South India River Water Issues/Disputes

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Bade wrote:....the express reasons for the lease and the dam was to create an agriculture based economy for the drought struck region a hundred years ago.....
....If the catchment area suddenly sees less of water due to man made effects or some natural events, the lease will stand except that there will be no water to draw.
During severe drought, which we have not seen for 50+ years, Mulla Periyar water is drinking water for the region. In normal years it is used for agriculture as well. Ground water is too saline in most areas of Vaigai basin. Madurai city is completely dependent on this water for drinking uses at ALL times.

Yes that is a risk of non-recourse leases. TN benefits as long as it rains. There are historic records of drought where less than 3 TMC of surface flow was realized from MP. If it stops raining long term, people would be forced to abandon the region. 3 TMC in MP means 0 TMC in theni area. Only drinking water will be available, entire year. No agriculture. 3 TMC may not seem like much but there there are records of drought in the the 1830's and 1880's when the Vaigai did not flow for 4 years. Zero TMC of water for 4 years. Such condition will recur many many times over the 999 year lease. In fact there are climatic models that show we are now in a ending wet phase and strong droughts are due within 30 years. Stake holders back then knew this situation would never change hence the 999 year lease. It was an understanding of the underlying climate dynamics. Unless that underlying climate cycle changes permanently TN will act extremely obstinately.
Last edited by Theo_Fidel on 09 Jan 2012 22:54, edited 1 time in total.
Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Stan_Savljevic »

Bade wrote:Putting the legal issues aside (since it is the only leg on which all of TN's argument stands),
Bade, in this day and age, the legal angle is the only thing that matters. Good intentions and good words were never nuff to start with even if we can all hark back to such glorified days as if they existed aplenty in the pre-47 era. Being a complete skeptic of such humanistic notions and grand-standing, I dont buy the claims that there was less corruption/less cheating/more morals in the pre-47 era or any era.

People need training to have morals just like people need training to think, these are not god-ordained rights nor do they come upon us because we are Hindus/Christians/.... People have always been oiseaules and have started to behave rationally/decently only when big brother started to shower his mighty glance or if some oiseaule took to be the King and made his rules god-sanctioned. In fact, as I age, I realize that if one reads too much into the goodness of humankind, he/she is veering to the idealist side of his/her fantasies whereas if one hedges his/her bets, then he/she is veering to the realist side.
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by shaardula »

Even with respect to safety how can we be so callous about it? that the dam is not the soundest of structures is a given, and a large loss in life and property is also a given. The loss is all KL's.

The dam will have to be rebuilt at some point. it is not likely to survive the entire agreement period. the question is when.

T
well, an entire people dont see the agreement as just and are 'coveting' and will 'covet' for next 900 years. what are you going to do about it, give them all lessons in morality? in any case, what is the morality of subjecting generations upon generations of people into an agreement which they have nothing to do with?

in anycase, what is KL doing? KL is not breaking any law, they are exercising their right to reframe the agreement.

people living today come before agreements made day before. status quo is not going to hold up for 900 more years. we better appreciate this and readjust to establish justice. the more this is delayed, the more bitterness will develop.
Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Stan_Savljevic »

shaardula wrote: what is the morality of subjecting generations upon generations of people into an agreement which they have nothing to do with?
Cmon, the 1970 round of additional documents was signed one generation back. Where was all this grand-standing then? Noone cared because Idukki was not there then. So conditions on the ground changes, and this "generations and generations are suffering under the brunt of a coerced agreement" gets peddled now? Should one see that skeptically or should one buy into all this argument of suffering?

KL is not breaking any law, they are exercising their right to reframe the agreement.
Exercising their right by passing a unilateral law in the Assembly that voids a Supreme Court judgment on which a decision is pending because our judicial system is slow? Nice, if such were de rigeur actions by every state, the whole machinery of inter-state relations will come crumbling down.

status quo is not going to hold up for 900 more years. we better appreciate this and readjust to establish justice.
Sure, the structure will come crumbling down. Lets rebuild, lets also do justice to the party that is status quo-ist here. Lets have the same lease agreement and lets rebuild, after all TN too should not suffer, no?! Has one minister said a word to this effect? No. So what exactly are we talking about here? Justice for one, and no justice for the other? Lets have justice both ways.
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by shaardula »

stan,
as i see it this is a matter between two regions, one in the river basin, and one just outside it. the basin cannot utilize all of the water, but have some good use for it. the people outside can benefit any and all water they can get. a good fair agreement. if you think current agreement is good and fair i have nothing more to say. 40 years ago nobody in india imagined this is how we will end up. in forty years my own family has seen three working generations and the fourth is about to get into the work force in a few years. what the 3rd generation is doing is beyond what the first and even the second generation imagined.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

