Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 02 Oct 2014 15:12

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 941 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2012 23:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25217
Location: NowHere
The problem is one state wants to take more than the other can give. And, the other wants more barter than they the needy state willing to provide.

Bottom line: people are selfish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2012 23:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Posts: 5339
Location: badenberg, The Secular Republic
Quote:
Dam: Lime surki mixture not traced even after drilling 92 feet

Posted on: 12 Jan 2012


Kumili: Though the Mullaperiyar dam was drilled 92 feet deep, a strong mixture of lime surki was not found. The digging was done as per the instruction of the SC-appointed Empowered panel to examine the dam. Lack of lime surki mixture proves that the portion made of it, is very weak now, approving the claims of Kerala.

The portion, which were marked earlier for examinations were drilled. The decision was to examine the strength of lime surki obtained after drilling. But even after drilling 92 feet no such mixture was found. The total height of the dam is 155 feet. The portion made of surki lime exists till 90 feet and the rest is made of rock portion.

Lime surki mixture is a mixture of surki stones and jaggery as there was no cement during that time in 1895. When there were suspicions over its strength in 1970, the dam was strengthened with concrete and now it is proved that dam is sustaining due to that. Experts got only sand and rock from the grilled areas. New borehole drilling started in 45-meter gallery of the dam on Wednesday. Drilling was done 2 feet deep here but lime surki was not found as it was strengthened with concrete.

TN PWD secretary Sai Kumar and Dam safety director Paneerselvom reached the dam when they came to know of not finding lime surki mixture. When Kerala was about to get evidence on the weakness of dam, the TN PWD official began efforts to stop the drilling.
http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/story.php?id=118906


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2012 23:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Posts: 5339
Location: badenberg, The Secular Republic
Quote:
Let Kerala give up two taluks to end dam row: Karunanidhi

Posted on: 13 Jan 2012


Chennai : With Kerala insisting on a new dam in place of the Mullaperiyar Dam, DMK president Thursday revived a over five decade old demand: retrieval of Peeramedu and Devikulam taluks from Kerala.

In a statement here, Karunanidhi said: 'Now the central government should correct the wrong committed in 1886 by the British Governor of then Madras Presidency and the injustice committed to Tamil Nadu during the division of states on linguistic basis.'

He hoped that the Tamil Nadu government would take earnest action in retrieving Peeramedu and Devikulam taluks attached to Idukki district in Kerala.

Karunanidhi said the neglect of the demand to annex Peeramedu and Devikulam with Tamil Nadu had resulted in problems over the Mullaperiyar Dam between Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

He said the dam was built in Peeramedu area while the catchment area falls under the Devikulam taluk, and both areas were under the Pandya Kings of Tamil Nadu till the 12th century. { This guy is for real or what, :rotfl: but periyar did not flow east it always has flowed west even under Pandya kings so precedence of water rights then belong downstream only by this logic. }

According to Karunanidhi, historians have said that the British government in 1886 entered into an agreement with the Princely State of Travancore mistaking that the two taluks belonged to the latter.

Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been at loggerheads over the dam, built under an 1886 accord between the then Maharaja of Travancore and the British Raj.

While the dam is located in Kerala, its control is with Tamil Nadu and its waters serve the state.

Tamil Nadu wants the dam's storage capacity to be increased from the current 136 feet (41.5 metres) to 142 feet (43 metres) as per a Supreme Court order. Kerala wants a new dam.

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/story.php?id=118938


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2012 23:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Posts: 5339
Location: badenberg, The Secular Republic
SaiK wrote:
The problem is one state wants to take more than the other can give. And, the other wants more barter than they the needy state willing to provide.
That is needless equal equal and defies all ground realities. What more barter does one state want from the more needier one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2012 23:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25217
Location: NowHere
the only ground reality is water. rest is all dam(n) problems of human kind. regarding needs and equalities, should be driven by the share in either the source or barter on the produce that used the source.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2012 06:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02
Posts: 2548
12th century some pandya ruled 2 taluks. big deal. atleast 11 centuries before and 8 centuries since, thats like 20 of the 21 centuries since christ, nobody elsewhere gave a hoot about this pandya.

i wouldn't give a hoot about this pandya thingie (my second post on the issue), if it were only thiru ka* who was talking about it. it's the fact that 'eminent' posters on this forum peddle the same line that winds me up.

deleted.


Last edited by shaardula on 14 Jan 2012 14:47, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2012 12:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Posts: 4593
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Request to Theo/Vina/Stan.

Could you please post links to the Siruvani and Parambikulam 'disputes' please. In fact, info on any and all water disputes TN have with KL would help.

