Indus Water Treaty

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. 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.
kancha
BRFite
Posts: 951
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby kancha » 31 Jan 2013 21:11

Gurus,
Is all this noise about the IWT being a model treaty partly due to the reason that on the western rivers, Pakistan got what was its and also what was India's legitimate share? I mean, the economic situation really didn't permit India to undertake an optimum number & type of projects till the 90s atleast. And it is only since then that the Paki narrative has become shriller and shriller.
Maybe the treaty survived three wars precisely because it was never pushed to the limits? Any thoughts?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 12 Feb 2013 08:46

India & Pakistan bracing for Kishenganga dispute order - Gargi Parsai, The Hindu
India and Pakistan are bracing themselves up for the final order of the Court of Arbitration at The Hague in their dispute over the construction of the Rs. 3,600 crore Kishenganga hydro-electric project in North Kashmir.

Highly placed sources told The Hindu on Monday that the Court, chaired by Stephen M. Schwebel, has asked the ambassadors of both the countries to be present when it hands out its judgement on February 18.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chaanakya » 14 Feb 2013 20:03

China must agree to rules-based water-sharing

By Brahma Chellaney

The Chinese government's recent decision to build an array of new dams on rivers flowing to other countries is set to roil inter-riparian relations in Asia and make it more difficult to establish rules-based water cooperation and sharing. The longterm implications for India are particularly stark because several major rivers flow south from Tibet. Just the Brahmaputra's annual crossborder runoff volume, according to UN data, is greater than the combined flow of three rivers that run from Tibet into south-east Asia: the Mekong, Salween and Irrawaddy.

China's dam programme is following a well-established pattern on international rivers: build modest-size dams on a river's difficult uppermost reaches, then construct larger dams in the upper-middle sections as the river picks up greater water and momentum, before embarking on mega-dams in the border area facing another country. China already has a dozen dams in the Brahmaputra basin and one each on the Indus and the Sutlej. It is close to completing one dam and has just cleared work on three others on the Brahmaputra. Two more are planned in this cascade before the dam-building moves to the water-rich border segment as the river makes a U-turn to enter India.

Asia, not Africa, is the world's driest continent. China, which already boasts more large dams than the rest of the world combined, has emerged as the key impediment to building institutionalised collaboration on shared water resources. In contrast to the bilateral water treaties between many of its neighbours, China rejects water-sharing arrangement or joint, rules-based management of common resources.

India has water-sharing treaties with both the countries located downstream to it: the Indus pact with Pakistan guarantees the world's largest cross-border flows of any treaty regime, while the Ganges accord has set a new principle in international water law by assuring Bangladesh an equal share of downriver flows in the dry season. China, by contrast, does not have a single water-sharing treaty with any neighbour.


Yet, most of Asia's international rivers originate in territories that China annexed after the 1949 communist takeover there. Tibet, for example, is the world's largest freshwater repository and the source of Asia's greatest rivers, including those that are the lifeblood of mainland China and south and south-east Asia.
Other Chinese-held homelands of ethnic minorities contain the headwaters of rivers such as the Irtysh, Illy and Amur, which flow to Russia and central Asia.

Most of the 54 new dam projects announced recently by China's state council, or cabinet, are concentrated in the seismically-active southwest, covering parts of the Tibetan plateau. The restart of dam-building on the Salween after an eightyear moratorium is in keeping with a pattern seen on other river systems: Beijing temporarily suspends acontroversial plan after major protests flare so as to buy time, before resurrecting the same plan. In fact, according to a 2008 report in Time, work on laying the foundation of four Salween dams continued during the moratorium by reclassifying them as transportation projects.


Whereas the newly-unveiled projects on the Salween and the Mekong are mega-dams with big reservoirs, China claims its dam-building on the Brahmaputra involves only runof-river plants — a type that generates hydropower without reservoir storage by using a river's natural flow and elevation drop. However, unlike India vis-a-vis Pakistan or Bangladesh, Beijing is neither willing to share with New Delhi the technical designs nor permit on-site scrutiny. The relatively large projects at Dagu, Jiexu and Zangmu indeed raise the spectre of storage. Such is the lack of Chinese transparency that the flash-floods that ravaged Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh between 2000 and 2005 were linked to unannounced releases from Chinese dams.