Theo, I have always felt and one can assume a majority of people from KL too will not be in favor of denial of drinking water rights to TN, far into the future even beyond even the lease term, if our descendents are around then with similar moral bent of mind. Agricultural needs is a different game and may be subject to events of each epoch and their needs. And here it is just an inter-state issue, with even more people from both states crossing state borders and going to reside in the other one based on economic indicators of the times. So denial of drinking water can never happen and should never happen, IMO. The central govt can even be a guarantor to that if need be. There must be already existing mechanisms within the law to even impose it on all states, if needed just like the eminent domain law. So I will not worry about it too much.
Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Stan_Savljevic »

shaardula wrote: in forty years my own family has seen three working generations and the fourth is about to get into the work force in a few years. what the 3rd generation is doing is beyond what the first and even the second generation imagined.
Sure, understood. So what exactly is the guarantee that in another 40 years, if the population of KL increases and so does its water demands, and if the new dam is under the control of KL, they will not unilaterally abrogate the previous agreement and water guarantees? We already have a precedent here that the GoK will go to some extent to try to undo even a SC ruling, so what sanctity are we talking about? Is nt this the rule of the junglees? Should GoTN worry about such eventualities or should it sit on its backside and assume the generosity of people for eternity without ironclad legal guarantees?
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Bade,

TN does not just worry about it. It is psychotic with worry about it. Kerala does not get this dynamic.

People talk about it all day and all night and its easy to exploit the worry as politicians have done.
-------------------------------------------

If Kerala government wants to renegotiate it should have said so openly at the beginning. TN is already in the midst of nasty wars with KA & AP over water. Kerala could have easily exploited TN's anxiety to prevent yet another hostile front to work out a new lease.

Right now with the examples of bad faith at Parambikulam and recent rhetoric it is impossible for TN to back down.
Last edited by Theo_Fidel on 09 Jan 2012 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Stan_Savljevic »

Shaardula, you will give your word. But will your future generation keep the word? That is why you have a legal agreement, no?! Why are you attributing great morals to generations that are not even born yet? Is it a burden on these generations, yes. So lets have a mechanism where some decent bargains can be struck on the cost of water and benefits reaped, but changing the entire structure of the agreement is the solution, I cant see how this is fair to everyone.

If this whole issue was couched as a method to seek better rewards for water, then there is something sensible on the part of Kerala. There is a precedent where TN has agreed to changing the amount paid, I am sure a similar bargain can be used to seek better rewards for Kerala. If it is the structure of the agreement that is sought to be changed under the guise of safety (yes, it is a guise, if that is the pre-eminent thing that is bandied about in every exchange notwithstanding real safety issues), then it is going to be easily dismissed by one party.
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by shaardula »

reading this thread i have developed an understanding of TN concerns. But the scenario that you wrote, is not an if. KL's requirements will increase. what does KL do then?

I think it is not too early for people in india to think about efficiency and alternatives. these problems are going to aggravate over time. and TN will have to think of alternatives too.

agriculture is becoming increasingly unsustainable. have you checked lands outsides cities? people are making farm houses with decorative plants and trees on lands which were used to grow food. in coimbatore i saw some idiot building a residential layout on a piece of land bordered by standing crops. around bangalore, you have come all the way to maddur before you standing crops. land in bangalore, ramanagara are all taken up by idiots to make farm houses, resorts, ashrams and dhabas.
Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Stan_Savljevic »

shaardula wrote: KL's requirements will increase. what does KL do then?
Everyone's requirements are going to increase, not just Kerala's. Is whipping a frenzy of safety the solution to this mess? First of all, the issue of safety did nt come up till 1979, which in itself is amusing to note. Then, there is the hypothesis that Idukki dam may have a part to play in the increased seismic activity. Third, even if both Idukki and Mullaipperiyar are both responsible in some sense, what does one do with ownership issues. This is something that needs to be addressed not only because it is the rational way out, but also because we will see such issues again and again in the future. If TN and Kerala find a way out, that will set the course for every other state to follow. So the onus is on both sides to arrive at a reasonable compromise without changing the basic structure of things and to guarantee the undeniable claims to safety for Kerala and not doing injustice to TN because suddenly somewhere something becomes an issue. Who is going to square the circle? If TN buckles down to KL today, what should it do if KA or AP has a similar issue on some other matter tomorrow?

Claims to efficiency and self-sufficiency are claims to be made, but these should be arrived at parallelly, not pasted as an addendum to existing conflicts and muck up the mess that is already muddied to eternity. Lets address issues one at a time. Ramasami Iyer also mucks up the water, if we should undo dams and hydel projects, we will have to undo them slowly. Not as a consequence of the MP issue. You know what Polya advised on such matters.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

The 1979 change of attitudes towards safety, could be following the Morvi dam failure and nothing to do with Idukki.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/ker ... 780907.ece
Mr. Nair said that reports that had appeared in certain media that he, as Chief Engineer of the State Electricity Board, had advised the then Kerala Chief Minister K. Karunakaran to create a scare over safety of the Mullaperiyar dam in 1979 were baseless. The allegation was that this advice was given so that the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran could be persuaded to lower the Mullaperiyar reservoir level so that the Idukki reservoir which was short of water could get water from the Mullaperiyar.