I see a lot of "you guys refuse water" arguments everywhere, but very little substance. I need to know the TN POV on all these so that we can debate them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 12:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40
Posts: 3522
Dileep wrote:
Could you please post links to the Siruvani and Parambikulam 'disputes' please.

Dileep, I am not very knowledgeable on these two matters, but just have a basic awareness of them.
Quote:

I see a lot of "you guys refuse water" arguments everywhere,

These arguments have always been there, TN is basically a water-sensitive state to a high degree with a lot of maakis who exploit this senstivity. That does nt justify these maakis' antics nor should it calibrate how KL or KA or AP reacts, but having been "shafted" by KA in such an open manner, most folks will be wary of the "cheat me twice and I am stoopid" canard of Bush. That is the broad sentiment that runs in So. TN if I can talk for the state with some confidence.

From KL's standpoint, just reinforcing the message should be sufficient, but what else can be done, I dont know. You can find the "actors" and "moral pontificating" circle of TN to be very much predictable if you take a careful look, they all converge on most issues of Tam pride despite pissing on each other's caste in the bgrnd. Some of these things are common even in KL (to different degree) from my understanding of KL, and I dont buy the socialist nonsense of Bade mian :). Agrarian reforms is a double-edged sword and as much as I appreciate what happened, it is also most definitely responsible for the gelf-economy of KL. What 2 do, Bade mian knows more about Newton's 3rd law than I can write it down, I am sure :).

Bottomline is, some of the silliness in TN is utterly nauseating to even the MTTT brigade, but if you have some MGR or someone else to spare, please do send them our way :). Some rationality will be much appreciated even though I am sure they will act MTTT in a short while and make you pull out all your hair in a jiffy. In short, you can debate with people who are rational. If you find irrational idiots aplenty, dont waste your time, seriously. Govt-to-Govt interactions tend to be a little more rational than you may believe to be the case, but dont cuss at me for standing up for the govts. They speak one way to the public and talk differently amongst themselves, else it wont work to be a govt. Just because they bullshit to you and me dont mean that they are biting the bullshit they are peddling. Dont fall for the brf disease of assuming stoopidity on the part of govts :).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 19:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Posts: 4593
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Stan, my question was more at Theo, who did allude to KL being unfair on Siruvani and Parambikulam. I do not believe we were. I needed the facts before we debate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 20:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02
Posts: 2548
stan, what is MTTT?

deleted.


Last edited by shaardula on 16 Jan 2012 04:15, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 20:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02
Posts: 2548
stan for you...
hogenkal more about land than water.

http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2008/04/ ... not-water/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 21:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
MTTT-more tamizh than tamizh i think

shaardula avare,
I think you mean western TN when you say No TN.Satyamangalam,Coimbatore fall in Western TN.

Kerala is extraordinarily generous in both MP and Parambikulam-Aliyar.The latter project was envisaged and completed in independent India.Siruvani dam is in Kerala but the river flows into TN.There is no dispute over siruvani.

Kerala has legitimate rights on Bhavani because part of catchment is in Kerala,i think it is the moyyar,but it is almost impossible for kerala to utilise it as it is part of mudumalai.


Last edited by svenkat on 15 Jan 2012 21:45, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 21:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6096
Location: Still in transit....
Dileep,

It is not a question of fair/unfair. TN would never question Kerala generosity, esp. in comparison to KA on the Kaveri.

The impression that Kerala is creating suggests that the Aliyar treaty and Siruvani were both Kerala 'donating' its waters to TN. This is not the truth. At least not the full truth. You can see how even Svenkat believes this per above. There are reasons why these treaties can not be the basis for saying MP lease can be changed.

Was Kerala generous here, absolutely. Few states allow State two to built a dam on their territory to divert water, even if it is from State Two's territory. Remember the battles over the Sardar Sarovar & Maharashtra's benefits. Or the recent war like situation over the back flooding or Orissa by the Inchampalli dam in AP. Still not the entire story.


Last edited by Theo_Fidel on 15 Jan 2012 21:57, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 21:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
I dont think KA has 'shafted' TN as much as it is claimed.When there has been rains,KA just cannot hold the water.Thats why in most years after the tribunal announced the award,TN has received more water than it is 'entitled' to.

http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/14/stories/2011061462260400.htm

In 13 out of 20 yrs from 1991 to 2011,TN has received water in excess.This includes 6 yrs when the 'excess' was more than 100 TMC with a maximum excess of 194 TMC more than the alloted due.In the seven yrs where there was a deficit,in two yrs the deficit was -0.5 and -02.25 TMC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 22:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6096
Location: Still in transit....
Svenkat,

You are simply incorrect. KA does not share drought time flows. This is the main reason it refuses to notify the award as it is preparing for the next drought. They are looking out for their interests. Even now KA fills its dams to the brink before releasing flows which means it always comes as a flood. It did not use to be this way. People have forgotten that the Kaveri used to be called the gentle river. Every year the water comes later and later. The key statistic you should really look at is the production of delta rice. That will tell you how wildly inconsistent the water flow is despite good rains. Right now it swings from about 10 Million tonnes to about 3 Million tonnes annually.