Asia awaits a future made hotter and drier by climate and environmental change and resource depletion. The continent's water challenges have been exacerbated by consumption growth, unsustainable irrigation practices, rapid industrialisation, pollution, environmental degradation and geopolitical shifts.

If Asia is to prevent water wars, it must build institutionalised cooperation in trans-boundary basins that co-opts all riparian neighbours. If a dominant riparian state refuses to join, such institutional arrangements — as in the Mekong basin — will be ineffective. The arrangements must be centred on transparency, unhindered information flow, equitable sharing, dispute settlement, pollution control and a commitment to refrain from any project that could materially diminish trans-boundary flows. International dispute-settlement mechanisms, as in the Indus treaty, help stem the risk that water wrangles could escalate to open conflict.

China — with its hold over Asia's transnational water resources and boasting over half of the world's 50,000 large dams — has made the control and manipulation of river flows a pivot of its power and economic progress. Unless it is willing to play a leadership role to develop a rules-based system, the economic and security risks arising from the Asian water competition can scarcely be mitigated.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 18 Feb 2013 05:14

Good Indian Folks, the Kishnganga verdict is coming up tomorrow. Keep the eyes peeled . Paki attitude will either stinck like widedend Musharraf or shrink like pupil in the light.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 18 Feb 2013 20:01

I expect this to be like the neutral expert's verdict on Baglihar. It will mostly validate Indian claims.

Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Theo_Fidel » 18 Feb 2013 21:29

I predict TSP will claim a famous victory over yevil Yindia....
Followed by downhill skiing and firing and attempted firing of the Indus Commissioner.
Then grasping at straws on any minimal changes included in award.
Followed by general weeping and wailling at the 'stealing' of 'their' water.
When the dead pool is filled expect another lawsuit which to will get thrown out for lack of jurisdiction.
Finally blood curdling demands for a water war.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby vic » 18 Feb 2013 23:33

India wins

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chaanakya » 18 Feb 2013 23:35

India wins crucial hearing on Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project at international court

New Delhi: The International Court of Arbitration has accepted India's position on the Rs. 3600-crore Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project (KHEP) in north Kashmir at The Hague today.

The arbitration court took the decision after Pakistan sought a stay on the project claiming that India was diverting the flow of the river and violating Indus Water Treaty between the two countries.

Reacting to the court's decision, the Ministry of External Affairs said, "The award of the Court of Arbitration at the Hague today reaffirms the validity of India's position regarding the Kishenganga Hydro-electric project (KHEP) by allowing diversion of water from the KHEP as envisaged by India. It highlights once again that India is adhering to all the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty."

In September last year, the arbitration court had asked India to stop permanent works on the 330 megawatt Kishenganga project on River Neelum in response to Pakistan's appeal.


:D :D

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby vic » 18 Feb 2013 23:36

Pakistan @ss kicked again in International fora

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india ... urt-332605

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chaanakya » 18 Feb 2013 23:43

From MEA

Award of the Court of Arbitration at the Hague on Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project


In response to question on Award of the Court of Arbitration at the Hague on Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project, the Official Spokesperson said:

"The award of the Court of Arbitration at the Hague today reaffirms the validity of India’s position regarding the Kishenganga Hydro-electric project (KHEP) by allowing diversion of water from the KHEP as envisaged by India. It highlights once again that India is adhering to all the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty.

The details of the award are being studied."

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 19 Feb 2013 01:46

Soon Sindh Banega Hind will celebrate Feb 18th as the first day of the freedom struggle against Pakistani control. Clock starts clicking Todin .
Tick Tick Tuck Tuck
Karachi se Quetta Tuck
Sindhi owrr Balochi Tuck
Paani Bejhe Directly Humm, Haan Ji Humm..