He said that he was not even in the country at that time. He was on long leave from the Electricity Board, and was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the State Organisation for Industrial Design and Construction under the Ministry of Industries of Iraq in Bagdad from 1975 to 1980. He became Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board only in 1991. He was associated with the Mullaperiyar issue only from 1996 when he was named to head a technical committee, after his retirement from the Board.

Mr. Nair added that the Idukki project was designed excluding the catchment of the Mullaperiyar. The project had a catchment area almost equal to that of the Mullaperiyar reservoir.
So the water level being low is due to other factors and MP waters is not seen as helpful in increasing levels in Idukki to generate more electricity as claimed by many.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/story.php?id=118400
Dams –A Factual Analysis from a Seismic Perspective

Posted on: 29 Dec 2011

Arun M. Puthanpurayil

Presently due to the boiling Mullaperiyar dam issue there are lots of theories about dam safety and earthquakes roaming around which is adding to the chaos already existing. Let us make up the stage for a more technical discussion on the issue by clearing the air of confusion first by quoting the introductory statement from ICOLD (International Commission on Large Dams; an international organization including more than 90 member countries of which India is also a member) position paper on dam safety and earthquakes, May 2010, prepared by ICOLD committee 'Until now no people have died from the failure or damage of a large water storage dam due to earthquake.' Now this should not be interpreted as there can never be a death due to dam collapse. It simply means that there is none in the history. This point to a very important aspect of seismic engineering as a science as a whole: Its dependence on history. Further elaboration on this aspect is given in the next section. The review carried out in this article is of a qualitative nature and is intended for the general public to appreciate the technical complexities involved. All the views expressed are based on pure technical facts and not based on any other sort of favoritism; neither political nor linguistic.

For a moment let us deviate from the topic of old dams and understand what the implications of this dependence on history on the earthquake engineering are. In simplistic terms, dependence on history means that all new structures are designed based on the precedence of seismic activity in a region where it is built. Modern day codes (design codes) give prescriptive guidelines in this respect by analyzing the geological history and dividing the land mass into respective seismic zones. Now the most significant question would be 'what certainty we have that this so called history will repeat in future?' Scientific community addresses this issue by adhering to the theory of probability; which might not be of much help if the data is sparse; unfortunately this is mostly the case with seismic events. Many scientists won't agree with me; but I will exemplify my opinion in the light of the reports of GNS science (a research organization in New Zealand) on Christchurch earthquakes. Christchurch was chosen mainly due to two reasons: one is, the seismicity level, that existed before one year could be considered approximately equal to that exists in Kerala, though its a bit slightly higher for Christchurch and secondly I live here and had endured all these sequence of earthquakes which is described below. Like Kerala, Christchurch was considered to be a city with relatively low seismic activity and if you had ever asked a seismic engineer before September 4th 2010, 'What was probability of Christchurch facing an earthquake above a magnitude 7.0 on Richter scale?'; his answer obviously would have been 'Very low probability'. But nature has proved different; {Did not know the Christchurch had such a low probability since NZ was considered earthquake prone everywhere} As per GNS reports, Christchurch had more than 7000 earthquakes in the past one year, out of which two of them were above 6.0 and one above 7.0 on Richter scale. The phenomenon in Christchurch was unique; but this highlights the inherent uncertainty that exists in the seismic engineering. The other parts of the world also has shown this sort of uncertainty in seismic events; for e.g. earthquakes of magnitude 6.3, 6.4 and 6.7 occurred in Tennant Creek Australia on 22 January 1988 where there had not been previous reports of seismic activity (data adopted from 'An engineering guide to seismic risk to dams in the United Kingdom). In this context a statement by Dr. Rajesh Dhakal of University of Canterbury, New Zealand in his report to Canterbury Earthquake Royal commission on the aftermath of February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch which claimed 181 lives, is worth noting, which states that 'Amendment of design practices after a major earthquake often tempts the designers to believe that an absolute safe design practice had been achieved; a false sense of confidence which would be shattered by the next big earthquake. In reality, this sequence of 'learning from disasters' and 'improving the design practice' seems to be never-ending'.

