Indus Water Treaty

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Aug 2010 15:10

Appendix: Annual Western River* Inflows by Seasons: 1923 - 2008 (Million Acre Feet)
Years,Kharif,Rabi,Total
1922-23,121.47,25.23,146.7
1923-24,130.47,23.55,153.02
1924-25,109.56,20.13,129.69
1925-26,100.5,18.15,118.65
1926-27,99.16,18.15,117.31
1927-28,90.44,20.41,110.85
1928-29,108.21,22.09,130.3
1929-30,97.2,26.96,124.16
1930-31,117.14,19.72,36.86
1931-32,101.28,22.31,123.59
1932-33,107.63,17.63,125.26
1933-34,125.68,18.76,144.44
1934-35,108.19,18.66,126.85
1935-36,116.81,22.29,139.1
1936-37,124.92,20.92,145.84
1937-38,110.1,21.35,131.45
1938-39,125.37,22.59,147.96
1939-40,127.25,17.55,144.8
1940-41,107.48,15.82,123.3
1941-42,106.61,25.61,132.3
1942-43,145.96,23.4,169.36
1943-44,130.54,19.61,150.15
1944-45,119.42,20.37,139.79
1945-46,131.64,19.1,150.74
1946-47,112.01,18.42,130.43
1947-48,101.36,23.31,124.67
1948-49,132.15,23.75,155.72
1949-50,132.29,23.71,156
1950-51,151.27,20.38,171.65
1951-52,93.6,20.21,113.81
1952-53,112.33,17.97,130.3
1953-54,116.31,26.77,143.08
1954-55,119.98,20.27,140.25
1955-56,107.51,25.02,132.53
1956-57,131.92,25.46,157.38
1957-58,123,28.1,151.1
1958-59,124.47,34.09,158.56
1959-60,154.74,32.05,186.79
1960-61,NA,NA,NA
1961-62,119.58,20.93,140.51
1962-63,89.96,19.85,109.81
1963-64,113.4,21.66,135.06
1964-65,116.11,22.39,138.43
1965-66,117.81,21.09,138.9
1966-67,116.64,23.83,140.47
1967-68,120.42,25.76,146.18
1968-69,115.63,23.21,138.84
1969-70,114.49,19.76,134.25
1970-71,90.2,15.9,106.1
1971-72,88.27,15.74,104.01
1972-73,101.62,24.45,126.07
1973-74,145.2,19.77,164.97
1974-75,80.64,19.67,100.31
1975-76,116.3,23.22,139.52
1976-77,116.85,18.43,135.28
1977-78,104.36,23.1,127.46
1978-79,NA,NA,NA
1979-80,108.84,23.12,131.96
1980-81,109.81,26.59,136.4
1981-82,117.68,22.93,140.61
1982-83,97.11,25.27,122.38
1983-84,128.29,21.67,149.96
1984-85,115.99,18.93,134.92
1985-86,91.66,26.02,117.68
1986-87,116.38,30.27,146.65
1987-88,117.77,29.28,141.05
1988-89,136.56,24.84,101.42
1989-90,102.01,29.31,131.32
1990-91,130.97,35.14,166.11
1991-92,141.53,30.57,172.1
1992-93,138.62,31.06,169.68
1993-94,104.68,22.8,127.48
1994-95,138.02,27.79,165.81
1995-96,129.7,28.93,158.63
1996-97,137.49,23.76,161.25
1997-98,110.1,32.22,142.32
1998-99,124.93,24.68,149.61
1999-00,107.45,22.12,129.57
2000-01,86.33,16.56,102.89
2001-02,79.85,17.28,97.13
2002-03,94.94,23.06,117.99
2003-04,115.61,22.14,137.76
2004-05,82.14,30.56,112.7
2005-06,121.22,23.95,145.17
2006-07,121.85,30.84,152.69
2007-08,105.87,19.99,125.86

* Includes three western rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.
Rabi = Winter crop season; Kharif = Summer crop season
NA = Not available
Source: Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Aug 2010 15:39

From the pdf , link above

Poor management and distribution of irrigation water also means that only 45 percent of cultivable land is under cultivation at any given time. Pakistan’s crop productivity per unit of water is very low at 0.13 kilograms per cubic meter. What this means is that Pakistan is using 97 percent of its allocated water resources to support one of the lowest productivities in the world per unit of water. This reality does not seem to have sunk in and does not feature in the water discourse of the country.

Scarcity can occur at different levels of supply, depending upon demand and other circumstances—such as growing crops in agriculture- based countries or diversion to giant metropolitan areas. Scarcity in Pakistan may have its roots in water shortage, but it is also a social construct—a result of inefficiency, entitlements for the few (and the power that comes from this) and low access for the many. Water scarcity may be controlled by altering water-use behavior, modulating expectations, and introducing regulations. There are, therefore, remedies and options that can be considered and exercised.

It is important to understand the factors other than population growth that are driving Pakistan toward water scarcity. Reductions in the ice and snow areas of the Himalayas mean a lower quantum of annual snowmelts and, therefore, reduced water in the Indus River system. The decline in freshwater additions to surface water bodies has rendered them too saline and polluted for drinking and agricultural purposes. Reduced holding capacity and more rapid runoff (when normal rains and snowfall return) lead to floods and lower reserves of water for drinking and agriculture. The drying up of the Indus Delta has led to losses in the coastal ecosystem and sea intrusion is up to 225 kilometers.

While the realities of water availability, water regime, climate, and delta conditions have changed, the ways of using water have not. This has resulted in large- scale degradation of the resource base. Thirtyeight percent of Pakistan’s irrigated lands are waterlogged and 14 percent are saline; there is now saline water intrusion into mined aquifers.There has been a denudation of rangelands and watersheds, a depletion of forest cover and vegetation, a decline in the water table in Baluchistan to alarming levels, and a drastic reduction of sweetwater (fresh drinking water) pockets in the Lower Indus Basin. It is now accepted among many water sector practitioners and professionals in Pakistan that the Indus Basin irrigation system is vulnerable, that greater flexibility is required in the way water systems are envisaged and used, and that there is an urgent need for trust- building among water users and the institutions that control water.

////

Most importantly, a shift is needed from management of water supply to management of water demand. The entire edifice of the argument for more irrigation infrastructure is based on an uncritical capitulation to the demand for more irrigation water for agriculture. There is a need to unpack this demand—who exactly is making this demand, and why should this demand be considered when agriculture already absorbs 97 percent of the total mobilized surface water, and almost all the groundwater, for supporting one of the lowest agricultural productivities in the world per unit of water and land? Can this demand for more water for agriculture be reduced by producing more with less water? The answer is yes. During the drought of 1999-2000, when water availability was drastically reduced, one would have expected lower production. Instead, there was a bumper wheat crop, proving that higher yields are possible with less water.