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7024
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Anujan » 19 Feb 2013 01:53

This judgement will only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists. India being the big brother should be the one giving concessions. Water issue is turning South Asia into a nuclear flashpoint. Cashmere should be solved first.

sukhish
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 10 Jun 2011 03:37

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby sukhish » 19 Feb 2013 01:55

Sindh issue should be resolved first, then we will look into Kashmir

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 19 Feb 2013 02:05

Anujan wrote:This judgement will only serve to strengthen the hands of extremists. India being the big brother should be the one giving concessions. Water issue is turning South Asia into a nuclear flashpoint. Cashmere should be solved first.


Water is a South Asian issue , this is why we need to talk to Sindh and Kabul directly. There is no need for middle entity like Pakjabi who actually want a dry desert Homeland.Water is their religious enemy .

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Feb 2013 04:38

I never had any doubt from the beginning about the legal and valid position of India in Kishenganga (as well as in Baglihar). We know the reasons for TSP to go to arbitration. We have to wait for the entire judgement to be available to see interesting points therein and how they tally with what we have been saying here.

I now expect the chorus to scrap the IWT and re-draft it within TSP supported by bleeding hearts from India. Of course, the jingos might demand the same too but for entirely different reasons.

BTW, I have so far not seen any mention in TSP newspapers about the verdict.

Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Theo_Fidel » 19 Feb 2013 04:48

Sridhar,

Does this mean the provisional stay on construction of the dam/riverbed works has been fully lifted.

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3993
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby saip » 19 Feb 2013 04:54

Why it is all quiet on the Western Front? Are they in shock?

Arav
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 03 Aug 2011 15:38

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Arav » 19 Feb 2013 05:18

Yep Nothing in any pakistani media on the verdirct. Not even from opposition who can make this for scoring point in coming elections. Where is J-U-D.

Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Theo_Fidel » 19 Feb 2013 05:20

Maybe they are not early risers....

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7096
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Muppalla » 19 Feb 2013 05:25

Arav wrote:Yep Nothing in any pakistani media on the verdirct. Not even from opposition who can make this for scoring point in coming elections. Where is J-U-D.


They don't have time to burry their Shia bodies who are continuously murdered for the past three to four days. Shia Sunni civil war is the reason for media not being able to focus on other things.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 19 Feb 2013 06:05

Theo_Fidel wrote:Maybe they are not early risers....


Waiting for the verdickt to be translated in Arabic?

jjambunathan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Mar 2009 00:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby jjambunathan » 19 Feb 2013 06:06

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-can-go-ahead-with-kishenganga/article4428969.ece?homepage=true

In a major decision, the Court of Arbitration at The Hague has allowed India to go ahead with the construction of the Rs. 3600 crore Kishenganga hydro-electric project in North Kashmir, rejecting Pakistan's plea that this was a violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.

In its award delivered at The Hague on Monday, the Court chaired by Stephen M. Schwebel, said India can go ahead with the diversion of the waters of Kishanganga, a tributary of Jhelum, for hydro-electric power generation.

However, the court restrained India from adopting the drawdown flushing technique for clearing sedimentation in the run-of-the river project designed for generation of 330 MW power. India may have to adopt a different technique for flushing.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7024
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Anujan » 19 Feb 2013 06:38

Drawdown flushing rejected!!! Great pakistani victory!! Verdict against india!! Court supports Pakistan!!

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2565
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 19 Feb 2013 06:59

Ssridhar...so can u please analyse the IWT award for all of us. How does the drawdown thing impact the project? It does reduce the effective life of the project? how can we deal with it??

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 19 Feb 2013 07:11

http://hal-sde.archives-ouvertes.fr/doc ... 036371.pdf

Some Info
I guess the solution is
3.4 Bypass for Sediments
An alternative is to bypass sediment through a lateral
tunnel from the mouth of the reservoir to downstream of
the dam. This solution has been carried out at Miwa dam
in Japan, see Fig. 6. Before Miwa dam reservoir had
huge rate of sedimentation and reduced time life.
This system has the big advantage to transport also
coarse materials downstream of the dam. The bypass
tunnel is used during floods permitting dilution of fine
materials.
This bypass is costly (construction of the tunnel, losses
of energy) but quite efficient according to Fig. 6 figures.
It is in fact a great investment for the future.