Now hoping that the level of uncertainty involved in seismic engineering is at least partially clear to the reader, we will look at what effects these disastrous forces have on dams. The effect is very complex to describe in simple terms as there is fluid-structure-soil interaction happening during the event. The sudden increase in the pressure due to the generation of impulse waves, the ground movements and settlements due to liquefaction etc. can cause distortion in dam structure. No further delving into the technical details is presented as this is not meant to be a technical paper. We will look at 'what could happen to the dam during a strong earthquake?' Unfortunately there is again a lack of data related to the behavior of large dams in earthquake; this is made evident in the ICOLD paper which states that 'The experience with the seismic behavior of large dams is still limited'. Limited historical evidence limits our capability to qualitatively visualize the possible performance of a dam in an earthquake event. The other fact which adds to the severity of the whole scenario is that 'No earthquakes are identical in nature' or in other words they are random phenomenon which have unique characteristics.
Dams are mainly of 4 types: embankment dams, gravity dams, buttress dams and arch dams. The nature of the response of each of these dams to earthquake could be quite unique. Now let us qualitatively investigate the question 'What will happen to Mullaperiyar dam if a strong earthquake strikes?' No mention of the magnitude of the earthquake is made here as this is meant to be a qualitative evaluation of the existing scenario. As Mullaperiyar is a gravity type dam, we limit our discussions to the performance of gravity dams. To answer the question above let us have a glance of the historical performances of gravity dams in earthquake. As per the paper presented by Chen Houqun (China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research) in the 14th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering,2008, in history there are only four dams of gravity type subjected to strong ground motions(>ML6.0). They are the Koyna dam in India, the Hsinfengkiang dam in China, the Sefid Rud dam in Iran and the Baozhusi gravity dam in China. All these dams are made of concrete and the construction period is between 1960 –late 1980's. All of them were damaged during the earthquake, though it never collapsed.

Now let us analyse the above facts objectively. The dams mentioned above suffered considerable amount of damage, though they were built with a better material and technology. Mullaperiyar dam is made of lime-surkhi mortar (approx. one-sixth the strength of concrete). Now let us pose the question 'what is the reliability that Mullaperiyar dam built with a much inferior material and technology would survive a major earthquake event?' To answer this question we don't need a huge technical excellence; from the facts presented above (i.e. the inherent uncertainty in the ground motion and the uncertainty in the material), its ample clear that the probability of this dam surviving a major earthquake would be very less. Please note we are not saying 'zero probability', but 'lesser probability'. Now the next question could be 'What is the surety of this particular qualitative conclusion?' We will be forced to admit here that the conclusion made above that the dam may be damaged badly might not be 100% correct, as each dam is a prototype located in a particular region with specific site conditions and observing the performances of other dams it's very difficult to predict the behavior of the dam under consideration. But scrutinizing the fact that dam is almost one century old and built with an obsolete technology and material and considering the catastrophe it can cause to man and nature, it would be wiser to have a timely replacement. Again the question arises, 'What is the chance of an earthquake of magnitude 6.0?' To answer that we will have to resort to the IIT Roorkee site specific hazard assessment report in which faults capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 on Richter scale have been identified in the vicinity of the dam. Though the normal zonal classification indicates only earthquakes upto magnitude of 4.2, it cannot be applied to safety evaluation of the dams as they are special structures. Normal zonal classifications are general prescriptive guidelines and important structures or special structures need a more detail study. Again we have to understand that all these facts are based on history and dependant on the identification of potential faults; there is no legal binding for the nature that it should follow our studies. This has been shown elsewhere in the world. So learning from those lessons and considering all these aspects and risks involved, we would be much better off if a replacement for this age-old structure is carried out.

Now the above statement of replacement of the dam does not imply that the dam is going to collapse tomorrow due to a strong ground motion; earthquakes have a return period and the probability of having a major event tomorrow might be very low. So as it stands there is no need for the public to be hysterical about this situation. What the present situation requires is a timely action and as the engineering community all together would be aware of the issue; irrespective of the regions where they are from they should unite for the common cause of life safety. Secondly dam is not a simple structure; its design and implementation would take years; so as the dam has started showing its weakness, what is required is immediate action rather than all these discussions presently being underway.

The issue involved here is mainly technical and an attempt to give a political color to this should be totally condemned. Technical persons commenting on this issue should be aimed at ameliorating the chaos and fears in the public rather than confusing the public. Now as the issue involved requires a more specialist input, the general engineers commenting on this issue should also be very careful not to misguide the public and create a sort of linguistic or regional conflict.

Observing the uncertainties exhibited by earthquake throughout the world (Canterbury sequence of earthquakes, Wenchuan earthquakes etc.) and considering the infancy of science of earthquake engineering as applied to dam structures, engineering community as a whole should be uniting for the common cause of safety by forgetting the regional and the political differences. As no engineer with the present state of the art knowledge can guarantee another long life for this dam, why don't we do justice to our profession and do the needful?