We are fortunate not to have had a string of droughts like in the 1880's recently. When the Kaveri's was the sole source of water. For 8 years. No rain in Delta. Lets see what happens if that reoccurs.

Again it is not a question of KA being unfair, their demands on the Kaveri have grown dramatically. Population, industry, cities all demand water. Being upstream they get first priority. Every year TN must do with less. It is a simple fact that make TN more psychotic every year. They see the coming train wreck and are helpless to stop it. Even the SC is powerless. TN is second priority that is what causes heartburn.

Just to remind people, delta rice feeds everyone including much of KA/Kerala. For various reasons, plains/delta rice productivity will always be dramatically better than than hill country production. Often 2 times, even 3 times better. Around the world, plains/delta rice production eventually put hill country production out of business. Kerala has learned this lesson the hard way. South India is the one odd place where production is moving from our delta's to least productive high lands.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2012 22:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
Theoji,
Agreed.But KA gets its max rain in SW monsoon ie between June and Sept.The SW monsoon tapers very rapidly after that.

The truth is somewhere in between.Lets not forget TN gets both SW and NE monsoon.

KA cannot increase cultivation area(in the Kaveri basin) beyond a limit.Its upland plateau.The storage capacity in KRS is far less than in Mettur.

A lot of rice production in KA is coming now from the raichur doab and here again there is 'criticism of andhrites' using extremely water intensive eco-unfriendly techniques.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2012 11:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Posts: 4593
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
In other words, you have nothing to show against KL when KL promises a "Siruvani" like agreement for the new dam to be built at MP.

thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2012 12:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6982
There is a difference between lease and award. Lease , invariably , implies that ownership vests with the lessor. TN would always remain lessee subject to terms of lease. No more rights accrue to TN, neither historical nor legal. We need to look at terms in the lease agreements to determine what rights are granted or retained and what conditions are imposed to make lease void. Legislative rights remain with KL. That is why Act on Dam safety was not held unconstitutional by SC .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2012 02:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27
Posts: 1516
Water Policy draft favours privatisation of services
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... epage=true


Rather than privitisation of the present services private services can run a parallel system by investing and supplying. Congress govt is trying to sell India (Ahuwalia's suggestion). The present govt is pushing Indian people for a complete revolt against the systems which is where the red menace, terror groups and separatists groups get their support. A responsible capitalism and inclusive growth are what are essential for India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2012 04:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6096
Location: Still in transit....
With the complete denial of all items proposed Kerala by SC committee the agitation has petered out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2012 04:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27
Posts: 1516
India's ‘water man' Krishnamurthy Rao passes away
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... ef=wl_home

Desalination is the solution to South India's water problems. Each Southern cities can have one or two Desalination units. Such units can be privatised and for cities water can be supplied through units and be charged. Many houses in Tamil Nadu cities have two or three hours supply of good water per day or per two days. the middle class and upper middle class will be able to pay the water charges if they are supplied properly and more than what they are given now.
Quote:
"Water is going to be a bigger crisis than energy, considering that the demand is projected to go up by 50% in the years ahead," Ahluwalia said while addressing a press meet at the 94th annual conference of the Indian Economic Association (IEA) here on Wednesday. "Unless we make an apt analysis of the prevailing water balance and plan the use of water, the crisis will only deepen," he added.


Quote:
Ahluwalia said, "Desalination of sea water can be a solution to meeting the future requirement of water but, the cost of energy required for desalination remains a major impediment."


http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -ahluwalia


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2012 09:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02
Posts: 2548
Theo_Fidel wrote:
With the complete denial of all items proposed Kerala by SC committee the agitation has petered out.


glibness is never a cure for reality. fact remains that if god forbid something happens, all the loss is to be borne by people downstream. thigh slappers upstream, and their rent boys elsewhere, have no skin in the game when things go bad. the courts dispensing wisdom on law can only talk about what is. they have no imagination of what could be. you dont live with neighbors thumping books at them, thats just not how it is done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2012 11:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Posts: 6096
Location: Still in transit....
^^

