Page 71 of 78

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 05 Oct 2017 09:30
by SSridhar
China-Pakistan Water Axis on the Indus - Priyanka Singh, IDSA
Before the Belt and Road summit held at Beijing in mid-May 2017, several memoranda of understanding (MoU) were finalised between China and Pakistan. Significant among these was an agreement to construct an array of hydropower projects, to be referred to as the North Indus Cascade. Consisting of five major hydropower projects including the much delayed and controversial Diamer Bhasha Dam (DBD), the Cascade will cut across Gilgit Baltistan, a part of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), as well as Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Notably, China has committed a whopping USD 50 billion for this cluster of projects on the transboundary River Indus, with a projected cumulative hydropower generation capacity of over 22,000 MW. {discussed here as well}

The MoU on these Indus projects was concluded between Yousuf Naseem Khokhar, Pakistan’s Secretary of Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), and China’s Ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, on the side-lines of a conference organised by China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) on May 13. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who was in Beijing to attend the BRI summit, was present on the occasion. Citing the critical importance of water and food security for Pakistan, Sharif expressed unequivocal gratitude for China’s generosity and applauded the efforts made by Chinese agencies and representatives. He observed: “Development of the North Indus Cascade is a major focus of my government and the construction of the Diamer Bhasha Dam is the single most important initiative in this regard.”1 And he commended China’s NEA for organising a separate session on DBD in the course of which various presentations were made by different companies and their assessment of the multibillion dollar project was also laid out.

Like the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the North Indus Cascade has gestated over a period of time. In August 2015, Pakistan held talks with China’s NEA on several of these projects.2 Subsequently, at a Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) meeting of CPEC in January 2017, it was stated that, on Pakistan’s request, the Chinese side is willing to consider including the “non-controversial” projects under the Cascade in the CPEC scheme.3 The ‘non-controversial’ here refers to those projects on which Pakistan’s provinces have arrived at a consensus. Then, in April 2017, it was reported that Pakistan has urged the World Bank to support some of the hydropower projects including Dasu and Tarbela and that the bank’s representative was positive towards the request.4


String of Dams


The North Indus Cascade is envisaged to originate in Skardu in Baltistan before flowing into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with a mammoth projected cumulative installed capacity of about 22,230 MW of hydropower. The string of projects include: Bunji dam (7100 MW), Diamer Bhasha dam (4500 MW), Dasu dam (4320 MW), Patan dam (2,400 MW) and Thakot dam (4000 MW).5 River Indus’s gross hydropower potential is estimated to be 40,000 MW and, through these projects, Pakistan and China aim to harness at least half of it.

Bunji: The 190 metre Bunji dam is located at Asmani Mor on the Gilgit-Skardu Road. The MoU for the project was inked in 2009 between China Three Gorges Corporation (CTG) and WAPDA.6 Although initially categorised as a run-of-the-river project, the nature of the dam is, however, a matter of speculation given that the description provided includes a reservoir as well as the extent of inundation likely to be caused.7 The project has been in the pipeline for long and the engineering design and tender formalities were completed in 2013.8

Diamer Bhasha: Each project in the North Indus Cascade is significant in its own right. However, DBD stands out considering that it has been inordinately delayed due to lack of funding. Pakistan’s appeals for funding for the project failed to move the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and even its strategic partners, the United States and China. The World Bank urged Pakistan to procure a No Objection Certificate from India given that the dam is located in disputed Gilgit Baltistan. The donor conferences hosted by the US and China to secure funds also failed. Further, DBD is also embroiled in a domestic tug of war due to inter-provincial differences over the share of royalty. Finally, the negative consequence of constructing a huge dam in an ecologically fragile belt has also proved difficult to ignore.9

Now, however, China is stepping up to the plate. It is possible that DBD may become part of the CPEC stable as was speculated not long ago.10 It has already been proposed that DBD be subsumed into CPEC and included thereafter in the subsequent phase of energy projects under that initiative. But, of late, there have been conflicting signals on whether DBD will be part of CPEC or remain purely a part of the North Indus Cascade.11