Author biography: Arun Puthanpurayil received his MSc. in Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics from the University of Sheffield in 2007 and is currently a PhD. Student in Earthquake Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering at University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Before joining the department as a PhD. Candidate, Arun was working as a design engineer for a Multi-national company called Gifford Ltd. (UK) for 3 years. He has been responsible for structural design of buildings of varying complexities and functionalities with a specific emphasis on their dynamic performances during extreme events like blast and earthquake. To till date he has published 12 technical papers in journals and various international conferences mostly focusing on earthquake engineering.
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

This is incorrect.

The Christ Church earthquake was a 6.2 shallow earthquake. Most fatalities and damage occurred from this one.

The Canterbury earthquake was 7.1 and happened later about 50 KM from Christchurch. As far as we know this did not kill anyone but damaged some buildings in Christchurch.

What he does not mention is that Christchurch and NZ is on an active subduction area. Very different geology from Western Ghats. By this logic Idukki too should replaced and as I have mentioned before Kerala should prepare on a war footing for the coming catastrophe. MP will be just one of Kerala's worries at that point. Planning is done based on Earthquake zone categories. When Kerala re-categorizes itself all these reviews will be come automatic. Till then it is hot air aimed at MP.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

Theo, my understanding is that Idukki which was built recently is designed to withstand at least a 6.0 if not a 9.0 on richter scale. So bringing in Idukki at a drop of a hat does not further your argument. If seismologists today claim that they have only a few clues about their science, it is unlikely they knew any better 100 years ago. So the possibility still remains that Idukki will stand whereas MP might crack if one of the fault lines re-awaken with a big thud sometime in the near future. Even Idukki is not going to last for hundreds of years without a rebuild.

Wasn't the Latur quake of the 90's a big surprise too. The Deccan plateau is supposedly stable no when compared to even the Himalayan zone.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by vina »

So the possibility still remains that Idukki will stand whereas MP might crack if one of the fault lines re-awaken with a big thud sometime in the near future. Even Idukki is not going to last for hundreds of years without a rebuild.
Bade Mian. Idukki will have been built to whatever earthquake zone that Kerala is classified under and in which 6 is the Max that is designed for. I grant it that MP (the pre strengthened one) might not have withstood a 6 quake, but there is no earthly reason why a strengthened MP that where the new measures take into account the seismic zone it is located on, cant stand a 6 either. Whether it can or can't is a purely TECHNICAL matter that can be reasonably settled beyond doubt by any decent engineering team /committee.

Now if you say that 6 is not the max design, but say 8 (remember it is an exponential scale), then sure, Idukki is under designed as well . Will it fall, maybe or maybe not. But does the design GUARANTEE Idukki's survival beyond say 8, absolutely NO.

After all, the Fukushima debates about how it is a probabilistic estimate, there is no WAY that you can say that the probability of a 8 quake in Idukki region is ZERO. It might be very small for you to be able to ignore, but it is a tail risk all the same.

And no, dams are not pulled down and rebuilt like houses. They are supposed to last for whatever useable life, which is largely determined by sedimentation rates of the reservoir and storage capacity etc. The structure itself sees continuous upkeep and maintenance to last it to as long as eternity. It is like you constantly repairing and refurburishing a concrete house. There are houses that are 400 years old and above in many parts of Europe like Germany (interiors fully contemporary, been in the family for that long etc), many houses in India are that old (built with lime surki of course.. alteast in TN ) and there is absolutely no reason that with maintenance and upkeep they cant last for another 400 years!.

There is nothing anywhere that suggests that the house you have in Kerala has to be pulled down after 30 years /40 years, because that is the "economic" life (as in finance models) of the house and rebuilt!. All the building codes will say that it has to be in proper repair!
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

Now I am scared, not by vina saar :-) but casual googling has revealed that there was a 7.6 in Cochin(dunno if it was in the city or some vicinity of Idukki/MP hills) in the year 1931 at unknown depth. I had heard of the massive shift of the Periyar and opening up of the present Cochin harbour some 500 years or so ago. But if this area has a return period much less like most 7-8 mag ones do every 100 yrs or so, then we are doomed and we should demand more land from TN for safe relocation, pronto !

Refer to this one for list of major quakes and Kochi makes the list.
Microearthquake seismology and seismotectonics of South Asia
By J. R. Kayal
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Bade wrote: But if this area has a return period much less like most 7-8 mag ones do every 100 yrs or so, then we are doomed and we should demand more land from TN for safe relocation, pronto !
Or get your A$$ in gear and instead of wailing prepare your state for a major earthquake. Emulate Japan at least in this. :)
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by shaardula »

stan,
efficiency and alternatives are immediate concerns. as you say in 1979 somebody raised a flag about a possible collapse and its consequences. so an adverse likely outcome has been known for 30 years now. i would imagine that is sufficient lead time.

as Theo says if quakes are expected in KL they should prepare for it, and if MP is likely to break as a consequence TN should prepare for it too, instead of wasting time convincing themselves that the dam is not going to break. irrespective of the mag of the tremor, construction quality means that dam is not the soundest of structures, and hence its reliability is questionable. people in the west did this black swan blindness thingie and burnt themselves. even if it is a tail probability the consequences are real. prepare for it.