Pakistanis would do far better to listen to saner voices emanating from within their own community and among water experts who seem to be far more candid in admiting flaws in the system. First step towards solving a problem is to recognise the problem. Now Army and others in Power are the major misuers of water and hence the war mongering on water resources , since India is the most visible enemy to Pakistan.

The author of this article in the report is Simi Kamal is chair of the Hisaar Foundation in Karachi and a member of the
Global Water Partnership, a Stockholm-based think tank.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 23 Aug 2010 07:12

Chaanakya,

I think you missed the wood for the trees with the point she was making.

Yes, She got most of the numbers wrong. This is to be expected from
a western media perspective. Even we don't fully understand all the details and complex
numbers involved. This is not the way to challenge Western media.

The question is what is your opinion on her big picture.

You haven't commented about that at all. This is a real weakness from our side.

Also in future please think twice about posting data, with reference no less, from
a Baqui government website or even the many Pak forums.

To my mind this is not an neutral source and should be used far more carefully and sparingly by us.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 23 Aug 2010 23:26

^^

The first post after your's is direct from GOI document and IWT quote.
Subsequent ones are from Wilsoncentre ,

Welcome to the Woodrow Wilson Center's website.

Established by an act of Congress in 1968, the Wilson Center is our nation's official living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson. As both a distinguished scholar—the only American President with a Ph.D.—and a national leader, Wilson felt strongly that the scholar and the policymaker were "engaged in a common enterprise."

I don't know if data is not to be trusted. However, that is besides the point. Most of the data , which quotes Baqui sources, even in the pdf document, do not support Baqui point of view. The data do not afford yhem to reach the conclusion they wish to reach. That is the point. If we quote our data to support our point of view that would not prove the point without verification by independent sources. Whereas Baqui point of view could well be refuted with reference to their data which they can not deny anyway.

I have not quoted from baqui fora anywhere unless Govt website qualifies as one.

Now coming to your larger picture. What is it that you think I missed?

Pakistan doesn't need any excuse to go to war with India, it has been in war ever since it was born. Kashmir or water is just an excuse trotted to support their action. Ultimate agenda is in the motto of PA.

India doesn't have to do anything. If PAKISTAN continues with its water management in the present way it would be digging its own grave.The question is if water below RIm is 135-145 MAF what is it Pakistan complaining about. Ultimately India can not hold water in any significant way nor it has any inclination to inflict damage to Pakistan.

Is there any option for India to forgo even eastern river? Not al all.

Lastly, no matter what the population of either country would be after certain number of years, water in Indus system is not going to increase and the allocation is not going to change. Pakistan knows this but it has to explain to its own population what and hows of the problem it is facing.This posturing is for their benefit not for knowing ones. These little journos, who know nothing , love to play in their hands for their own reason. For all sound and fury, baquis are not going to withdraw from IWT. Their fear and desire is that India withdraws from it so that they can tell "I told you so". And there is no reason as yet for us to do so.

Nook war on water is a too far fetched an idea to even consider. There would be other excuses.

And do tell what do you think is the larger picture so we can elaborate on it further.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 24 Aug 2010 03:42

Chaanakya,

I understand where you are coming from. Trust me it is a frustration of mine as well that all kinds
of numbers are getting thrown around. But we are not making head way in explaining this the media.

By nit picking we come across as pendant's, more interested in scoring points, than as actual scholars
who are trying to understand and advance our cause.

The first can be easily ignored, the second is much much harder to ignore. I hope you understand the difference.

Anyway the main point she is trying to make is that the Indus Water Treaty imposes clear limits on the Baqui's.
This not something the West or the Baqui's themselves understand. These limits are lower than the present
Baqui state. A new equilibrium will have to be found with the Baqui population. As she pointed out this is inevitable.
As the river flows reduce, India's eventual absolute use will start approaching 30%.

The world needs to start propogating the idea that there are absolute limits to the Baqui population. It is their
failure to understand this that is causing conflict. A failure to face reality.

The question is if India is preparing for this eventuality when as is likely several million try to force their way across the border.
The last time this happened India prepared for a war that caused Bangladesh.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 24 Aug 2010 19:00

^^
So far Indian approach to IWT has been that of strict compliance. PPIC has not been able to tell any material violation of IWT by India , whatever the public posturing maybe.

The point is water in the indus system has been within broad limits based on data from long years. Even if India's water use approaches 30% it is not going to make significant impact on water availability to Baquis. They are not in a position to invest in water infrastructure due to different priorities. Army would not allow major diversion of resources either water or finance.Increasing population would pose different kind of problem for Pakistan and India.

India has to be ready to deal with those problems when needed. Millions of baquis would not be forcing their way into India given the deployment at IB.If and when that happens it might result in more countries being created.

Now it would be too much to think that India has somehow answer to problems and limitations of Baqui's population and that answer lies in forgoing its share in IWT.

Pakistan has to solve its own problem which is what some of their own scholars point out. These journos who depend on some data to arrive at unsupported conclusions only create false impressions about deprivation and indulge in scaremongering or war warmongering.On this basis they try to support entitlements where none exists.

If they don't want to understand, nobody can make them understand. It is also not our job to make them understand or solve their problems. We have to protect our own interest and show others what the facts of the case are. Baquis are most welcome to abrogate the treaty.

There could be no grand gesture or visionary approach except baquis becoming one of the Indian state and United India steps up investment in Baquiland since monies tied up in Kashmir would be freed up. I think it is high time to start interpreting and telling that the Idea of joint management is nothing but acceptance of failure of Pakistani state and a cry for merger with Indian nation.

You can wake up some one sleeping but how to wake up someone awake.....

saip · Post by **saip** » 24 Aug 2010 22:33

Pakistan's water problems have only just begun

(Looks like this article is already posted on the previous page. Looks like this Gwen Dyer keeps sending her articles to different papers on different days)

What turns a problem into a potential conflict is the fact that five of the six tributaries that make up the Indus system cross Indian-controlled Kashmir on their way to Pakistan. There is a treaty, dating from 1960, that divides the water between the two countries, with India getting the water from the eastern three rivers and Pakistan owning the flow from the western three. But the treaty contains a time-bomb. India's three rivers contain only about one-fifth of the system's total flow. To boost India's share up to about 30 per cent, therefore, the World Bank arbitrators proposed that the treaty also let India extract a certain amount of water from two of Pakistan's rivers before they leave Indian territory. The proposal was reluctantly accepted by Pakistan.