( :evil: By Pass might provide us huge capacity to store/Block the water beside the main reservoir,Drawdown flushing prohibition to Protect the environment of Poaqfrogs downstream )
Last edited by Prem on 19 Feb 2013 07:17, edited 2 times in total.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Feb 2013 07:11

From my post almost two years back, what were the issues in Kishenganga ?
  • Usual accusation of design specs violations like pondage, spillways, power intake etc. These now have a precedent in Baglihar. No need for a CoA here.
  • Whether waters can be diverted from a tributary of Jhelum to another. The Annexure F, Para 12 and Para 15 (iii) of Part 3 of Annexure D is clear about this too. This matter also falls eminently under a NE.
  • The issue of 'existing agricultural & hydroelectric use' on the Pakistani side. Per previous point, these also fall under a NE.
  • The Indian proposal of drawdown flushing for sediment control. IMHO, this does not need any further discussion. The NE for Baglihar has given guidelines. He has advised both countries to follow modern techniques which were not in vogue in the 50s when IWT was discussed and arrived at. In fact, the NE's verdict is final and binding.

There was no need for a CoA. A NE would have sufficed. But, having been already bitten by the NE in the previous case, Pakistan felt it had a better chance with an enlarged panel and hence it opted for a CoA.

As for drawdown flushing, we have to see exactly what the CoA had arbitered. It should not be in conflict with what the NE had said in the case of Baglihar.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7024
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Anujan » 19 Feb 2013 07:17

I am sure we can find an efficient way of flushing the sediments down the pakistan.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Feb 2013 07:18

In the case of Baglihar, the Neutral Expert had strongly recommended periodical drawdown flushing of the reservoir as a means of sediment control, which (in his view) was part of proper maintenance, and had observed that while the dead storage could not be used for operational purposes, there was no objection to its use for maintenance purposes.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 19 Feb 2013 07:19

The problem with the PCA’s judgement is that it has overturned what was said in Baglihar case and has set up another round of arbitration as you can bet any method of sedimentation control used by India will now be challenged by the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile quite strange that the printed media of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan remains oblivious to the judgement. Goes to show the puny news gathering ability of the Pakistani print media which routinely depends on foreign news agency reports to keep track of what is going on inside their own country.

The Islamic Republics position on sedimentation control:

With regard to the Second Dispute, Pakistan submitted that drawdown flushing, the technique India proposes to use for the management of sedimentation in the KHEP reservoir, is prohibited by the provisions of the Treaty. Drawdown flushing consists of drawing down the level of the water in the reservoir close to the river bed by releasing it through low level outlets in the dam, in order to expel sediments from the reservoir. Pakistan argued that the use of drawdown flushing would give India an impermissible control over the timing and volume of the flow of water downstream of the dam, as well as have adverse environmental impact downstream. Pakistan argued that India is obligated to employ alternative sediment management methods.


India's position on sedimentation control:

With regard to the Second Dispute, at the outset, India disputed its admissibility for determination by the Court of Arbitration, arguing that it should have been referred by Pakistan to a Neutral Expert appointed pursuant to the Treaty. India then urged the Court to follow the decision of the Neutral Expert in the Baglihar case (a proceeding under the Indus Waters Treaty concerning India’s Baglihar hydro-electric project), which found that drawdown flushing is permissible under the Treaty. India argued that sediment management is essential to the sustainability of hydro-electric plants and can only be effectively achieved at the KHEP by lowering the water level in the reservoir below Dead Storage Level – i.e. by drawdown flushing. Given that the re-filling of the KHEP reservoir after its depletion is only permitted under the Treaty during a short period in the high flow season, and in light of the relatively small storage capacity of the KHEP, India submitted that the operation will have minimal effect on Pakistan.