Please note that I support a new dam. It is this crazy on/off agitation that asks for lease rewriting that I shake my head at. Almost like it is guaranteed not to get a new lease. Reality always looks odd.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2012 06:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25217
Location: NowHere
It's been silent now for so long!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2012 23:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30
Posts: 6982
Mullaperiyar dam structurally & hydrologically safe: panel

Setting at rest the controversy over the safety of the 116-year-old Mullaperiyar dam, the Empowered Committee, headed by the former Chief Justice of India A.S. Anand, has said it is “structurally and hydrologically safe, and Tamil Nadu can raise the water level from 136 to 142 feet after carrying out certain repairs.”


In its report submitted to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the committee is understood to have said: “The dam is seismically safe.” Last year's earth tremors in that region “did not have any impact on the Mullaperiyar dam and the Idukki reservoir and there was no danger to the safety of the two dams.”

The committee's conclusion is expected to bring relief to both Kerala and Tamil Nadu after apprehensions were raised on the Mullaperiyar dam's safety following mild tremors in that region. The committee gave its findings on the basis of the reports, studies and investigations conducted by various agencies constituted to go into the safety aspects. The committee was set up in February 2010 during the course of arguments on Tamil Nadu's suit questioning the law enacted by Kerala to restrict the water level in the dam to 136 ft.

On Kerala's demand for construction of a new dam, the Empowered Committee said that in view of the age of the existing reservoir, building a new one could be considered as an alternative proposal. If a new dam was constructed, the maximum water level (MWL) should be fixed at 155 ft and a fresh agreement signed between the two States on water sharing and maintenance.


While Justice K.T. Thomas, retired Supreme Court judge representing Kerala on the committee, gave a dissenting note and said water level in the existing dam should not be raised above 136 feet, Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, retired Supreme Court judge representing Tamil Nadu, opposed the proposal for a new dam saying it was not necessary.

The committee framed five main issues: “Which strengthening measures as suggested by the CWC [Central Water Commission] have already been carried out by Tamil Nadu for the dam, each of the two: the main and baby dam components, to ensure its safety and stability based on the investigations so far carried out? Which remaining measures from amongst those suggested by the CWC are yet to be carried out by Tamil Nadu for the safety and stability of the dam and when will they be undertaken and completed? Should the reservoir level be raised from 136 ft.? If yes, what further measures for strengthening the existing dam do the two parties envisage to allow the raising of reservoir level to 142 ft. and beyond?”

Kerala proposed additional issues: “What are the needs of Tamil Nadu in the waters in the existing Mullaperiyar dam? Does Tamil Nadu suffer any injury, if the storage is not raised beyond 136 ft? Does the MWL go beyond 155 ft. submerging the lands which are not part of the Lease Deed of 1886? If so, to what extent? Will increase of storage beyond 136 ft. prejudicially affect the environment, ecology and biodiversity? Will the downstream Idukki dam collapse if the Mullaperiyar dam breaks? What will be the consequent loss of lives and property to both States?; What benefits would accrue to both States from the diversion of Periyar waters, under the alleged Lease Deed of 1886 and the supplemental agreements of 1970? Is Periyar an inter-State river?”

The Empowered Committee, which includes the former Secretary to the Ministry of Water Resources, C.D. Thatte, and the retired CWC Chief Engineer, D.K. Mehta, has answered all the issues in its 250-page report.

The case comes up for further hearing before a five-judge Constitution Bench on May 4.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2012 11:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Posts: 4593
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي
Yup! I am going to RTI for a copy of the SC verdict and keep it handy, so that I can show it to the water rushing in. I am sure the water shall see its lord and recede!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Sep 2012 09:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-comes-down-on-karnataka/article3945744.ece
Quote:
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its displeasure over Karnataka not complying with a direction issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, heading the Cauvery River Authority (CRA), to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water daily to Tamil Nadu from September 20 to October 15.

A Bench comprising Justice D.K. Jain and Justice Madan B. Lokur told counsel V.N. Raghupathy, appearing for Karnataka: “This is an order passed by the Prime Minister. But you don’t want to comply… It is really unfortunate that nobody is prepared to listen to the Prime Minister, who is the highest executive authority. Have we reached that stage when you say to the Prime Minister, ‘you pass an order, we will not comply with it’? We are sorry for the kind of respect you have for the Prime Minister.”

The Bench directed Karnataka to comply with the CRA’s order. It issued notice to Karnataka seeking its response within a week to Tamil Nadu’s application, and a rejoinder from Tamil Nadu within a week thereafter.

Senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Tamil Nadu, told the court that the CRA had directed Karnataka on September 19 to release 9,000 cusecs from September 20, but the order was not complied with. Since Karnataka had failed to obey the order, it should be treated as constitutional breakdown, and the court should direct the Centre to invoke Article 355 or 356. He said the court might order deployment of the Army in Karnataka to ensure it complied with the order. Typical tamizh chauvinist response. We blame all the ills on Congress and we think narendrabhai can solve all problems.There are issues like KA adamance which is beyond party politics.Sad to see KA attitude


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2012 11:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/vck-demands-dismissal-of-karnataka-govt/article4001858.ece

Quote:
Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi leader Thol Tirumavalavan on Tuesday demanded that the Centre dismiss Karnataka Government for ‘violating’ the orders of Supreme Court and Cauvery River Authority to release water to Tamil Nadu.

DMK President M Karunanidhi has last week urged Prime Minister to dismiss the BJP Government in Karnataka.


http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/karnataka/sc-disapproves-of-variation-in-release-of-water-to-tn/article3993998.ece

Quote:
Bench says releasing 3,000 cusecs on some days and increasing the quantum on other days may not be justified

The Supreme Court on Friday disapproved of the action of the Karnataka government in releasing 3,000 cusecs to Tamil Nadu on some days and increasing the quantity over and above the stipulated 9,000 cusecs on some other days.

A Bench of Justices D.K. Jain had on September 28 directed Karnataka to comply with the direction issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, heading the Cauvery River Authority, to release 9,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu from September 20 to October 15.

The Bench was hearing applications by Tamil Nadu to direct Karnataka to release 2 tmcft of water daily for 24 days till the onset of the northeast monsoon, and Karnataka seeking modification of the September 28 order.

During the resumed hearing Justice Jain after perusing the chart submitted by Karnataka on the water released on each day till now, told senior counsel Fali Nariman appearing for Karnataka: “Your decision to release 3,000 cusecs on some days and increasing the quantum cumulatively on some other days may not be justified. It might result in problems as some areas may be flooded or submerged because of the excess releases.”

Earlier Mr. Nariman told the court that the cumulative releases would show that there was no deficiency as claimed by Tamil Nadu. However, senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan submitted that he would demonstrate that as of today there had been a deficiency of 4 tmcft of water and Karnataka could still make up the deficit in the next three days till October 15.

Mr. Vaidyanathan drew the court’s attention to an order passed by the Cauvery Monitoring Committee on Thursday (directing Karnataka to release 8.85 tmcft of water from October 16 to 31 from its reservoirs to Tamil Nadu) and said the order of the CMC would have a bearing in the current proceedings.

Counsel told the court that Karnataka had admitted before the CMC that it had irrigated 12.5 lakh acres as against the 8.5 lakh acres permitted by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. He said even assuming there was a deficit of 41 per cent rainfall during the southwest monsoon, Karnataka’s share on the basis of pro-rata sharing formula would be only 55 tmcft but it had already utilised 60 tmcft of water. He said he would place before the court the order of the CMC and wanted the court to defer the hearing till October 19. Accordingly the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on October 19 and permitted Karnataka to file a brief additional affidavit and rejoinder by Tamil Nadu by October 16.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2012 10:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article1357894.ece

Quote:
Responding to the suggestion made by the Supreme Court, Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa will meet her Karnataka counterpart Jagadish Shettar at Bangalore on Thursday in a bid to resolve the Cauvery water-sharing dispute.

The last Chief Minister-level talks on the Cauvery water dispute was held on January 6, 1997, between then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi and Karnataka Chief Minister J H Patel.

The Tamil Nadu government had filed a petition before the SC seeking directions to Karnataka to release Cauvery water due during the current year as per the distress sharing formula. When the case came up for hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court had suggested that the Chief Ministers of both States should meet to find a solution to the issue, keeping in mind the interests of farmers in both the States and the case has been posted for Friday, an official release here said. It added that the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister will be meeting her Karnataka counterpart as per the suggestion made by the apex court.

The depleting storage level in the Mettur dam due to the non-release of water by Karnataka and the inadequate northeast monsoon have added to the woes of farmers in Tamil Nadu.

The Chief Ministers had last met at the Cauvery Regulatory Authority meeting on September 19 at Delhi, in which Shettar had staged walk out against the direction of the PM to ensure release of 9,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu on a daily basis.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2012 19:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
Cauvery water dispute tribunal award to be notified by December-end

Quote:
After nearly six years, the final award of the Cauvery water dispute tribunal will be notified by the end of this month, states sharing the disputed Cauvery river waters were informed today.