The amount is not small - it is, in fact, enough water to irrigate 320,000ha - and it is a fixed amount, regardless of how much water there actually is in the river. Now roll the tape forward 20 years. The glacial melt-water is coming to an end, and the total flow of the Indus system is down by half. But almost all of the loss is in Pakistan's three rivers, since the smaller Indian three do not depend heavily on glaciers.

I thought India is allowed only to build run of the river projects on the western rivers and not allowed to divert water. Where did the figure of 320,000 ha come from?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Aug 2010 15:32

saip wrote:I thought India is allowed only to build run of the river projects on the western rivers and not allowed to divert water. Where did the figure of 320,000 ha come from?

You have raised two questions, saip. One is about India's usage of waters from the Western rivers. See my earlier post for an answer

The other is regarding diversion of water. The IWT clearly states that inter-tributary transfers are allowed on the Jhelum.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Aug 2010 20:05

isnt this an ideal opportunity for pakistan to construct water storage lakes and alleviate future drought situations?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Aug 2010 07:49

It is time for even bolder initiatives in the Indus River Valley

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... ver_valley

President Obama is planning a trip to India in the fall. Top American diplomats are engaged in both countries constantly at the moment. The U.N. and other international agencies are deeply engaged due to the current flood crisis. Perhaps the time is right to propose a massive, multilateral Indus River Valley Development Initiative. Perhaps such an initiative could provide an area of common interest to promote a constructive dialogue between India and Pakistan (after all, notes Solomon, agreements such as the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty do exist even if they have been somewhat strained by time and circumstance). Perhaps with a redouble initiative and ingenuity a consortium of nations can fashion a program via which the United States, other major powers, and multilateral organizations can marshal the massive resources such an initiative would take. The effort could and should cover modernization of flood control infrastructure and capabilities, irrigation systems, and the efficient, smart production of the region's under-tapped but mismanaged hydro-power resources. It could provide technical assistance, education programs to train those who will be needed to manage the resources at the local, regional and national levels and it would also provide jobs in a region where the absence of jobs creates human kindling for extremism and border tensions. It might also include other elements like sharing the kind of satellite imagery and resources that are essential to understanding and managing long-term water issues and thus anticipating and defusing future tensions where possible.

David Rothkopf used to write pro-India columns (except when he wrote about the nuclear deal). Now he is virtually advocating US intervention. Also he is very close to the current administration.

Shankk · Post by **Shankk** » 27 Aug 2010 09:53

^^^^This is really a distant issue of replacing or renegotiating IWT. Just in case such a hypothetical scenario does materialize it is very important that India ensures that any such new or modified treaty is a totally bilateral affair. This one condition itself will cause much takleef to Pakistanis to fathom. No foreign country should have any say in those matters. It is consistent with the stance India has been taking all along in all matters. Anyway India has done Pakistan a huge favor by honoring the treaty while Pakistan is continuously promoting terrorism not just in J&K but all over India including their official strategy of death by thousand cuts.

If international powers try to muscle their way in and want to get involved in bilateral affairs between India and Pakistan on the pretext that Pakistan is a lower riparian state then the same should be applicable to India too considering India is a lower riparian country on the Brahmaputra stream to China. India should then demand that these outside powers extract the very same concessions from China. As such India is very capable of sorting out the issue on her own with China but at least make these countries expend their political capital in making a deal with China in this matter. They must note that supporting Pakistan in this matter has some cost for them. China will use the opportunity to milk them very nicely. Even in the case that Chinese collude with these external powers behind the scenes India always has the option to go to war just as Pakistan is threatening.

Any increase in noise by outside powers in replacing or changing IWT should be met with equal amount of noise about making the same treaty between India and China. Let these powers decide how much cost they are willing to pay to renegotiate the treaty.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Aug 2010 09:57

Shankk wrote: If international powers try to muscle their way in and want to get involved in bilateral affairs between India and Pakistan on the pretext that Pakistan is a lower riparian state then the same should be applicable to India too considering India is a lower riparian country on the Brahmaputra stream to China. India should then demand that these outside powers extract the very same concessions from China.

In my view, we should not involve foreign countries in our affairs at all. We should sort out our problems with Pakistan and China without any interference.

Shankk · Post by **Shankk** » 27 Aug 2010 10:17

Abhiskhek, yes that is the optimal scenario but then we dealing with Pakistanis here. When it comes to backstabbing like promoting terrorism or Kargil they do it on their own but in other matters they would certainly want to involve other parties. They do not loose much anyway because India has a desperate need to be seen just and law abiding so Pakistanis anyway achieve their goals, by hook or crook. However they know very well that in this multilateral scenario these external parties extract their pound of flesh just for poking their nose in our affairs. Look at IWT....it is an internal matter of India and Pakistan but India has to worry about what an independent expert or court of arbitration decides...has to spend millions of dollars while poor Indians are dying of hunger (any Pakistani will be happy to provide numbers of these). Pakistanis do not have to spend much of political capital which they lack in the first place...all they have to spend money for is to buy an additional bottle of vaseline to facilitate yet another GUBO. Their share of legal expenses are already paid by billions of dollars of aid money these powers pour in and part of this aid is Indian money paid as legal fees in pursuing the case as per IWT.

My point is that we need to deal with foreign powers and raise the cost for them for meddling in this bilateral affair. Neither they nor Pakistan can make India keep expending her political capital on this bilateral issue.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 15:22

Shankk, India must not agree to any suggestion which brings any forign power in any exchange between India and Pakistan or for that matter India and the PRC.

I will simply point out the story of the monkey and the two cats and the slice of bread.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 28 Aug 2010 19:17

Intervention by consortium of nations (Read US led) to solve IWT problem

The U.S. and the international community have responded generously in the wake of the Pakistan flood crisis. America's $7.5 billion aid effort is a step in the right direction. But it is only a tiny fraction of the several tens of billions that are needed to better manage and preserve the water resources in this fragile, vital region. Further, it is clear that money alone will not solve the problem. Existing treaty relationships between India and Pakistan on the use of the water from the Indus are being strained to breaking by dam projects and shifting demand.

Perhaps with a redouble initiative and ingenuity a consortium of nations can fashion a program via which the United States, other major powers, and multilateral organizations can marshal the massive resources such an initiative would take. The effort could and should cover modernization of flood control infrastructure and capabilities, irrigation systems, and the efficient, smart production of the region's under-tapped but mismanaged hydro-power resources. It could provide technical assistance, education programs to train those who will be needed to manage the resources at the local, regional and national levels and it would also provide jobs in a region where the absence of jobs creates human kindling for extremism and border tensions. It might also include other elements like sharing the kind of satellite imagery and resources that are essential to understanding and managing long-term water issues and thus anticipating and defusing future tensions where possible.