Dasu: Equally critical is the Dasu Project, often pitched as an alternative to the long held-up DBD. In 2014, the World Bank agreed in principle to fund the project which lies 74 km downstream to DBD and 240 km upstream of the Tarbela dam.12 Unlike DBD, Dasu has so far steered clear of controversy. It is a comparatively smaller project, to be built in two phases, without boundary/territorial issues and largely free of inter-provincial dissonance that patently impedes Pakistan’s development projects. The first phase of the project with a capacity of 2160 MW is under way. The cost of this phase is estimated at approximately USD 4.2 billion, with the World Bank as the lead donor.13

Patan: Like the DBD, the Patan project would also use roller-compacted concrete (RCC) technology. The project is located four kilometres upstream of village Patan in Kohistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. An underground powerhouse is being planned downstream of the dam on the left bank of River Indus. The dam’s height is expected to be 104 metres and the feasibility study for the same is being prepared by Lahmeyer International consultancy, a Germany based organisation.14 In the past, this consultancy firm has collaborated with WAPDA on several projects in Pakistan and PoK, including on DBD in the initial phases.

Thakot: The project built on a narrow stream of the Indus will be situated upstream Besham Qila and the power house is planned 15 km downstream of the Thakot Bridge on the Karakoram Highway. It is slated to be completed in December 2017, with the feasibility study having been completed in December 2015.15 But the project is mired in controversy. Residents of Lahore-Besham have reservations about the name of the project given that the 26 km long power tunnel traverses through Shangla district and ends at Sarkool in the same district.16

Having conducted a preliminary survey of the various projects in the North Indus Cascade, Chinese agencies and companies will spend the next few months ascertaining further details of each. Pakistan’s Minister for Water and Power, Khwaja Asif, noted the completion of feasibility studies by the Chinese on the Indus Cascade as an “achievement” and emphasised that hydropower projects in Pakistan could benefit a great deal from Chinese technical expertise.17 It is widely reported that CTG is the frontrunner among various Chinese companies.18 China’s NEA will be the lead agency and administer the finances of the Cascade. This is said to be the first occasion when Pakistan’s hydropower sector has been thrown open to the private sector, which till now was completely administered by WAPDA. Besides, China is also engaged in resettlement work and the contract for the same has been awarded to the Zhongmei Engineering Group.19 This has been occasioned by the fact that both the DBD and Bunji projects are slated to cause large scale inundation and usher in massive displacement of population along the Karakoram Highway.

Besides alleviating Pakistan’s energy crisis, the range of dams including DBD have been projected as an essential silt trap for the Tarbela dam where the Cascade will merge. The Tarbela hydropower project in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is currently Pakistan’s largest dam and faces an imminent challenge from silting. There is, however, a view that trapping the silt/sedimentation thus could impact the quality of soil downstream and deprive agricultural lands of their source of nourishment.20

CPEC, North Indus Cascade and India: Contention Redux

There are striking parallels between CPEC and the North Indus Cascade, apart from the fact that both run through PoK. Both are massive projects supported by China and vouch to end Pakistan’s energy woes. CPEC’s budget has been revised from USD 46 billion earlier to USD 57 billion. At USD 50 billion, the North Indus Cascade is the second largest Chinese commitment towards Pakistan in terms of the volume of proposed aggregate investment.

Both projects have geopolitical underpinnings, given the India angle.21 Lately, India has been vocally assertive about its claim on PoK. India’s objection to the DBD in the past, and presently on CPEC, is based on its claim of sovereignty over PoK. It follows that the proposed North Indus Cascade originating in Baltistan is likely to be similarly contentious. India refused to participate in the BRI summit in Beijing owing to territorial sovereignty claims over Gilgit-Baltistan through which the CPEC arm of BRI is slated to proceed. But ignoring India’s objections to projects in PoK, Pakistan and China are brazenly determined to go ahead with their agenda. With the contentions on CPEC yet to be settled, the North Indus Cascade is likely to cause further discord between the three countries.

China a Party to the Dispute over the Indus

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), which defines the parameters of water sharing between India and Pakistan, is one agreement that has weathered the vagaries of wars and persistent bilateral disputes. However, in the wake of the September 2016 terrorist attack on the Uri military base, IWT came under close scrutiny as public opinion in India became severely polarised against Pakistan. Revising/revoking the IWT was one of the options that the government is noted to have explored in order to deal with an errant Pakistan continuing to perpetrate cross-border terrorism.

