPosted: 18 May 2007 20:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
India-TSP make significant progress in the Sir Creek issue
Another unnecessary dispute solely due to the obstructionist intransigence of TSP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2007 21:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Raj Malhotra wrote:
Vipul wrote:
Pakistan set for another H&D blow.

India, Pak to lock horns over Kishanganga, Uri projects

In the modified design, India has excluded the facility of water storage for the Kishanganga hydropower project as demanded by Pakistan.


Did we remove the storage?

Yes...India converted the project to a run-of-the-river system but still with the same 330 MW capacity. Kapil Sibal announced it on Apr. 19, 2006. Still, it was rejected by the TSP side claiming it to be a violation of IWT.
Quote:
if yes, why the hell?

Oh, that's the usual "appeasement" technique. We did it in Salal. We are suffering today there. We stopped the Tulbul Navigation project. To be fair to the babus/political masters, it was before the NE's verdict.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2007 21:38 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
All this "tamasha" by TSP on its Neelum-Jhelum project is just that. It has been trying to implement that for more than a decade now but has been unable to find somebody to fund and/or execute that. They have talked to the all-weather Chinese, Germans, ummah brothers and a few sundry but to no avail.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2007 23:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 996
This run of the river system with some storage built in for siltage i.e. like Bhagliar or like Salal without gates etc? Can we now not convert it back to storage dam?


SSridhar wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote:
Vipul wrote:
Pakistan set for another H&D blow.

India, Pak to lock horns over Kishanganga, Uri projects

In the modified design, India has excluded the facility of water storage for the Kishanganga hydropower project as demanded by Pakistan.


Did we remove the storage?

Yes...India converted the project to a run-of-the-river system but still with the same 330 MW capacity. Kapil Sibal announced it on Apr. 19, 2006. Still, it was rejected by the TSP side claiming it to be a violation of IWT.
Quote:
if yes, why the hell?

Oh, that's the usual "appeasement" technique. We did it in Salal. We are suffering today there. We stopped the Tulbul Navigation project. To be fair to the babus/political masters, it was before the NE's verdict.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2007 08:23 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Quote:
This run of the river system with some storage built in for siltage i.e. like Bhagliar or like Salal without gates etc?

RM, the storage is called "Pondage" which is just to take care of fluctuations in river flow and even out power production. The siltage control is done through low-level sluice gates. After the NE's verdict in the Baglihar case, all such projects will have them as a standard.
Quote:
Can we now not convert it back to storage dam?

There is not much information on how far various works have progressed. Generally it is impossible to convert like that. Normally, "storage" dams will be of the order of a hundred times the capacity of run-of-river systems.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2007 12:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 996
SSridhar wrote:
Quote:
This run of the river system with some storage built in for siltage i.e. like Bhagliar or like Salal without gates etc?

RM, the storage is called "Pondage" which is just to take care of fluctuations in river flow and even out power production. The siltage control is done through low-level sluice gates. After the NE's verdict in the Baglihar case, all such projects will have them as a standard.
Quote:
Can we now not convert it back to storage dam?

There is not much information on how far various works have progressed. Generally it is impossible to convert like that. Normally, "storage" dams will be of the order of a hundred times the capacity of run-of-river systems.


Re Sr

it is correct that storage dam is very big compared to run of river. The point in what basis earlier it was planned to be storage? Also in Bhagliar dam case, the total pondage is also pretty big though only usuable pondage is referred to! 500mcm vs 35mcm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2007 21:39 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
I am not sure what capacity of the "storage" was planned for the Kishanganga project earlier. The main aspect to be considered for run-of-the-river system within the ambit of IWT is that the "impounded" waters must be let within the system within 7 days (with a 10% variation permitted). A storage system, OTOH, will obviate the need to let waters back within 7 days. The Storage need not necessarily be very large like say in Bhakra dam.

The IWT allows India the following provisions on the tributaries of Jhelum for non-consumptive use:
  • 0.50 MAF for General Storage
  • 0.25 MAF for Power Storage and another
  • 0.75 MAF for flood storage

This allows India to "store" 0.75 MAF ( or ~ 1 Billion Cubic Metres of operating pool, that excludes any Dead Storage. Compare this with 35 Million Cu. M for Baglihar) on Jhelum's tributary.

Added Later: The success of the 280 MW Uri-II project (scheduled for completion by Dec 2009), downstream of Uri-I depends on waters of the Kishanganga diverted thro' Wullar into Jhelum main.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 May 2007 01:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 996
SSridhar wrote:
I am not sure what capacity of the "storage" was planned for the Kishanganga project earlier. The main aspect to be considered for run-of-the-river system within the ambit of IWT is that the "impounded" waters must be let within the system within 7 days (with a 10% variation permitted). A storage system, OTOH, will obviate the need to let waters back within 7 days. The Storage need not necessarily be very large like say in Bhakra dam.

The IWT allows India the following provisions on the tributaries of Jhelum for non-consumptive use:
  • 0.50 MAF for General Storage
  • 0.25 MAF for Power Storage and another
  • 0.75 MAF for flood storage
This allows India to "store" 0.75 MAF ( or ~ 1 Billion Cubic Metres of operating pool, that excludes any Dead Storage. Compare this with 35 Million Cu. M for Baglihar) on Jhelum's tributary.