The U.S. and the world -- for humanitarian reasons and for the common sensical reasons associated with trying to defuse tensions in a part of the planet that lives under the threat of nuclear war -- also ought to work on something in this area. Begin with a conference. Find common ground. Build from there. Make real commitments. Treat the matter with the urgency it warrants. It could be a rare chance to turn a crisis into a much-needed breakthrough.

The Indus River Valley is a common artery shared by two of the world's great nations. Either we ensure that water flows freely through it or we run the very real risk that in the not too distant future more blood and tears will.

Spate of articles with undertone of threat .. is something cooking up?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2010 19:56

chaanakya wrote:Intervention by consortium of nations (Read US led) to solve IWT problem

Perhaps the TTP really needs to hang every one of the Americans travelling to the area shoving their noses where they don't belong.

Shankk · Post by **Shankk** » 28 Aug 2010 21:26

No matter how much we wish India and Pakistan solve this problem internally it will not happen. International powers are itching to get involved and Pakistan is more itching to invite them in. It is very much important that we raise the stakes for international powers to get involved right from the get go. If at all a new or renegotiated treat does materialize it must strictly be a bilateral affair with no other country having any say in it.

Things are going to heat up substantially in a near future. No matter how much we wish against it, it is going to happen. Pakistan will simply threaten a nooclear war and then the whole international community will rush in. It is not very easy to ignore international pressure particularly when India would be painted as an aggressor. India fought against the majority of the world on NPT based on moral arguments not any bravado. Situation is different this time. Pakistan would use any refusal from India to paint us as an aggressor.

I would say write or change whatever treaty as required, as long as no outside power has any say in it. China should not be able to get away from any such international intervention. Whatever happens between India and Pakistan should reflect between India and China as well. There are two advantages in involving China in these affairs.

1. It highlights to international community that India is not an aggressor but rather as vulnerable with water as Pakistan is.

2. China despises international mediation in internal affairs as much as India does.

By involving China in this equation India will have one more party saying the same thing that she says that is "buzz off foreign powers". International powers will have to spend their political capital to involve all three parties. If at all any treaty does materialize between India, China and Pakistan either one or two then any breach by China in the treaty will justify India doing the same on western side simply to preserve our interests.

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 29 Aug 2010 04:21

Maybe India should use the 5 million $ to fight this case.

Pakistan to take up issue of Kishan Ganga Dam in ICJ

ISLAMABAD: To safeguard Pakistan’s water economy interest, a three-member delegation headed by Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamat Ali Shah has left for London to take up the issue of controversial Kishan Ganga Dam in International Court of Justice (ICJ), sources in Indus Water Commission informed on Saturday.

Sources informed Daily Times that the country has initiated the matter of controversial Kishan Ganga Water Project to take in International ICJ and in this regard a three-member delegation has departed to London for consultation on appointment of lawyer to fight the case for Pakistan.

During its three-day official visit, the commission would make consultation with representatives of National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (NESPAK), Ministry of Law & Justice and other competent authorities about appointment of lawyer to fight the case of controversial Kishan Ganga Water Project in ICJ.

Sources confirmed that India has already taken concrete measures to take up this issue in ICJ and the government of India has already allocated millions of rupees to fight this case in ICJ against Pakistan. Chairman Mutaheda Kisan Mahaz, Ayub Mayo, while talking to Daily Times on this issue said that India could only use 2.85 MAF water for the irrigation purposes but it is continuously violating the Indus Basin Treaty.

He added that Pakistan Mutaheda Kisan Mahaz and Pakistan Water Movement would break the LOC on September19, if India did not stop water aggression against Pakistan. He said that India must construct dams on ‘run-off rivers’ while abandoning storage of water under different conditions, adding that foreign companies should invest in India in accordance with the norms set by Pakistan so that intended conspiracy against Islamabad could be avoided. “The matter of controversial Kishan Ganga Power Project can not be resolved as easily as the federal government is expecting because this matter is controversial between two nuclear power”, he added. zeeshan javaid

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 29 Aug 2010 06:46

Pakistan violates Indus Water Treaty

A big chunk of the Indo-Pak border in Punjab’s Ferozepur sector is flooded and the Punjab government is angry with Pakistan for the mess. Pakistan has raised an embankment at its Sulenmanki headworks, close to the border, to stop the flow to Sutlej and this has pushed the water back to the Indian side.

Punjab irrigation minister Janmeja Singh Sekhon said, “Pakistan built a bund to stop water from entering its territory, but this is against international law and against provisions of the Indus Water Treaty, signed by India and Pakistan in 1960 on the use and regulation of common rivers.”

Water from Sutlej has started entering a number of villages near the Hussainiwala joint checkpost, on the border, all because of the artificial barrier at Sulenmanki. People from 12 villages in Ferozepur have started leaving because their homes are filled with floodwater.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 31 Aug 2010 17:24

saip wrote:Pakistan's water problems have only just begun

(Looks like this article is already posted on the previous page. Looks like this Gwen Dyer keeps sending her articles to different papers on different days)

What turns a problem into a potential conflict is the fact that five of the six tributaries that make up the Indus system cross Indian-controlled Kashmir on their way to Pakistan. There is a treaty, dating from 1960, that divides the water between the two countries, with India getting the water from the eastern three rivers and Pakistan owning the flow from the western three. But the treaty contains a time-bomb. India's three rivers contain only about one-fifth of the system's total flow. To boost India's share up to about 30 per cent, therefore, the World Bank arbitrators proposed that the treaty also let India extract a certain amount of water from two of Pakistan's rivers before they leave Indian territory. The proposal was reluctantly accepted by Pakistan.

The amount is not small - it is, in fact, enough water to irrigate 320,000ha - and it is a fixed amount, regardless of how much water there actually is in the river. Now roll the tape forward 20 years. The glacial melt-water is coming to an end, and the total flow of the Indus system is down by half. But almost all of the loss is in Pakistan's three rivers, since the smaller Indian three do not depend heavily on glaciers.
I thought India is allowed only to build run of the river projects on the western rivers and not allowed to divert water. Where did the figure of 320,000 ha come from?

Wouldnt it be ironic? Pakis fertile plains getting converted into desert due global warming. These Pakis consider the desert sands of arabia to be ideal and the most beautiful place on planet earth. They can then roam about in these newly formed deserts of Pakistan like nomads on camel and drink camel milk

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 02 Sep 2010 19:35

India, Pak request UN, to appoint Kishenganga umpires

India and Pakistan have written to the United Nations and other prominent international bodies to name neutral umpires for efforts to settle their dispute over Jammu and Kashmir-based Kishenganga hydel project.