Similar to the Kashmir problem where China is incrementally seen as the third party because of its stakes in PoK and control over portions of the territory of the former princely state ceded to it by Pakistan, the North Indus Cascade is likely to make China the third actor in the Indus framework. Besides CPEC, India will now to have to contend with the emerging Sino-Pakistan collaboration on the Indus. It has no choice but to proclaim its sovereignty and territorial concerns in this regard as well.

Sino-Pakistan Water Axis in the making

Some recent overtures from Pakistan and China have tangentially proposed an Indian role in CPEC. China’s Ambassador to India had recently noted that CPEC could be renamed if such a move would mitigate India’s concerns. Similarly, it has been reported that China is insisting on renaming DBD (already renamed once in 2004 to include Diamer in the wake of popular demand), which is now a part of the North Indus Cascade.22 It has urged that the name Diamer be dropped since it is part of disputed Gilgit Baltistan. But merely altering the name would tantamount to trivialising a complex and sensitive issue concerning territoriality and sovereignty. Further, China has tried justifying CPEC as a livelihood project and it could certainly articulate a similar rationale for the North Indus Cascade as well. India’s strategic challenges will only intensify with the coming up of the North Indus Cascade.

In J&K, which is currently under turmoil, a prevalent sentiment among the people is that the central government sacrificed the legitimate share of the Kashmiris on the Indus in Pakistan’s favour.23 It is widely argued in the state that IWT is unfairly skewed in Pakistan’s favour and this has adversely impacted the livelihood of Kashmiris. It is natural that once the North Indus Cascade fructifies India may have to further contend with popular misgivings that stem from looking at the other side of the LoC and the development prospects that Chinese-aided projects are expected to augur in due course.

India is yet to fully harness its permissible share for storing water up to 3.6 MAF (million acre-feet) under IWT in the western rivers (Jhelum, Chenab and Indus) allotted for its use.24 Besides, in comparison to Pakistan’s tally of dams on the eastern rivers including those on the Indus, India has so far built only a small number of run-of-the-river dams on the western rivers. Even small-scale efforts such as the 330 MW Kishanganga Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP) in Bandipore have been challenged by Pakistan in international tribunals. Whereas Indian projects have been stymied by Pakistan’s repeated challenges, India has so far not sought either the opinion of neutral experts or international arbitration on DBD or Bunji projects. Instead, it has simply limited itself to making ritual objections. China’s involvement in the construction of mega dams on the Indus and its increasing presence in Gilgit Baltistan will further accentuate India’s concerns. Given this, India needs to explore ways to deal with these concerns.

What lies ahead?

High profile projects such as CPEC and North Indus Cascade will enable China to exploit resources under Pakistan’s control. However, before looking at what China is doing in cahoots with Pakistan, certain domestic realities within China must be accounted for, foremost being the saturation levels in the manufacturing sector, idle machinery, labour, etc. The same could be partially, if not wholly true, with regard to China’s dam construction industry. A report prepared by Urgewald, an environmental lobbyist group based in Germany, shows how China’s state-owned enterprises – China Datang Corporation, China Huaneng Group, and State Power Investment Corporation (SPIC) – are involved in the majority of overseas coal-fired power projects in contravention of China’s stated commitment on climate change.25 The same report also notes that the state-owned Shanghai Electric Group plans to undertake the construction of coal-fired power plants in Pakistan, Egypt and Iran despite coal, volume-wise, being responsible for the largest share of carbon emissions.26 China is facilitating its idle state-owned companies to find overseas projects due to a steep fall in domestic demand.27 The same logic of limited domestic options and the consequent focus on projects and investments abroad could be applied to powerful state enterprises like CTG which may well lead the envisaged projects on the Indus. Perhaps, this would also partially answer puzzling questions as to why China plans to funnel more than USD 100 billion into Pakistan (approximately a third of Pakistan’s GDP) – a country plagued by domestic turmoil, militancy and a sagging economy.

China’s approach towards transnational rivers has been erratic and bullish. It has no regard for ecological concerns, which was clearly evident during the construction of the Three Gorges Dam — a project that continues to raise critical questions concerning its ecological impact. China’s recent decision to go ahead with the construction of the DBD and Bunji dams as part of the North Indus Cascade further demonstrates its disregard for ecological implications. Both projects are located in ecologically fragile seismic belt.