From here:

PCA Sept 2012 Press Release
Last edited by arun on 19 Feb 2013 07:26, edited 1 time in total.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Feb 2013 07:26

From my earlier post on Baglihar,
The problem here was that this was a small project and the power intake (at 818m elevation) was way too close to the crest level (of 821m). This would have let the silt enter the intake damaging the blades of the turbine (as it frequently happens at Tarbela, for example).

So silt-control sluices needed to be designed. (Luckily, sluices are always gated structures, otherwise Pakistan would have raised objection to their gates!) Next is the question of the size and location of these sluices. For that, sediment load that needed to be managed had to be determined. It was estimated as about 30 million cubic metre per year at Baglihar. According to these studies, the reservoir is likely to get silted up to El. 840 metre (Full Pond Level) in about forty-six years. It was therefore estimated that the height of the sluice gates had to be 4m with an area of 200 Sq. M. By design calculations, they needed to be placed at an elevation of 801 m. (They need to be below the power intake in any case). However, because of the narrow gorge (and the consequent narrow width of the BHEP), the chute of sluice gates had to be co-located with the spillway chutes. This led to other technical problems of energy dissipation on the chute-side etc. and this idea was dropped.

So, the designers decided to couple the sluices and the overflow spillways into one, a sluice spillway which seems to be recommended modern practice for small projects like BHEP. The sluice spillways are recommended to be placed at mid-way point between the river bed and the FRL, which would have meant locating them at an elevation of ~780m, but due to other considerations, they were placed at 808 m elevation.

The designers are confident that with this design, they can manage the estimated silt load, manage the maximum expected flood discharge safely and operate the project economically for the power that would be generated.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Feb 2013 07:33

arun wrote:The problem with the PCA’s judgement is that it has overturned what was said in Baglihar case and has set up another round of arbitration as you can bet any method of sedimentation control used by India will now be challenged by the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile quite strange that the printed media of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan remains oblivious to the judgement. Goes to show the puny news gathering ability of the Pakistani print media which routinely depends on foreign news agency reports to keep track of what is going on inside their own country.


If the CoA's position is contrary to what the NE prescribed in Baglihar, then the questions are:
  • Can an issue on which a NE has given a final and binding finding be raised again before another NE or a Court of Arbitration?
  • If the NE's finding is applicable only to the particular project in question and not to others, should we accept the position that there can be substantially different (even contradictory) principles (laid down by different NEs) applying to different projects?
  • If drawdown flushing is ruled out, then must the corollary of heavy siltation and reduction of project life (as in the case of Salal) be accepted as inevitable? If so, does this not amount to ignoring the words “consistent with sound and economical design and satisfactory construction and operation” and again “unless sediment control or other technical considerations necessitate this” in the Treaty?
  • Can India go in for another arbitration on a matter of general principle of sedimentation control, especially in the Himalayan ribvers which are known for a huge load of sedimentation ?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Feb 2013 07:38

Jhujar wrote:http://hal-sde.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/76/13/05/PDF/ly2012-pub00036371.pdf
Some Info
I guess the solution is
3.4 Bypass for Sediments
An alternative is to bypass sediment through a lateral tunnel from the mouth of the reservoir to downstream of the dam.

Any solution must be practical and economical. We have to really see CoA's reasoning for rejecting drawdown flushing.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7024
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Anujan » 19 Feb 2013 07:46

Last time after baglihar verdict, IIRC the NE had sided with Pakistan on one minor point and it was a comprehensive Indian victory. Some Pakistani neta proclaimed great victory which was celebrated with full force in all newspapers. Then came the WTF moment a week later when accusations started to fly that Pakistan in fact lost. I am sure that even now a section of population believes they won (just like how they won in 65 and kargil). Which suits them quite well, because otherwise they have to admit that either India is not stealing water as alleged or that they have a shitty legal team.

Will be interesting to see how this verdict plays out. My prediction: an announcement that they won a great victory. The reason they aren't running news is because they are still checking with "stakeholders" on how to spin it.

I also predict WKK and track 2 pressure too to unilaterally withdraw from the project to show our largeheartedness and sincerity.