Representatives of the two countries, who had met here last month, had agreed to take the services of the UN Secretary General, Rector, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, and Lord Justice of England to decide on the three umpires, including the chairman.

As per the provisions of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, once the process of arbitration is initiated by any of the two countries, the three umpires, including the chairman, have to be appointed within 60 days.

India and Pakistan had failed to reach consensus on the names of three neutral umpires for the International Court of Arbitration which will decide on resolution of dispute over Kishenganga.
The two countries have already nominated two legal experts (arbitrators) each to contest their case over the power project being built in Jammu and Kashmir.

Mitsy · Post by **Mitsy** » 06 Sep 2010 17:32

Airavat wrote:Pakistan violates Indus Water Treaty
Punjab irrigation minister Janmeja Singh Sekhon said, “Pakistan built a bund to stop water from entering its territory, but this is against international law and against provisions of the Indus Water Treaty, signed by India and Pakistan in 1960 on the use and regulation of common rivers.”

The violations of IWT can essetially happen in two ways (both hypothetical)
1. Temporary/ one time violations; like the one above by Pakistan. Very clearly the impact of the same also is limited both in nature & duration.
2. Violations with long term impact; say if India was to build higher storage capacity on a particular river than allowed.

While it looks like the latter ones would be reversible (in terms of WB intervention leading to reduction in storage capacity) , there is no clarity on what is the penalty/ punishment for these 1 time / short duration violations.

Request Gurus to pl clarify on the same. What are the implications (except scoring political points) as specified in the treaty for offenders. Can India take Pakistan to task for this violation on Sutlej? If yes, how? If not, then why are we, inspite of being upper reparians, being such nice guys!!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Sep 2010 06:27

Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric Project: IDB to give $220 million more http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=1 ... =&supDate=

ISLAMABAD (September 08 2010): The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) has reportedly agreed to extend $220 million for 969 MW Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (NJHEP) in addition to $138 million which has already been leased, official sources told Business Recorder. Sources said that IDB is leasing $138 million for some of the civil work components of the Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (NJHEP).
The Bank has now offered lease financing of $220 million for turbines, generators and associated transformers of the project. A formal request had already been submitted to IDB and Economic Affairs Division (EAD), sources added. An IDB appraisal mission is in Islamabad to discuss modalities of further financing for the project.The mission is also part of the member country power strategy program of the IDB. Sources said that the mission also spent a couple of days in Muzaffarabad (AJK) to get an overview of acquisition process, key issues hindering completion of land acquisition, overview of damage owing to cavitations and pitting for the turbine runner, frequency of change, role of sedimentation, year-wise disbursement schedule of all co-financiers (2010 to project completion for civil works and equipment), status of co-financiers.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 08 Sep 2010 11:40

Mitsy wrote:The violations of IWT can essetially happen in two ways (both hypothetical)
1. Temporary/ one time violations; like the one above by Pakistan. Very clearly the impact of the same also is limited both in nature & duration.
2. Violations with long term impact; say if India was to build higher storage capacity on a particular river than allowed.

While it looks like the latter ones would be reversible (in terms of WB intervention leading to reduction in storage capacity) , there is no clarity on what is the penalty/ punishment for these 1 time / short duration violations.

Request Gurus to pl clarify on the same. What are the implications (except scoring political points) as specified in the treaty for offenders. Can India take Pakistan to task for this violation on Sutlej? If yes, how? If not, then why are we, inspite of being upper riparian, being such nice guys!!

Mitsy, the IWT describes the resolution mechanisms. Broadly, the issues have to be resolved at the level of the Permanent Indus Commissioners (PICs), or at the level of the respective governments, or the matter can be escalated to a Neutral Expert (NE) or a Court of Arbitration (CoA). There are certain issues that cannot be settled by the NE. The Sutlej issue (I don't know what it is but I presume that it was some kind of flood works that Pakistan did on its side without the knowledge of the Indian PIC) should be resolved at the first two levels. These things have happened several times before and have been satisfactorily resolved at that level. IWT offers both PICs rights to visit locations in the other country and satisfy themselves that IWT was not being violated.

BTW, you refer to WB as though they are arbitrators. They aren't. They are just a facilitator of a certain process detailed in the IWT. That's all.

Mitsy · Post by **Mitsy** » 08 Sep 2010 12:54

Thanks for the clarification SSridhar garu...
Kudos to the Indian side though, for ensuring that the number of disputes (genuine or otherwise) till now have been so limited.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Sep 2010 14:35

China builds a dam on the Indus near Ladakh

When I read this, I was reminded of a popular comedy scene in a Tamil movie. The comedienne comes in various disguises to catch somebody but he is instantly identified in every attempt. Frustrated, he finally asks his tormentors how were they able to identify him every time. They say that he simply forgot to hide his Kung-fu warrior topknot while he took extraordinary efforts otherwise.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 11 Sep 2010 19:36

^^

There are at least two dams ,~~one on Sutlej and~~ another both on Indus ( near Kushan airport and Nagri -Ali prefecture). Dam on Indus in Ali was ready in 2005 while~~Sutlej~~ Indus was ready in 2007.Google also fudges and cooperates with China.

Interesting aspect is that Google had blacked out the 2005 images on ~~sutlej~~ Indus river and only 2007 image is now shown with dam fully completed.
Ali Nagri Dam on Indus
Lat: 32°31'27.50"N
Long: 80° 9'23.62"E
Dam on ~~Sutlej~~ Indus
Lat: 32° 1'38.87"N
Long: 80° 6'13.79"E

ps: Corrected.
following the path both are Indus, other being tributary coming in from Ali

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 14 Sep 2010 00:50

Is River Indus changing its course after Pak floods?

If we believe the third eye in the sky, the American satellites - Terra and Aqua's -recent data, history is repeating itself in the form of river Indus which is once again changing its course and is moving towards Kutch.

History says that the course of the river had earlier changed due to a major earthquake that took place on June 16, 1819 at 4pm. The Indus, which used to flow by Kutch's Lakhpat port, changed its course due to the tectonic movements and inched closer to Pakistan, around 125 km southeast of Karachi, flowing downwards to meet the Arabian Sea while it moved 150km northwest from the Lakhpat port.

However, due to the recent heavy rains and floods that have devastated Pakistan, the course of the river Indus has started changing once again, and it is now inching towards Kutch. The satellite images presented here show that a new course has developed to the south of Kalri lake in Thatta district of Pakistan.