[b]Irrespective of China’s and Pakistan’s rationales for the North Indus Cascade, India must look at options that can diminish the challenges arising from what appears to be an emerging Sino-Pakistan axis on the Indus waters. It needs to evolve a calibrated and robust response that comports with its legitimate sovereign territorial interests and corresponds with its previously stated positions on projects such as DBD and Bunji. The North Indus Cascade violates India’s territorial sovereignty and poses another collusive China-Pakistan challenge.[/b]

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 05 Oct 2017 18:28
by anupmisra
This is a serious turn of events. By giving the chinis majority ownership stakes in the financing, development and management of dams in disputed PoK, GB and the lower plains, pakhanistan has turned bilateral matters (of PoK, IWT, LOC...) into trilateral ones. Of course, the chinis love it and will use it as leverage to negotiate with India on other bilateral issues. Watch this space as this will severely impact future decisions India takes on the above issues.

India should object.

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 05 Oct 2017 19:35
by ArjunPandit
anupmisra wrote:This is a serious turn of events. By giving the chinis majority ownership stakes in the financing, development and management of dams in disputed PoK, GB and the lower plains, pakhanistan has turned bilateral matters (of PoK, IWT, LOC...) into trilateral ones. Of course, the chinis love it and will use it as leverage to negotiate with India on other bilateral issues. Watch this space as this will severely impact future decisions India takes on the above issues.

India should object.

effectively this is sinification of pakistan as 35th province of china, they have already gave them land in 60. Deep inside they realize that its neighbours two daughters they have abducted, they are giving them to their fellow marauder because their libido doesnt permit them to rape the two at the same time. That's it. For us its a huge problem. If we dont put everything at stake soon, perhaps we will loose evertyhign eventually

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 05 Oct 2017 21:19
by pankajs
GOI is not going to war on this and China will not stop without a war. So ...

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 05 Oct 2017 22:42
by Lisa
If the treaty is a bilateral one, then what is its legal status when a third party which is not a signatory, partaking as an interested party as if it had a vested interest? Could this be used as a reason for putting the treaty into abeyance?

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 06 Oct 2017 13:39
by SSridhar
As I have been saying for quite a while now, Pakistan is a province of China today or at least that is how we must deal with it, even if such an arrangement has not yet been formalized by the two 'relevant countries' (to borrow the phraseology from the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman)!!

This is not the place to discuss it but we must remember the China-Pakistan history: they both settled their border dispute within a few months after the 1962 India-China war; Pakistan was the only country to which Chinese commercial airline flew in those days; Pakistan was able to maintain a cordial & close relationship with Communist China even while ostensibly being a prominent member of the American coalition against communism (compare this with how the so-called West treated India); it was Pakistan which facilitated the US-China rapprochement (Kissinger went to Beijing secretively from Rawalpindi); China exercised its first veto within a few months after joining UNSC in favour of Pakistan against Bangladesh being admitted as a UN member; China routinely sabre-rattled at the India-China border whenever there was an India-Pakistan war; transferred nuke & missiles to Pakistan only to target India; China & Pakistan collaborated in further horizontal proliferation; China lied through its teeth of 'grandfathering' nuclear projects in Pakistan; after 26/11, Pakistan publicly asked China to handle its diplomatic fallout with India; China has staked its reputation to repeatedly stave off Masood Azhar's inclusion in UNSC 1267; China's NSG stance is solely to enable a 'roguish friend' Pakistan to join the grouping as well; China supports Pakistan in FATF where proof mounts of the latter's terror funding; in return, the Fortress of Islam supports Chinese atrocities in Xinjiang and ensures OIC does not criticize it; the only way China and Pakistan have a land border is through Indian lands forcibly occupied by Pakistan and through which China is building its CPEC on whose shining success hinges the rest of OBOR.