At a meeting of the Cauvery monitoring committee (CMC) , secretary water resources D V Singh who chairs the panel told representatives of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry that steps "shall" be taken to notify the final award of the tribunal at the earliest, "but not later than the end of this month."

The meeting of the CMC was convened today to give an interim order on water sharing between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

Once a gazette notification is issued, institutions like the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) chaired by the Prime Minister and the CMC will cease to exist.
The Tribunal, comprising chairman Justice N P Singh and members N S Rao and Sudhir Narain, in a unanimous award in February, 2007 had determined the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740 thousand million cubic (TMC) feet at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site.

The proceedings of the Tribunal, set up in June, 1990, went on for more than 16 years.

In, what was then described as a balancing act, the Tribunal gave Tamil Nadu 419 TMC of water(as against the demand of 562 TMC); Karnataka 270 TMC (as against its demand of 465 TMC); Kerala 30 TMC and Puducherry 7 TMC.

For environmental protection, it had reserved 10 TMC. The Tribunal's award will come into effect within 90 days of its notification by the Centre. As per law, the award comes into being after being notified by the Centre through its publication in a gazette.



http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/12/07/370-Kannada-Rakshana-Vedike-upset-over-SC-decision-on-Cauvery-River-water-dispute.html

Quote:
Activists of the hardline pro-Kannadiga outfit, Kannada Rakshana Vedike staged a protest rally in Mysore against the Supreme Court's directive to the Karnataka Government to share the waters of the River Cauvery with neighbouring Tamil Nadu.

Sharing the water of River Cauvery has been a bone of contention between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for over three decades.

Earlier this year, the apex Court upheld the directive by the Cauvery River Authority (CRA), to the Karnataka government to release 9,000 cusecs water of River Cauvery from Krishnaraja Sagara Reservoir (KRS) to Tamil Nadu.

D Sundar, a functionary of the Kannada Rakshana Vedike, said: "In fact, it is for both the Chief Ministers (of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu) to sit and have thorough parleys on the issue. Of course, Jayalalithaa (of Tamil Nadu) came to Bangalore and discussed with her counterpart but the talks remained inconclusive since she was adamant, unaware of the problems faced by Karnataka."

Upset over the Supreme Court's verdict, the activists also said that interest of the local people has been ignored.

"But today, we the people of Karnataka are very much upset over the Supreme Court's directive to release 10,000 cusecs of water daily for Tamil Nadu. No doubt, we ought to respect the Supreme Court's order but the sad part is that it has been arbitrary and the sufferers are the general public in Karnataka and the farmers in particular. We are ashamed that Chief Minister Jagadish Shettar (of Karnataka) who initially said that not even a drop would be shared with Tamil Nadu, clandestinely released water during the twilight hours. You should go there (Krishnaraja Sagara Dam from where the waters of River Cauvery was released) and see for yourself how it has been turned into a fortress with strong deployment of police. This is not done; local interests have been ignored," added Sundar.

However, the police acted sternly and rounded up the protestors from the spot.

Commenting on these developments, former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, said: "Karnataka is suffering not from today, it is suffering from last 120 years. We have been put to such harassment. We are unable to take even a single crop that to dry-cum-wet and only 8 to 10 lakh acres wet and all other areas are dry-cum-wet. This is the situation. Whereas Tamil Nadu is taking three crops and they don't want to sympathise with the Karnataka people. Unfortunately, even at the national level, there was such an adverse propaganda

Meanwhile, the Karnataka Government submitted a petition to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, requesting him to grant a stay on the decision of Cauvery River Authority (CRA) that ordered sharing of waters with Tamil Nadu.

Prime Minister heads the panel, consisting of Chief Ministers of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Karnataka has already filed a plea before the CRA to reconsider its order in wake of rain deficiency and prevailing drought-like situation in the region


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Dec 2012 08:23 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 14992
Location: Chennai
Nine Questions before notifying the Cauvery Tribunal Award - Ramaswamy R Iyer, The Hindu
Quote:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s inquiry whether the Government of India is not thinking of notifying the Cauvery Tribunal’s Award, and the government’s indication that it might do so shortly, represent a major new development. The Tribunal’s Final Order of February 2007 ought to have been notified in the gazette in 2007 itself, but it was not. If it is at last going to be notified, that is a matter for satisfaction. However, this gives rise to some intriguing questions.

1. One wonders why the Supreme Court did not ask this question much earlier, say five years ago, when it admitted the Special Leave Petitions of the States.