Interpreting the satellite images, remote sensing expert Dr PS Thakker says, "New courses have developed to the south of Kalri lake, one of which has reached 60 km northwest of Lakhpat to the Sir Creek, while the second is 56 km north of Lakhpat, near Jati in Pakistan. Kalri or Keenjhar lake is a fresh water lake in Pakistan, which plays a substantial ecological role in the functioning of the Indus river basin."

Dr Thakker added, "The lake is extremely important for a wide variety of birds. The Indus or Sindhu river was flowing near Lakhpat, which was a major port, known as Basta Bundar, before the 1819 earthquake took place. There were many small ports around the course of river Kori and Puran, which were tributaries of the Indus, like Sindari, Kaeera Nulla, Sundo and Kareemshahi."

Speaking about the ports and towns in the Great Rann of Kutch,
Dr Thakker said, "Vigho Kot was a major port and as big as Bhuj city. These facts have been mentioned in the memoirs of Burne's, written in 1828."

"These satellite images taken on August 27 show the original course of river Indus, meeting at 23º 59' 31" N and 67º 24' 38" E. After that, due to the recent floods in Pakistan, the area remained covered by clouds. The first cloud-free image was available on September 7, 2010, which shows that two new courses of river Indus have been developed to the east of the present-day course. These two courses meet the Sir Creek at 24º 21' 30" N and 68º 15' 21" E and the other course can be seen at 24º 14' 16" N and 68º 26' 54" E," informed Dr Thakker.

He added that the water of the Indus river might reach the east of Lakhpat in the Great Rann of Kutch, near Zara at 24º 14' 09" N and 69º 12' 07" E. Possibilities cannot be denied that the water may reach further east.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Sep 2010 22:45

Indus Waters Civilisation : 50 years of IWT on 19th Sept 2010

Reaching 50 years is a milestone. Landmarks are also often accompanied by reality checks. It is a remarkable achievement that the Indus Waters Treaty, signed between India and Pakistan on September 19, 1960, has survived wars and a tumultuous relationship. Yet, the robustness of the treaty has come under serious strain, threatening to undercut peace efforts and create a flashpoint. Fifty years on, it needs to be asked whether “water rationality” that led to the IWT will continue to hold in the future?

What is disputable today has nothing to do with water sharing but to whether the Indian projects on the western rivers conform to the technical stipulations. Storages on rivers indeed create anxiety for lower riparian states and India, as an upper riparian, cannot disregard such concerns about water supply. However, it must be noted that there is not a single storage dam that India has built on the western rivers even though the IWT allows storage entitlement of up to 3.6 MAF (million acre feet). The 33 projects India has undertaken, of which 14 are in operation and 13 under construction and the remaining either at the proposal stage or deferred, are run-of-the-river with a capacity of 10 MW or less. Each project, in accordance with the IWT, requires India to provide specified information to Pakistan at least six months before the commencement of the works. Clearly the question of India acquiring capacity to manipulate or withhold the flow of water is, under the IWT’s provisions, not only untenable but can be monitored.

This, however, does not mean that Pakistan is not using the water issue to drum up hysteria over Indian regional hegemony and there are good reasons why the propaganda machinery works overtime. Pakistan receives 67 per cent of international waters, making it a boxed-in-lower-riparian not only with India but also with Afghanistan vis-a-vis the Kabul river. It articulates its vulnerability and victimhood by raising water as a “lifeline” issue, suggesting clearly that the sharing of the waters with India still remains unfinished business. A section of Pakistan’s political-military leadership, given its feudal and industrial background, believes that the water issues not only help divert attention from Pakistan’s inefficient water management policies and inter-provincial water dispute between Punjab and Sindh but would also provide a “back door” for international involvement, once again, in the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

The raison d’etre of the IWT was precisely to delink the water issue from territorial disputes and settle any differences within the mechanism of the Permanent Indus Commission. By linking the waters to Kashmir, Pakistan is trying to reframe the water discourse through territoriality. Pakistan needs to understand that India has been far more open to talks and concessions on water issues than territory. In the case of the Salal dam and Tulbul navigation project, India conceded to Pakistan’s demands by making structural changes to the former and suspending work on the latter, having suffered excessive siltation thereon. The only possible way Pakistan can secure its long-term water requirements is to engage with India on water needs.

Remarkably, the means to overcome some of the predicted water woes between India and Pakistan are in the IWT itself. Article VII opens up a range of possibilities for future cooperation through “common interest in optimum development of the rivers” and “undertaking engineering works on the rivers”. This will require a new set of skills and approaches, but above all a radically different mindset. Issues such as food and energy will increasingly have intricate linkages to water while demographic pressures on water availability and climate change will critically impact water management. Since the Indus and Sutlej originate in Tibet, cooperation with China will at some point become necessary for purposes of data exchange on the flows, especially with evidence of permafrost melting in Tibet.

The IWT has shown that water-related interests are not always incompatible. The treaty has worked and it does no one any good to disturb the equilibrium.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 01 Oct 2010 00:57

India does not have capability to stop water share of Pakistan: Raja Pervez Ashraf

Federal minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf has disclosed that India does not have capability to stop water share of Pakistan while it is even not using its own share of water under Indus basin Water River Treaty. Responding to queries of members of National Assembly (NA) on Thursday Federal minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf said that dams are being constructed to utilize rain water but Kala Bagh Dam is controversial while only consensus dams are being constructed.
He said that India reserved 2-lac acre-feet water for initial digging of Baglihar plant during 8th August to 25th August 2008 and President and Prime Minister has raised the issue.
He brushes aside the rumors that India is stopping water share of Pakistan as no violation of stoppage of water come in notice. He said that India does not have the capability to stop water share of Pakistan.
He said that Kala Bagh Dam has become controversial as three provincial assemblies approved resolutions against it only those dams are being constructed which are not controversial.
He said that construction of Neelam Jehlum Hydro Power Project could be delayed by one year while Rs 17541 million would be spent on the project and 1000-megawatt power would be gained.
He said that PEPCO and the companies under it would be given autonomy and handed over to private sector so that they would be responsible for their loss and profit. The decision would improve PEPCO's performance and decrease it's line losses. He said that Prime Minister has constituted special committee in this regard.
He said that power pilferage is a big issue and system is pressurized due to it. He said that agreements have been made with distribution companies to stop power pilferage.
He further said that PEPCO and distribution companies are being restructured. He said that strict steps are being taken to stop electric pilferage through "kunda culture". He said that he has appealed the provinces to restore magistrate system and the government is legislating in this regard so that power pilferage could be declared heinous crime.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Oct 2010 19:29

Brad Goodman wrote:India does not have capability to stop water share of Pakistan: Raja Pervez Ashraf

Please some Biryani for Miyan Ashraf!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Oct 2010 15:19

Pakistani Water Minister on outstanding IWT issues

: Pakistan has instituted proceedings in the International Court of Arbitration to resolve the issue of the Kishanganga dam, which India is building on the Neelum river in Jammu and Kashmir, a federal minister has said.