In any case, the ex water commissioner of Pakistan who once meekly suggested that India may not be stealing water and he doesn't understand all the technical details provided by India is bull cutlet. Best for him to move to Saudi.

Anybody remember the article in paki press about how our water commissioner (aranganathan I think. His name too was spelled badly by paki press) was very SDRE and intimidated by Pakistani protests and was shivering in his dhoti etc etc?

Arav
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 03 Aug 2011 15:38

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Arav » 19 Feb 2013 08:03

India can divert only minimum water from Kishanganga: tribunal



In a partial award announced in the Kishanganga dispute, the Hague-based Court of Arbitration allowed India on Monday to divert only a minimum flow of water from Neelum/Kishanganga River for power generation.

The Indian government had sought full diversion of the river water, but the court determined that India was under an obligation to construct and operate the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant (HEP) in such a way as to maintain a minimum flow of water in the river at a rate to be determined by the court in its final award.

A copy of the judgment available with Dawn shows that the final award will be announced in December this year. The court asked India and Pakistan to provide data by June so that it could determine the minimum flow of water.

On May 17, 2010, Pakistan had instituted arbitral proceedings against India under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 and approached the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) against violation of the treaty. The ICA granted a stay and stopped India from constructing the 330MW Kishanganga hydroelectric project in occupied Kashmir.

Pakistan had put two questions, which were legal in nature, before the tribunal — whether India’s proposed diversion of the Neelum/Kishanganga River into another tributary breaches India’s legal obligations owed to Pakistan under the treaty and whether under the treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of a run-of-river plant below the dead storage level in any circumstances except in the case of an unforeseen emergency.

On the second question, the court determined that except in the case of an unforeseen emergency, the treaty did not permit reduction below the dead storage level of the water level in the reservoirs of run-of-river plants on the western rivers.

It further said the accumulation of sediment in the reservoir of a run-of-river plant on the western rivers did not constitute an unforeseen emergency that would permit depletion of the reservoir below the dead storage level for drawdown flushing purposes. Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the Kishanganga hydroelectric plant to an extent that will entail depletion of the reservoir below dead storage level.

A senior official who is familiar with the development told Dawn that the court’s decision had endorsed Pakistan’s view that the neutral expert’s decision in the Baglihar case regarding drawdown flushing below the dead storage level was wrong and in gross violation of the parameters defined by the Indus Waters Treaty. Henceforth, designs and operations of run-of-river plants on western rivers would be determined by this decision and not that of the neutral expert.

By obtaining this award, Pakistan has taken the issue of Indus waters with India on a new basis. The years of inconclusive discussions and delays in the Indus Waters Commission during which Pakistan was constantly frustrated by the apparent inability of the commission to oversee the water regime effectively have been brought to an end.

Experts said the award had clearly and conclusively established that there were procedures set out in the Indus Waters Treaty that India must follow and the commission must secure and that India’s compliance with these obligations could and would be reviewed by international courts.

India is constructing the 330MW hydroelectric project with a dam at Gurez from where it intends to divert the entire winter flow through a tunnel and deliver water into Bunar, Madhmati, Nallaat, Bandipora in occupied Kashmir.

The court’s partial decision is clear in this regard that it permits India to divert water for power generation but will determine limits and parameters of the diversion. The court will define a minimum flow regime and thus India will be unable to divert permanently complete winter flows over a period of six to eight months in a year.

The Indus Waters Treaty denoted the conclusion of protracted and taxing negotiations ending the canal waters dispute which had erupted in 1948. Unlike other water treaties, it created an inimitable paradigm by allocating entire rivers dividing the Indus system of rivers between India and Pakistan. While largely perceived to be an exemplary accord having endured two wars and constant strain between the two governments, some experts question its efficacy. They consider this view to be a misnomer as India’s disregard for the treaty began from its inception.

From its planned construction of Wullar Barrage in 1961, failures to release canal waters in 1965, Dul Hasti, Salal, Baglihar, Kishanganga, Nimoo Bazgo, Chutak, Uri-I to many other projects on the western rivers, India has ignored its treaty obligations and designed its projects as it saw fit.