So, it is truly a remarkably joined-at-the-hip relationship however much we may make fun of the cliches they use themselves to describe their relationship. This can only get strengthened further in the coming decade as they feel a compelling need for each other. I have no doubt that well within a decade, a Pakistan with an 'independent world view' would cease to exist. Its foreign policies would be completely circumscribed by China and its sovereignty would be 'benignly' lost to China. Pakistan knows of no other stick to beat India with. I bet my life (some would bet more precious stuff!) that Pakistan's permission for CPEC and the Northern Cascade (each with an investment of USD 60B) is not based on any serious study of the projects or even their necessity, environmental, social or financial impacts etc. The DAWN leak was categorical about China's strategy. A country that has been spending 60 ~ 70% of its national income on defence because it wants to conquer a seven times larger neighbour with whom it has a civilizationally 'enduring hostility', cannot have noble thoughts of uplifting its masses from poverty & disease. Pakistan simply wants to cock a snook at India, "OK, what can you do now? Would you target these projects? Can you impose a war on us with the Chinese teeming everywhere?" etc. It is thumbing its nose. Pakistan is willing to go blind in both eyes hoping it could land at least one punch that could give us some semblance of a black eye. You can't do much with such a self-destructive force, can you, except to hasten its self-destruction so that the projects don't take off? We must do everything to get it consumed in its own fire.

Article VII of IWT says, "If a work would cause interference with the waters of any of the Rivers but would not, in the opinion of the Party planning it, affect the other Party materially, nevertheless the Party planning the work shall, on request, supply the other Party with such data: regarding the nature, magnitude and effect, if any, of the work as may be available." India should demand access to these sites. We must do everything in our powers to delay these projects while simultaneously working to break-up Terroristan.

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 15 Oct 2017 15:30
by Peregrine
X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Water fears

Fears of water scarcity are nothing new for Pakistan but when the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) presses the alarm buttons it is something to take serious note of. We already know that the water distribution situation is highly alarming. The SBP has asked the government to formulate a comprehensive national policy for bridging the gap between water demand and supply. In its Annual Report on the State of Economy for 2016-17, the SBP has warned that delays would increase the water deficit on account of growing demand and declining supplies. The two major factors for a decline in supply are pollution and climate change – which are the factors that are most easily ignored. Stupido Terroristanis and their Bankrupt Leadership refuse to take into account that according to them the Pakistani Population has INCREASED SEVEN TIMES TO 207 Millions but according to THIS ARTICLE has increased ten times to 300 million! We have noted already how studies show that over 80 percent of the water supplied for household consumption is polluted throughout the country. Technically, this is water that should not be consumed by human beings, but such is the paucity of options that people have no choice but to keep using polluted sources of water supply. The SBP is clear that a top-down agenda that ignores the needs of populations, especially provinces, could create political discord in the country. Already, the issue of creating new water reservoirs is fraught with political opposition.

This has left Pakistan in a situation where the country can only store 30 days of water consumption. The big three reservoirs, built in the 1960s and 1970s, have a rapidly declining capacity due to sedimentation. The standard water storage requirement globally is around 120 days, while a number of countries are able to store 1-2 years of water. The gap allows for the adjustment of water consumption if a crisis is likely. While the need for more storage is obvious, the biggest problems lie in the irrigation system used to supply Pakistan’s agrarian economy. Almost 90 percent of Pakistan’s water is supplied to farmers through the ageing Indus Basin water system. Farmers are often required to consume water when they do not need it, while the required water is often not supplied when they need it. This has led to a dependency of the ground water depleting tubewell irrigation system, which comes with high costs and renders the irrigation networks useless. Moreover, high levels of water seepage through unlined water passages not only reduces water supply, it also makes agrarian land unusable through water logging. The clock is ticking fast for us to respond. By 2020, Pakistan will face a high level of water stress. By 2030, the level of water stress will be extremely high. The need for a national policy to tackle the water crisis at an emergency level is immediate.

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 15 Oct 2017 21:35
by Malayappan
In case you've been searching for news on the filling up of Kishanganga dam this year (I have been!) -
A top district official said that 90% of the work has been completed as the 37-metre high dam has been filled with water.

Link -
330 MW Kishen Ganga project may miss 2nd deadline
“There are some works still pending which could delay its commissioning.”
“Due to pending works in powerhouse and tunnel, the commissioning would further get delayed by two more months.”

there are some construction works pending in the tunnel from where water will be diverted to the powerhouse to generate

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 16 Oct 2017 01:51
by anupmisra
Peregrine wrote:X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Water fears

By 2020, Pakistan will face a high level of water stress.
By 2030, the level of water stress will be extremely high.