Water and Power Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf made the remarks in the National Assembly or lower house of parliament on Friday.

He said the court is likely to take up the matter soon. India had addressed Pakistan's concerns on a parapet of the Nimmo Bazgo hydroelectric project on the Indus river but concerns relating to pondage, spillway and power intake are yet to be resolved, he said.

Issues involving the construction of the Uri-II hydroelectric plant by India on the Jhelum river and the Chutak hydroelectric plant on a tributary of the Indus too have been resolved by the Permanent Indus Waters Commission, Ashraf said.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 30 Oct 2010 00:44

American jurist Stephen Myron Schwebel was the appointed Chairman of the three-member court of arbitration under IWT

UN appoints US jurist for Indo-Pak arbitration on Kishenganga
PTI | 09:10 PM,Oct 29,2010

New Delhi, Oct 29 (PTI) The United Nations has appointed a leading US lawyer to head an International Court of Arbitration to settle the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kishenganga hydro power project in Jammu and Kashmir, paving the way for legal proceedings to start.American jurist Stephen Myron Schwebel was the appointed Chairman of the three-member court of arbitration by the UN Secretary General, sources in the government told PTI.An expert on international law, Schwebel is well known for his separate and dissenting opinions as a Judge of the International Court of Justice between 1981-2000 and for his involvement in many cases of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.The appointment will be followed by selection of two other neutral umpires, who will named by Rector, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, and Lord Justice of England to settle the dispute.While one umpire will be an expert in engineering, the other will be a legal luminary.Accusing India of breaching the provisions of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty by diverting the water of the Jhelum tributary for its Kishenganga hydel power project, Pakistan sought international arbitration in May this year after the two countries failed to resolve the issue bilaterally for over two decades.As per the provisions of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, once the process of arbitration is initiated by any of the two countries, the three umpires, including the chairman, have to be appointed within 60 days.If the two countries fail to appoint umpires, the two parties prepare a draw of lots and request a "person" mentioned in the Treaty to select the umpire.The draw of lots was held here in July where the two sides agreed to take the services of the UN chief, the Rector, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London and Lord Justice of England to appoint the three neutral umpires. The draw of lots was held as India and Pakistan had failed to reach consensus on the names of three neutral umpires for the International Court of Arbitration. The two countries have already nominated two legal experts (arbitrators) each to contest their case over the power project being.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 30 Oct 2010 00:51

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/people/d ... webel.html

Judge Stephen M. Schwebel is an American jurist and expert on international law. At present he is an independent arbitrator and counsel in Washington, DC, and a door tenant of Essex Court Chambers in London.

He is best known for delivering dissenting opinions in the case of Nicaragua v. United States and in the pair of Libya v. United Kingdom and Libya v. United States Lockerbie (Preliminary Objections) cases, which were discontinued in 2003.
He served at various positions in the U.S. Department of State, Legal Adviser Office in 1961-1981 and he was a member of the United Nations International Law Commission from 1977 to 1980. Judge Schwebel was first elected to the International Court of Justice in January 1981. He was subsequentely re-elected twice, and served as the President of the Court in the triennium 1997-2000, which marked the busiest docket of 22 new cases in the history of the Court.

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 03 Nov 2010 03:24

Water theft

In July 2010, I took a tour of Punjab and Sindh with the purpose of uncovering canal water theft due to which small farmers are being crippled into poverty. From Gujranwala to Badin, the conclusion was the same. Wherever small farmers were ‘tailenders’ (based near the bottom of canals) they are subjected to discrimination because water is stolen at the higher end of the canal, before it can reach them.
This phenomenon is decades old. There was never a real campaign against it since most governments were involved in it themselves. When I brought this issue up, eyebrows were raised. The rights of tailenders are internationally recognised, but not so in Pakistan.
As I travelled through these two provinces, I saw that farmers were being subjected to poverty despite having cultivatable land. And even though they caught water thieves red-handed, there was nothing they could do because these thieves had connections with people in irrigation and political power corridors.
In Punjab, farmers showed me how, due to the non-lining of canals, water was diverted into other fields. In Okara Dipalpur, we caught thieves in the middle of the night, fixing their tools into water courses. When confronted, they took names of influential people sitting in the cabinet. In Sindh, the trend was more blatant as waderas have installed illegal pipes.
After the trip, I set up a meeting of the Climate Change Sub-Committee of the National Assembly Standing Committee on Environment and discussed the issue. Punjab officials informed the committee that 10,485 cases of theft were reported in 2010 but not as many FIRs were registered and thus theft continued unabated. Unfortunately, no irrigation official was charged as an accomplice to the crime.