The erroneous perception stems from Pakistan’s omission to take timely action against illegalities. India proceeded with the construction of works not permitted under the treaty and kept Pakistan engaged in correspondence and negotiations for years while taking their projects to a stage of a fait accompli.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Feb 2013 08:51

The amount of water flow that will be allowed to pass downstream of Kishenganga will have to be 'environmental flows'. The rest of the quantum of water must be allowed to be diverted by India.

India will certainly go in for clarification and correct interpretation of CoA's judgement whenever the final award is given.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Pranav » 19 Feb 2013 09:25

Jhujar wrote:http://hal-sde.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/76/13/05/PDF/ly2012-pub00036371.pdf



That has a good discussion of various flushing methods.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Pranav » 19 Feb 2013 09:30

Arav wrote:India can divert only minimum water from Kishanganga: tribunal

On the second question, the court determined that except in the case of an unforeseen emergency, the treaty did not permit reduction below the dead storage level of the water level in the reservoirs of run-of-river plants on the western rivers.

It further said the accumulation of sediment in the reservoir of a run-of-river plant on the western rivers did not constitute an unforeseen emergency that would permit depletion of the reservoir below the dead storage level for drawdown flushing purposes. Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the Kishanganga hydroelectric plant to an extent that will entail depletion of the reservoir below dead storage level.

A senior official who is familiar with the development told Dawn that the court’s decision had endorsed Pakistan’s view that the neutral expert’s decision in the Baglihar case regarding drawdown flushing below the dead storage level was wrong and in gross violation of the parameters defined by the Indus Waters Treaty. Henceforth, designs and operations of run-of-river plants on western rivers would be determined by this decision and not that of the neutral expert.


It seems one can use a low-level gate for flushing ... the only restriction is that the reservoir should not be depleted below "dead storage level" (which, apparently, is the level of the intake going to the turbine).

So apparently no problem in flushing through low-level gates when the reservoir is full.

Coupled with a bypass channel there should be no problem.

As far as I can tell there is no injunction against low-level gates.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 19 Feb 2013 09:59

http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-88671 ... e-court---
Kishanganga project: Pakistan losses case at The Hague court
KARACHI: The International Court of Arbitration at The Hague upheld India's right to divert water from the Kishanganga hydroelectric project in Kashmir, Geo News reported Tuesday.
Islamabad had proposed the establishment of a Court of Arbitration and the appointment of a neutral expert to resolve the dispute in November 2009.Pakistan objected to the construction of the project on the Kishanganga, which is called Neelum upon entering Pakistan.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 19 Feb 2013 10:16

Kishenganga Project: Two Questions - The Hindu
1. Whether India’s proposed diversion of the river Kishenganga (Neelum) into another Tributary, i.e. the Bonar Madmati Nallah, being one central element of the Kishenganga Project, breaches India’s legal obligations owed to Pakistan under the Treaty, as interpreted and applied in accordance with international law, including India’s obligations under Article III (2) (let flow all the waters of the Western rivers and not permit any interference with those waters) and Article IV (6) (maintenance of natural channels)? [the “First Dispute”]

2. Whether under the Treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of a run-of-river Plant below Dead Storage Level (DSL) in any circumstances except in the case of an unforeseen emergency? [the “Second Dispute”]

Pakistan: Contended that the KHEP’s planned diversion of the waters of the Kishenganga/Neelum, as well as the use of the drawdown flushing technique, both at the KHEP or at other Indian hydroelectric projects that the Treaty regulates, are impermissible under the Indus Waters Treaty.

India: Maintained that both the design and planned mode of operation of the KHEP are fully in conformity with the Treaty.

Source: Press release of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, September 1, 2012

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7573
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prasad » 19 Feb 2013 11:49

Anujan wrote:Anybody remember the article in paki press about how our water commissioner (aranganathan I think. His name too was spelled badly by paki press) was very SDRE and intimidated by Pakistani protests and was shivering in his dhoti etc etc?

They spelt his name as Auranganathan. Typical porkis.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinandan, Bart S, vijayk and 32 guests