I have a feeling most of what we are reading and discussing is about policy stiffness. On ground things may have already started moving. I saw people in NW-TN actually hedging.

Just like oil crisis is needed to boost alt energy, i would imagine a shock like this is needed to prop up efficiency.

All this agreement, lease, i have a right fighting will only lead to nonsense like random pandya of yore ruled hills n years ago, so water is ours type of nonsense. who the fuk cares who this pandya was? forget anybody in KL, does it fill any TN farmer's tummy that some warlord in ancient times had a long schlong?

of all the water problems in SoIn this is one of the more tractable ones. We should resolve it meaningfully through solutions that are just. If we cant solve this one, then there is no way we are going to solve problems in other basins.
Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Stan_Savljevic »

shaardula wrote: We should resolve it meaningfully through solutions that are just.
What are the parameters for justness btw? The contest lies in the preciseness of the definition.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Bade wrote: But if this area has a return period much less like most 7-8 mag ones do every 100 yrs or so, then we are doomed and we should demand more land from TN for safe relocation, pronto !
Or get your A$$ in gear and instead of wailing prepare your state for a major earthquake. Emulate Japan at least in this. :)
Saar, another specious argument onlee. The guvermand be it TN or KL is responsible for the safety of public structures, of which all dams including MP forms the list. You surely cannot wail about private structures not built up to required standards, even if it is due to lack of relevant seismic codes in place in the past or not being updated regularly as we learn more. It is not the public's responsibility at large to change the situation. Even Ahmadabad/Gujurat did not have stricter implementation on private structures which led to loss of lives in 2001.

If MP is not designed for a 8.0 or 9.0 even with strengthening measures, then wailing about Idukki alone is not going to help either. :D
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

I'm wailing about everything only. MP, Idukki and the entire state needs to be strengthened pronto. Why wail on MP only.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

I am told the dam safety act, which resulted in violation of Supreme Court order (as alleged by many here and elsewhere) is to cover all including Idukki and MP. But the wiki link says the SC has not objected to the act. :eek: How come ?
In 2006, the Supreme Court of India by its decision by a three member division bench, allowed for the storage level to be raised to 142 feet (43 m) pending completion of the proposed strengthening measures, provision of other additional vents and implementation of other suggestions.[34]

However, the Kerala Government promulgated a new "Dam Safety Act" against increasing the storage level of the dam, which has not been objected by the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu challenged it on various grounds. The Supreme Court issued notice to Kerala to respond, however did not stay the operation of the Act even as an interim measure. The Court then advised the States to settle the matter amicably, and adjourned hearing in order to enable them to do so. The Supreme Court of India termed the act as not unconstitutional.[35] Meanwhile, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution bench to hear the case considering its wide ramifications.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullaperiyar_Dam
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

For context wiki had a nice render of the diversion.
Image
Currently, the water from the Periyar (Thekkady) Lake created by the dam, is diverted through the water shed cutting and a subterranean tunnel to Forebay Dam near Kumili (Errachipalam) in Tamil Nadu. From the Forebay dam, hydel pipe lines carry the water to the Periyar Power Station in Lower Periyar, Tamil Nadu. This is used for power generation (175 MW capacity) in the Periyar Power Station.[citation needed] From the Periyar Power Station, the water is let out into Vairavanar river and then to Suruliyar and from Suruliyar to Vaigai Dam.
Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Stan_Savljevic »

The SC appointed Empowered Panel's mandate includes the Constitutionality of the 2006 Act along with many other questions, just that the EP has not delivered a verdict in its 5+ years of sitting on any matter completely.

In short, the jury is still out on this matter and it has decided in no specific way so far contrary to perceptions that it has allowed the Act's legality. Imagine if in future Kerala does something and TN objects, while the SC appointed panel sits on it for years on end, what do people do in the meanwhile?
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Bade,

Get the Kerala Government to change the Risk Category for Kerala and come back and talk to me.

I will tell you 3 things every Keralite can do in a matter of hours using less than Rs 2000 of material that will probably cut the fatality rate by 50%. It is not difficult, requires organization, dedication and education. ODE.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

How does it change the water flow damage caused by cracked dams ? Fallen buildings and people trapped in it is one thing, why are you inter-mixing the two issues. :-?

Would you not agree that water flow damage from the Tsunami caused even more damage than the earthquake itself in Japan, and Japan is supposed to have good codes and engineering with history of quakes. Granted a Tsunami is far far more bigger force than an overhead tank like MP breaking, but water rapids are even more dangerous than falling structures.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

So who changes the seismic risk category for each region or state ? Do the states have the wherewithal to do all that work themselves and on what basis may I ask ? What sort of density of seismic monitoring is required to accomplish these goals quantitatively.