Cheers


So, when the pakis hit the Ludicrously High Level of Water Stress?

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 16 Oct 2017 13:42
by Peregrine
Peregrine wrote:X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Water fears
By 2020, Pakistan will face a high level of water stress.
By 2030, the level of water stress will be extremely high.
Cheers
anupmisra wrote:So, when the pakis hit the Ludicrously High Level of Water Stress?
anupmisra Ji :

By the Grace of Allah the Most Magnificent, the Most Magnanimous & Most Munificent Soon Afterwards! :rotfl:
Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 19 Oct 2017 01:29
by Prem

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 19 Oct 2017 03:36
by Peregrine
Water filling begins at Neelum-Jhelum project

MUZAFFARABAD / ISLAMABAD: The strategically important 969-megawatt Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project achieved a major milestone as water filling in the reservoir began on Tuesday following completion of substantial work on the dam.

The Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project is being constructed on Neelum River in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). The project is an engineering marvel with 90% being underground in high mountainous areas.

The project consists of four units with installed capacity of 242.25MW each. First unit is scheduled to come online by the end of February 2018 followed by the second unit in mid-March and third and fourth units in April.

“Almost 96% of work has been completed and finishing touches to be given within two days,” Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project Chief Engineer Nayyar Allauddin said.

Briefing journalist, he said, “All the civil work including tunnel boring, installation of generators and turbines have been completed and we are prepared to fill the dam to put it on test within two days.”

On its completion, the project will contribute about five billion units of electricity to the national grid annually. Annual revenue of the project is estimated at Rs50 billion. The project has entered its final stage with the completion of dam structure across the Neelum River. The dam is 160-metre-long and 60-metre-high. Its storage capacity is 8,207 acre feet of water.

The filling of the reservoir, which will take about a month, will not affect water requirements downstream of the dam. As much as 15 cusecs of water will always be released downstream to cater to population needs and sustain aquatic ecosystem dependent on the Neelum River.

Highlighting salient features of the project, Allauddin said the dam had been constructed underground at intake point Nauseri and had the capacity to store 10 million cubic feet of water.

Completed at a cost of Rs404.321 billion, revenues from the supply of 5.5 billion units of electricity annually at a cost of approximately Rs7 per unit will be spent on the repayment of loans acquired to meet the cost of the project.

The project official said the project would be run by Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Company with AJK chief secretary being one of the members of its board of directors.

An agreement between the AJK government and Wapda had yet to be inked as it was under consideration of the ministry, Allauddin said. Allauddin, who is also the project director, said clauses of the agreement had been approved by the AJK government and Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Company was working within the framework of the draft agreement as far as construction and implementation were concerned.

He rejected the impression that after diversion of the river, Muzaffarabad and adjoining areas would face environmental hazards and cited a number of environmental mitigation measures taken to address concerns.

A sum of Rs5.56 billion has been allocated in PC-I of Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project including water supply schemes for Muzaffarabad, Chattar Kalas and Komi Kot in addition to a number of other such schemes, which will be undertaken by the government of AJ&K.

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 19 Oct 2017 06:59
by anupmisra
Peregrine wrote:
Peregrine wrote:X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Water fears
By 2020, Pakistan will face a high level of water stress.
By 2030, the level of water stress will be extremely high.
Cheers
anupmisra wrote:So, when will the pakis hit the Ludicrously High Level of Water Stress?
anupmisra Ji :

By the Grace of Allah the Most Magnificent, the Most Magnanimous & Most Munificent Soon Afterwards! :rotfl:
Cheers Image


Then they will truly achieve oneness with their arap birathers, the saudis.

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 31 Oct 2017 16:09
by Peregrine
X Posted on the Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat Thread

SSridhar Ji, Prem Ji & Adita_V Ji :

China denies report of plan to build tunnel to divert Brahmaputra waters

BEIJING: China today rejected as "false and untrue" a media report that it was planning to build a 1,000- km long tunnel to divert water from the Brahmaputra river in Tibet close to Arunachal Pradesh to the parched Xinjiang region.

Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post yesterday said that Chinese engineers were testing techniques that could be used to build the tunnel, the world's longest.

"This is untrue. This is a false report," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a media briefing when asked about the report.