2. It appears that the hesitation that the government had evidently felt earlier about notifying the Award because of the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions (SLP) of the States was uncalled for. If so, the delay in notifying the Award was pointless and unfortunate.

3. The Supreme Court has given no indication as to whether, and if so when, it proposes to take up the SLPs for hearing. As and when it does so, we do not know what the outcome will be. However, that bridge can be crossed when it is reached.

4. The Tribunal cannot function until a new Chairman is appointed in place of the earlier chairman who has resigned. One hopes that the Government of India will do this promptly.

5. Even if the Award is notified and a new Chairman is appointed, the Tribunal will still have to be persuaded to overcome its earlier reluctance to take up the clarificatory petitions for consideration. The fact that the Supreme Court evidently sees no objection to the notification of the Final Order would ipso facto seem to imply that the Tribunal can go ahead and consider the clarificatory petitions.

6. Once the Final Order comes into effect on notification, it will be final and binding on the disputant States, and will have to be complied with fully. The fact that the SLPs are pending cannot be the ground for non-compliance with the Award on the part of any State. After its notification it cannot be put into limbo. As and when the SLPs are disposed of by the Supreme Court, the impact of the judgment on the Tribunal’s Award will have to be considered, but until then the Award will have to be obeyed.

7. Similarly, the fact that clarificatory petitions are pending with the Tribunal does not mean that the Final Order can be kept in abeyance.

8. Once the Final Order is notified, the Interim Order will cease to be in force. The Cauvery River Authority (CRA) and the Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC) will cease to exist because they were created specifically for monitoring the implementation of the Interim Order. There will thus be an institutional vacuum until the Cauvery Management Board (CMB) is established. It is therefore necessary to establish the CMB immediately. One hopes that the States will cooperate with the Centre and with one another in the establishment of the CMB and in its smooth functioning thereafter. In the interim, it may be necessary to re-establish the CRA and the CMC with specific reference to the Final Order.

9. The first task of the CMB should be to work out a formula for water-sharing in difficult (i.e., low-flow) years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Dec 2012 08:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
TN violated Parambikulam-Aliyar river pact: Kerala

Quote:
Kerala Tuesday alleged Tamil Nadu has violated the Parambikulam-Aliyar river pact (PAP) and said it would explore legal steps to get its due share of water. Chief Minister Oommen Chandy told the assembly that Wednesday cabinet would discuss the issue and consider all options.

"If necessary the issue will be taken up with the Chief Minister of that State. It is Kerala's right to get our due share under the PAP agreement. The state will do everything possible to get it', Chandy said.

He said Tamil Nadu had not responded positively to Kerala's request to release its due share even after water Resources Minister wrote two letters in this regard. He was replying to a notice for an adjournment motion on the severe drought conditions prevailing in the state.

Seeking a debate on the motion, LDF brought to the notice of the house the drought situation in Chittoor taluk and other parts of Palakkad district and the urgency with which the government had to take up the issue with Tamil Nadu.

With TN not releasing water to Kerala, paddy cultivation in about 20,000 hectares in Placard district was under the threat of destruction, they claimed. LDC Opposition members staged a walkout in protest against Speaker G Katheryn's refusal to admit the motion following Chandy's reply.


The PA dam inside Kerala is managed by TN.This is a project built after Independence to divert waters of a west flowing KL river towards east in Coimbatore Dist.

Rant alert:

Reading humble bumble farmer's(Ex PM of India Shri Deve Gowda) statement on 'injustice' to KA one wonders whether this whole thing called India is one big fake.He is talking about waters which in the first place do not belong to KA and which has been alloted to TN by Supreme Court.It is KAs fault if they have increased area under cultivation without pondering whether they have any rights over the waters.

One would expect that Cong,JD(S) and BJP would educate KA farmers about the facts of the case-the court judgement,federal polity,the international doctrine and past judgements on inter-state and international water disputes instead of inflaming passions and misleading people.One would think that our nation has fairly decent water resources and people,politicians,experts would be thinking of optimising/conserving our resources for drinking,irrigation etc

In something totally unrelated,yet deeply interlinked issue imvho,for decades TN politicians have baited brahmanas on reservation issue using the same mob ideology.They have claimed that admission to colleges and jobs should by right go to non-brahmanas(almost all of whom have been declared 'backward' and without the criterian of elimination of creamy layer so that tamizh chauvinist exclusivist identity is never challenged.To be fair this unconstitutional protectionism has also given security and confidence.Also it is not as if KA has a very different policy within and the huge increase in pvt engg colleges in both KA and TN has eased the supply problem,yet it is TN which has caused trouble at the centre given its more robust and sadly virulent,though it is only a strain, sub-nationalism) and only mannin mainthar tamizh people have right to education and jobs that brahmanas as aryan invaders can get 'whatever is left over'.