I was googling on some conference proceedings from 2002, and there is plenty of discussion on lack of any timely updates. The peninsular intra-plate activity is the least understood like everywhere else in the world.
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

You are mixing it up. Earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do.

The purpose of earthquake preparation is to give people the 15 minutes they need to get to a safe place where they can have shelter, hygiene, uncontaminated water and food. No way to save structures beyond certain limits, we can only save people. The earthquake community has an entire different way of thinking. No dam can survive a 8.0. In fact I doubt any dam could survive a direct 6.0 hit.

Also the damage of earthquake is not directly related to magnitude. The metric that matters is ground motion and intensity, called PGA (peak ground motion/accelaration) shallow 6.0 earthquake in a short period of time can be more damaging than a 9.0 earthquake that is spread over 5-10 minutes. The Christ church earthquake demonstrated this with devastating effect.

Way back I had a whole series of posts with AmberG explaining that the 9.0 in Japan was not the most extreme for buildings. Esp. on land. By that measure Japan was not a severe earthquake compared to many others at least for buildings. He was incredulous and I don't think I got through to him. People have trouble with the concept.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

I agree that PGA is very important as locally it is the shake intensity that does structural damage not the grand total energy released by the EQ as indexed by the Richter scale. How do you predict PGA itself without detailed ground composition measurements all the way deep from the surface for everywhere. And people live literally everywhere in India, even more so in Kerala.

All you want to know or already know, but hard for me to parse. :-)
http://www.nicee.org/IITK-GSDMA_Codes.php
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by shaardula »

stan,
i donot know the minutiae of the affair. but the way i understand, KL granted access to excess water at its disposal for the benefit of TN. TN since has enjoyed a corpus of ~136 cusecs to use. To me it is not clear what percentage of available corpus TN actually uses. But i would be surprised if it uses the entire available corpus, and so I assume TN actually has excess water at its disposal currently.

Meanwhile decades later KL has comeup with possible use for some water that it can use to address some of its current problems. A reasonable solution would provide KL with recourse to petition TN for access to some of the corpus it has granted to TN.

The problem right now is that while KL assumes all the liability, TN assumes all the benefits and none of the liability. The current setup is the best that TN could have ever imagined. Meanwhile, KL has already been the karna here, and has nothing more it can bring to a negotiating table. Any give at a negotiating table will have to be all done by TN.

In summary, all liability lies with KL for the largesse of perpetually foregoing rights to its own resource. A fair deal would let TN assume liability proportional to the value it attaches to the resource, or curtails TN's rights to assume undisturbed rights over the resource.

Saying it like this sounds vulgar. But that is how it is. And that is why, while it is what the law mandates to be upheld, it is not just, and unless justly resolved will lead to perpetual conflict. Law is not the same as justice.

How a just solution is arrived at is between the peoples of KL and TN. But IMHO, a just solution will balance the control over the resource between the two parties at a 1:1 balance.
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Again. It is Kerala's choice not to exploit the benefits available to it. Truth be told the benefits available to Kerala could be worth a lot more and have proven far more lucrative in other states. It is Kerala's choice to not exploit its benefits. Having not exploited your benefits, Kerala now covets what belongs to others. Even though, as Vina has pointed out, Kerala can not use the water for crops only for a few MW of electricity and then run it into the ocean.

It is one thing to demonstrate a genuine need and ask TN for help from its share. Its another thing to covet and attempt to confiscate what is owned by others.

Also the only surplus from MP is due to the 136 ft limit. This limits the live storage and during heavy rains overflow heads toward Idukki for electricity production. If the FRL os 152 ft were used there would be no overflow. Hence the neat trick with the new dam.
Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Stan_Savljevic »

shaardula wrote: Meanwhile decades later KL has comeup with possible use for some water that it can use to address some of its current problems.
Kerala does not covet the water that TN gets. We have had ample statements to that effect by almost everyone from Kerala side (except for some one or two nutjobs who I wont consider seriously). Kerala does covet the electricity that it badly needs from the Idukki hydel project and that TN generates out of MP. Unfortunately, if Idukki has to deliver its full capacity of 780 MW, then the water level in MP has to come down dramatically. If the water level in TN comes down as dramatically as is needed, then you will have serious viability issues for agriculture as well as livelihood because of increasing usage of land for cultivation on TN's side based on assumptions of water perpetuity. There lies the real issue if you strip away the semantics and add 2 and 2 together.

So it is basically a big need to be electricity sufficient, not water sufficient. That problem is there with every state that adds nukular, coal plants etc. to meet new and increasing needs. TN feeds the national grid from Neyveli, Kalpakkam and (Kudankulam -- envisioned), and Kerala gets a portion of the supply. May be there is a backroom diplomacy possible on tariffs etc. without going through the national grid, may be.