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 08 Nov 2010 06:17

http://www.thenews.com.pk/08-11-2010/Top-Story/1902.htm

Pakistan may lose water priority rights to India

By Khalid Mustafa
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s most important and strategic Neelum-Jehlum Hydropower Project of $1.5 billion has run into snags, as the Chinese company has slowed down the construction work on the site, thereby increasing the chances of losing water priority rights of River Neelum to India.
The tension between Wapda and the Chinese company, China Ghazoba Group of Companies (CGGC), has reached an all time high. “Sensing the importance of the project and impact of slowing down of construction work on water priority rights, Nie Kai, the President of China Ghazoba Group of Companies, is dashing to Pakistan and will hold a meeting with President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani today (Monday). After that, Kai will hold talks with Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) Chairman Shakeel Durrani to defuse the tension between the Chinese company and Wapda,” a senior official at the Water and Power Ministry confided to The News.
India is building the Kishanganga Hydropower Project on River Neelum that originates from held Kashmir and enters Pakistan. Under the Indus Waters Treaty between Pakistan and India, the country that will first complete and commission its project will have the water priority rights on the said river. The slowing down of the construction work on the Neelum-Jehlum Hydropower Project is not tolerable to Pakistan. The electricity generation capacity of the project of paramount importance stands at 969 MW.
China Ghazoba Group of Companies that secured the contract to complete the project at the cost of $1.5 billion has slowed down the construction work and to this effect Wapda wrote a strong worded letter to president of the CGGC some two weeks back, saying that the Chinese company was not producing required quality and had also slowed down the construction work.
Wapda’s letter to the CGGC, whose copy is available with The News, also pointed out that the Chinese experts and technicians’ expertise was not up to the mark.
When contacted, a top Wapda official expressed the fear that if the construction work on the Neelum-Jehlum Hydropower Project continued at a snail’s pace, then India would complete the Kishanganga project first and will have the water priority rights. “Under this scenario, 15-20 per cent water flow into Pakistan from the Neelum River will be reduced and it would also hurt the electricity generation capacity of the project. Apart from it, the environment of the Neelum River would also be adversely damaged,” he added.
“We need 280 cusecs of water to generate 969 MW of project that will have an impact of Rs 35 billion per annum but in case of reduced inflows in Neelum River, the project will not be able to get the required hydrogenation,” the official said.
The official disclosed that the Chinese company has four Jumbo drilling machines on the site, which are not efficient and quick in constructing the 47-kilometre-long tunnel. He said the Chinese company was using the ‘drill and blast’ method to complete the tunnel. “This is very slow process and so far we have only completed tunnel of nine kilometres.”
He said if the pace of work on the project remained slow, then the project will be completed by 2018 and in case the Chinese company managed to arrange the tunnel boring machine, which is very efficient, then the project could be completed by 2016.
“Our intelligence sources confirmed that India has already acquired the tunnel boring machine and is vigorously working to complete the Kishanganga Hydropower Project with faulty design, which is not in conformity with the Indus Waters Treaty,” the official claimed.
“In case the completion of project gets delayed from the deadline of 2016, then Pakistan would brave the huge loss of Rs 35 billion every year,” he warned. The project has already been delayed by one and a half years, as the AJK government delayed procurement of 3,200 kanals land for it.
The China Exim bank will provide funding of $480 million for the project for which negotiations with the Chinese government are under way. The official said that $480 million would be treated as the supplier’s credit.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Nov 2010 17:15

^^ Pk would loose no rights as it has none since existing use is only protected. SSridhar has explained this aspect in earlier posts. Yes PK and China may loose their invested money.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 84#p895084

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Nov 2010 19:50

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=66897

The names of the rivers on which treaties/ agreements have been signed with neighbouring countries and the nature of the treaty / agreement are as under:

River for which treaty/ agreement has been signed--Neighbouring country with which signed--Nature of the Treaty /agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharda(Mahakali)--Nepal--Mahakali Treaty of 1996 which includes Pancheshwar Multi-purpose project

Kosi--Nepal--Agreement of 1954 (revised in 1966) regarding construction of Kosi Barrage in Nepal.

Gandak--Nepal--Agreement of 1959 regarding construction of Gandak Barrage in Nepal

Ganga--Bangladesh--Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of 1996 regarding sharing of Ganga water at Farakka

Indus system of rivers comprising--Pakistan--Indus Waters Treaty 1960 for the most complete and satisfactory utilization
the rivers Indus, Jhelum, ------------------of the waters of the Indus system of rivers
Chenab, Ravi, Beas, Sutlej
and their tributaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pakistan has raised dispute on the construction of Kishenganga HE Project on river Kishenganga, a tributary of river Jhelum, in Gurez valley in Bandipora District of Jammu & Kashmir.

India has taken action as per the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960. After Pakistan intimated the appointment of its two arbitrators initiating the proceedings for a Court of Arbitration, India has also appointed two arbitrators. Both the countries have also requested the persons concerned as specified in the Treaty to select three umpires for the Court of Arbitration. One of the persons requested namely the Secretary General of the United Nations has appointed one of the umpires namely the Chairman of the Court of Arbitration.

The Mahakali Treaty of 1996 is valid for 75 years. It shall be reviewed by both the parties at 10 year interval or earlier as required by either party and make amendments, thereto, if necessary.

The Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of 1996 is valid for 30 years. There is a provision to review the Treaty after five years.

The provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 can be modified or terminated by another duly ratified treaty concluded for the purpose between the two Governments.

This was stated by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Water Resources, Shri Vincent H.Pala in written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Nov 2010 09:49

From NUGGETS section of this week's TFT,

‘India not stopping our water’

Quoted in daily Pakistan, federal minister water and power Pervez Ashraf said that India was not capable of stopping Pakistan’s river water and has not committed any violence {sic} of the Indus Treaty. He said that India was entitled to take some water from rivers apportioned to Pakistan by the Treaty, but it was not even taking the water it was entitled to.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Nov 2010 02:51

Published on Jul 04, 2010
By Dr. Shabir Chaudhry (JKLF)
Neelam Jhelum Hydroelectric Project - exploitation of Kashmiri resources: Dr. Shabir Chaudhry's Blog

In line with its past policies, Islamabad has started a mega project in its colony, known as Azad Kashmir. They did not even care to consult, get permission, or have a formal agreement with the rulers of this territory. They know these rulers are puppets, and are ‘appointed’ there to look after interests of Islamabad.

Neelam Jhelum Hydroelectric Project is located near Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistani Administered Kashmir. It aims to dig a tunnel and divert water of Neelam River from Nauseri, about 41 KM East of Muzzafrabad. A Powerhouse will be constructed at Chatter Kalas, 22 Km South of Muzaffarabad; and after passing through the turbines the water will be released in Jhelum River, about 4 Km South of Chatter Kalas. Once completed, the Neelam Jhelum Hydroelectric Project will produce 969 MW of electricity annually at the cost of US $2.16 billion.

1. This project, once completed will benefit Pakistan, but local people will not benefit from it in any form or shape. However, there will be serious economic and environmental consequences for the local people; and their future generations will face very serious economic and environmental problems.

2. The project will have very serious impact on environment of the area, as it plays a key role in the configuration of Himalayan ecosystem. Environmental groups have expressed their concerns about prospective environmental hazards on local economy and biodiversity.

3. Ecologists say the project area has significant conservational importance due to abundant of forests, aquatics life and presence of many species of wild life, which have been declared endangered globally.

4. Majority of population lives in rural areas and their existence and life largely depends upon forestry, livestock and agriculture. River water and natural springs are main source for drinking and irrigation of land; and this diversion of river will have serious water shortage, which will make life miserable for the local people.

5. The project will also have serious impact on the habitat of various rare species considered on the verge of extinction. Developmental activities in the area and other changes will surely have negative impact on the natural habitat of wildlife.

6. Beauty of this area is enhanced by this river; and this diversion will have serious affect on wild life, weather and beauty of the area. The river and the beauty of the area attract tourists and provide clean water to the local people and citizens of Muzaffarabad; and this diversion of water will deprive the area of clean water and reduce the Neelam River to ‘Nalah Lahi’ in Rawalpindi which has dirty water and creates enormous problems for the citizens.