True the tamizh brahmanas themselves are hardly homogenous.They include the most dynamic/big industrialists(tvs/INDIA ceMENTS/Simpson/CTS) to a small poor sub-class

Theres a tamizh pazhamozhi which says 'rishi moolam,nadi moolam paarka koodathu'.DMK politicians deride the Vedic heritage and its values claiming its a foreign import while they want water from Kaveri,parambikulam,mullaiperiyaar.

Its not as if KA,KL,AP,Shiv Sena,Northern India,Punjab does not have their own hypocrisies,warts etc.

And Sushuptiji think narendra bhai is the messiah to solve all the issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Dec 2012 10:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Posts: 311
Location: Bharatvarsha
svenkat wrote:
Reading humble bumble farmer's(Ex PM of India Shri Deve Gowda) statement on 'injustice' to KA one wonders whether this whole thing called India is one big fake.He is talking about waters which in the first place do not belong to KA and which has been alloted to TN by Supreme Court.It is KAs fault if they have increased area under cultivation without pondering whether they have any rights over the waters.

:roll:
Is it so difficult to understand that, with increasing population, the requirements of food crops also rises calling for increase in cultivated area?
I would delete the post if I were you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Dec 2012 11:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
prashanthji,
KA can cultivate whatever it wants within its alloted share.There is a dispute and Supreme Court has given its judgement.And this judgement has increased KAs share from 185 TMC(around 1975) to 270 TMC ie 50%.The Supreme Court has considered all sides to the dispute.There are review petitions and SC might modify its judgement if theres merit.

How was KA feeding its population before.There has been change in crops grown etc.KA has still a big unutilised share in Raichur-Tungabhadra Doab.

And beyond all that,I am astonished at your question being asked in BRF.We all believe in unity of India,her food security,in India as one agricultural unit and market.

Throughout Bharatha Varsha in every state there are regions with less irrigation.Historically,here paddy was not cultivated.So this is a national mission to ascertain demand and grow crops.It is unconstitutional to divert waters which have been alloted to another state after considered deliberations by the SC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Dec 2012 20:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3824
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Knowing that there was shortage in the cauvery basin, encouraging TN farmers to go in for 2/3rd crop by hoping on northeast monsoons, and then demanding water for that crop after the NE monsoons failed too, is not very good behavior from TN. Karnataka farmers were just trying to get one crop out this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Dec 2012 08:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Posts: 5339
Location: badenberg, The Secular Republic
The water rights for farming is beginning to sound like the industry license raj. So newcomers to the profession are ruled out by the existing mafia claiming exclusive rights and first use.

Of course in the end all are subject to court rulings, but one does ponder over the reasons for the rulings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Dec 2012 09:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
Principles of Water Apportionment
Apportionment of Waters of Kaveri

Bade Saar,
Any one can go to Ministry of Water Resources website and read the judgement.We are not a banana republic.

Saar,
Dont know what your grievance is,if you have one.And I think imvho,'mafia' is a strong word for rights enjoyed over centuries and we are talking about livelihood issues.KA's allotment has been increased by 50% over what it enjoyed in 1975.Thats not an insignificant increase.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Dec 2012 20:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Posts: 5339
Location: badenberg, The Secular Republic
No personal grievance, but when people claim farming rights from generations it does tick people off who are in modern day professions with no guarantee of jobs in their chosen profession.

Rule of the law is great and as I already said, we all have to oblige to this like it or not. But it does not mean laws are not made on false premises sometimes, if not always.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Dec 2012 22:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23
Posts: 1862
Fair point.We do live in very uncertain times.Still I suppopse,agriculture gets some deservedly special attention.

Its really a dog eat dog world.And I do wonder where so many of our disputes are going to lead to.One hopes law will prevail whether in Bombay,Bengaluru or Chennai or Delhi or Kolkatta.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Dec 2012 00:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36
Posts: 2910
Bade wrote:
No personal grievance, but when people claim farming rights from generations it does tick people off who are in modern day professions with no guarantee of jobs in their chosen profession.

Rule of the law is great and as I already said, we all have to oblige to this like it or not. But it does not mean laws are not made on false premises sometimes, if not always.

Claim by first use or claim by possession is an established principle of law all over the world.

For example the whole colarado river waters (except usage by mexico by treaty) is alloted according to that principle of first use. There is a reason why anyone says, possession is 9/10th the law and why the upper riparians have a huge advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 941 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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