Whatever be the issue, I dont buy that safety is the biggest issue for Kerala. Safety is just the surface of a deeper problem that is not even declared in so many words. Whine profiles such as lease agreement in perpetuity, TN pays shitty less, TN does one thing for Kudankulam and ignores us when we raise the same issue, are all irritants, not a major issue. All that said, the moment a system reduces to bringing in safety this and safety that, there is really no other way but to handle the mess. You cant have two rules in India: you cant treat Jaitapur or Kudankulam or Singur or Nyamagiri or Narmada differently and ignore Mullaipperiyar, most of these whines are irrational if you look at them seriously. But there is no logic (or rather there is no need for a logic) for safety, that is the reality.

The problem right now is that while KL assumes all the liability, TN assumes all the benefits and none of the liability.
This is a post-facto reduction to liability and benefits. All this while, there were no assumptions of liability on having a dam in Kerala. And even if there are liability issues with having a dam, all that liability can be solved if we have a new dam under the same lease agreement because noone envisioned that Kerala will have such safety concerns now. Why dont we have a single statement to this effect? Because claims of liability are not justified by claims to honesty in terms of honoring an agreement made in colonial era and to which new life was breathed repeatedly in the post-47 era not including the 1970 additional deeds that were signed. You sit on your backside for 20+ years after independence and then you suddenly claim that somehow people have forced you to put your signature on a lease deed, cmon, who is the kid in this argument?

Any give at a negotiating table will have to be all done by TN.
Again, it is your perception that is not consonant with reality. TN will have to agree to a new dam, but Kerala will have to honor its part of the agreement. How is that not conceded yet? Why are people so missing the boat here? Its a simple deal, really. Honoring a SC judgment is not done, honoring a signed agreement seems like an issue, so where exactly should TN take confidence from? If its a rule of the jungle, let it be a free-for-all, that is TN's precise response. KA sits on its ass, KL wants to sit on its ass, well, you know what, TN too will sit on its ass. The only state that has been fair enough from TN's water needs perspective is AP and the Krishna water that flows downstream to Madras and surroundings. That is precisely how reality has turned up. Karnataka cant watch from the sidelines in this mess, because it has also set a precedent in how it has badly handled the Cauvery tribunal award and how TN's position has been hardlined because of such bad precedents. You cant sit there and blame TN as if TN is doing things in a vacuum. Every state bullshits about generosity and honesty and does its own crap, TN is not new to this game either. Unfortunately, when TN does things the same way, it becomes a big issue? Funny....
Theo_Fidel

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Stan,

The Krishna water to Chennai was 'donated' out of their shares equally by Maharashtra, Karanataka and AP for a total of 15 TMC. All three are to be credited. Chennai has never received more than 3 TMC in a year so about 12 TMC goes missing enroute. TN paid for the canal portion within AP that connects to the Thirupathi canal. It also pays annually for the water and the canal maintenance. There was some friction over lining the portion in AP which the Sai Baba to his eternal credit paid for.

Also TN has its own problems with Pondicerry as well WRT Cauvery water. For that matter the Niligiris water causes friction as well.
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by joshvajohn »

One of the important mantra of India as a nation is "interdependency" of states. During M G Ramachandran's days similar conflict arose between Malayalees and Tamils, I remember a drama in the radio - which stated that to make a VADA in Tamil Nadu we need different ingredients which are not available in on e state and can be brought easily different things from different states to make it in Tamil Nadu. Ofcouse water and dam are issues but people in Kerala also depend on the vegetables and rice produced in Tamil Nadu which are supplied at cheap rate from TN to Kerala. Also there are 5.5 lakh Malayalees in TN while there are 6 Lakh Tamils in Kerala. States are interdependent on each others. To preserve India's integrity throw the Congressee which spreads hate campaign between various linguistic groups!
In fact, Malayalis are not only not the largest group, they're not even the second — or indeed, the third largest — group. Going by actual numbers, Malayalis do not add up to even half the number of Kannadigas in the state. And the largest non-Tamil community here is Telugu speakers, almost thrice the number of Kannadigas.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... s-bengalis
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by chaanakya »

What you say joshvajohn is very true. It needs a visionary approach and broadmindedness to solve many issues afflicting our country. wrt Mullaiperiyar issue, we can keep on arguing till eternity and do hairsplitting analysis. This would raise distrust only.

I wonder why we don't have brilliance and compassion as shown by a British Engineer in 19th Cent to solve problem of people in far corner of this country. The approach shown in 1970 by KL was laudable. I think both state should sit together and talk it out in a mutually accommodating way show the path for inter basin transfer for Pan India scheme.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by SaiK »

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.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

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
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

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
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Post by Bade »

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.
Post Reply