Added Later: The success of the 280 MW Uri-II project (scheduled for completion by Dec 2009), downstream of Uri-I depends on waters of the Kishanganga diverted thro' Wullar into Jhelum main.


If I understand it correctly the above figures would total upto 2000mcm live / usable storage which means we can build dam of Bhakra Nangal size (??)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 May 2007 07:42 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
RM, there are a few major differences, though.
  • Bhakra is a multipurpose project, mainly for irrigation and generation of ~ 3000 MW power. It is therefore large.Kishanganga is not meant like that and the peak power will be 330 MW. There is no irrigation component.
  • In Bhakra, the natural and narrow gorge with high abutments was ideal for a large dam and submergence of large areas was handled more easily. In Kishanganga, the Gurez valley is in danger and therefore a large storage dam (even if the IWT allows it) may be impossible. There are already protests on this environmental issue and GoI has to be careful. This might be one reason why GoI decided to have a run-of-the-river system.
  • The capacities allowed to be built (i.e. 0.75 MAF) are for all tributaries of Jhelum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 May 2007 13:06 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 996
Sr

Thnaks for all your info. There are interesting times ahead, I think. let us see!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 May 2007 13:58 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Raj Malhotra wrote:
Sr

Thnaks for all your info. There are interesting times ahead, I think. let us see!

RM, you're welcome. With TSP around, there is no dearth of comedy, crime and conflicts. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 28 May 2007 09:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Nov 2003 12:31
Posts: 593
Location: USA
Pakistan to raise river pollution issue with Delhi

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Pakistan is expected to take up with Indian authorities the issue of water quality and increasing levels of pollutants in the western Himalayan rivers, which are the main source of water to Pakistan, on Tuesday.

Pakistan Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jammat Ali Shah, who is arriving here to participate in the bi-annual Indus Commission meeting on Tuesday, is believed to have told his Indian interlocutors that he was perturbed to see the scale of pollution in the Jhelum river during his visit to the Kashmir Valley last March to inspect the Uri and Kishanganga hydro-power projects.

Shah has indicated that his team will raise the issue of quality of water flowing to Pakistan at the joint commission meeting in Delhi because he believes the issue comes under the purview of the Indus Water Treaty.

The interlocutors who have spoken to him after his visit to India quoted him as stating that he was disturbed to see drains from Srinagar to Baramulla town opening directly into the river. An engineer who accompanied Shah to the Uri project said the Pakistani commissioner was visibly dissatisfied with the explanation of the steps taken by the Jammu and Kashmir government to check water pollution.

Shah had also been quoted as saying that the water level in the rivers is low, particularly during the winters when only filth flows to Pakistan. He is not the only one raising the alarm over pollution in Himalayan rivers. The J&K Pollution Control Board too confirms the increasing deterioration of water quality in Jhelum, the lifeline for the Kashmir Valley.

Experts in Srinagar have called for joint India-Pakistan efforts to check pollution and improve water quality in Jhelum, Chenab and the Indus that flow directly to Pakistan. The pollution control board officials lament that they are not provided funds even to monitor water quality. For the past few years, they have failed to set up monitoring stations beyond Srinagar, where filth levels are the highest.

Doctors say northern Kashmir areas, particularly those in the immediate vicinity of Srinagar city, are reporting the most cases of water-borne diseases like jaundice (hepatitis-E).

South of Srinagar, where Jhelum enters the city, the board has recorded pollutants at a high degree beyond acceptable levels for human consumption.

Jhelum is known for draining dirt, garbage and sludge over the years and during periods of high militancy, it could be also seen draining scores of corpses. Experts believe over the last decade, its water has become more acidic and that there has been a gradual increase of sodium and potassium sulphates, nitrates, nitrogen containing substances, and iron in it. It has also led to extinction of several species of fish.

In Srinagar alone, among 52 sewage units, 35 flow directly into Jhelum. The rest also ultimately drain into the river. Each of these units adds 3,000 cubic feet of sewage to the river every second. This is besides the hospital and municipal waste and sewerage that go into the river every day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 29 May 2007 21:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30
Posts: 2880
Napak water going into Napak land. Per madrassa maths and Jinn theory double napak is Hallal and acceptable. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 29 May 2007 21:14 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14719
Location: Chennai
Vipul wrote:
Napak water going into Napak land. Per madrassa maths and Jinn theory double napak is Hallal and acceptable. :D

Vipul, excellent. :rotfl:

Here is what the IWT states in Article IV:
Quote:
(10) Each Party declares its intention to prevent, as far as practicable undue pollution of the waters of the Rivers which might affect adversely uses similar in nature to those to which the waters were put on the Effective Date, and agrees to take all reasonable measures to ensure that, before any sewage or industrial waste is allowed to flow into the Rivers, it will be treated., where necessary, in such manner as not materially to affect those uses : Provided that the criterion of reasonableness shall be the customary practice in similar situations on the Rivers.


While pollution *must* be tackled, it is strange that TSP which has one of the most polluted set of waterbodies in Asia, leading to various diseases such as Hepatitis, gastroenteritis on a very large scale, is raising this issue without taking any action at all within its country to control pollution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 29 May 2007 22:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14767
Location: Deepest & Highest
Let Billion drains lead to Napakistan, it will make Bakistan a better place .
In this 21st century if India is the Brainland, Bakistan will take pride in becoming Drainland .


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2061 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 52  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lisa, pattnayak, saip and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group