China will continue to attach great importance to cross- border river cooperation, she said.

According to the report, the proposed tunnel, which would drop down from the world's highest plateau in multiple sections connected by waterfalls, would provide water in China's largest administrative division , comprising vast swathes of deserts and dry grasslands.

The water would be diverted from the Yarlung Tsangpo River in southern Tibet, which turns into the river Brahmaputra once it enters India, to the Taklamakan desert in Xinjiang, the report had said.

India as riparian state has already flagged its concerns to China about various dams being built by it on the Brahmaputra river, which is known in China as Yarlung Tsangpo.

Beijing has been assuring India and Bangladesh that its dams were not designed to storing water.

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 02 Nov 2017 19:26
by anupmisra
Pakistan dumps $21bn worth of water in the sea each year: IRSA
I smell a new demand for compensation coming...

Pakistan dumps water worth approximately $21 billion into the sea each year due to a lack of water conservation systems.
Irsa and the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) made shocking revelations
The country needs three Mangla-sized dams to conserve the amount of water that goes to sea each year
Pakistan faces a 36 per cent shortage in its water requirements at the moment
If no water reservoirs are made, the country faces an extreme water shortage in the coming years
Pakistan can only store up to 30 days' worth of water, while India can store up to 320 days' worth (hence, 1:10 parity between momeens and Yindoos has been maintained! AOA!)
The inflow of rivers Indus, Chenab, Kabul and Jehlum has dropped and as a result, this year's crop may be severely affected
Water levels in Islamabad are falling by one metre each year and six metres in Balochistan
out of 43 lakes in Pakistan, the levels of 26 have dropped drastically in the past few years
the country's population is on the rise at an alarming rate which is also adding to its water woes


https://www.dawn.com/news/1367885/pakis ... -year-irsa

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 05 Nov 2017 00:32
by Prem

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 05 Nov 2017 06:26
by SSridhar
anupmisra wrote:Pakistan dumps $21bn worth of water in the sea each year: IRSA
I smell a new demand for compensation coming...

Me too. Normally, one would say so many tmcft of water was wasted, not $12Billion worth of water.

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 07 Nov 2017 21:53
by Peregrine
To build or not to build

Revelations about water scarcity, made by members of the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) and the Indus River System Authority (Irsa), at a recent Senate forum are quite worrying. Both authorities painted a gloomy picture of water conservation efforts and claimed that approximately $21 billion worth of water was wasted every year.

The experts also bemoaned the lack of water conservation strategies in the country and expressed an immediate need to build at least three Mangla-sized dams to conserve the water that is being dumped into the sea. Irsa members endorsed the long-overdue Kalabagh Dam.

This seems to be an exaggerated assertion because Wapda’s own figures about the flow of water fly in the face of this claim. Experts believe that the water flow pattern reveals that floods occur approximately once in a five-year period, which means that the average flow is 137.27 million acre-feet (MAF) per year. But in the remaining four years, the availability of water remains only around 123.59 MAF or even lower. So, how can we have a whopping loss of $21 billion?

There is no harm in chalking out water conservation strategies. However, presenting large dams as a panacea is not wise – and that too at a time when the world is decommissioning large dams and searching for alternative ways of conserving water and producing energy. It isn’t prudent on the part of policymakers and the advocates of dams to brush aside the legal, technical and ecological aspects of such constructions. The genuine reservations of smaller provinces with regard to the Kalabagh Dam must be patiently heard and nothing should be done to undermine national unity.

It is widely believed that the Kalabagh Dam is a viable option. This is why it is important to raise technical questions about its storage and power generation facility. According to a detailed paper on this water storage facility, prepared by a team of experts led by the former Irsa chairman Engineer Fatehullah Khan Gand apur (late), the advocates of this dam overlook a number of technical points while favouring its construction. Citing government studies, the team claimed that the Kalabagh Dam project is to be built on River Indus, about 210 kilometres downstream from the Tarbela Dam and 92 miles downstream of Attock – the confluence point of the Kabul and Indus rivers. The claimed storage capacity is 7.6 MAF, the dam’s height is 260 feet and the reservoir elevation is 925 feet.

Gand apur and other experts have claimed that: “the government-tailored feasibility reports… and other manipulated studies were completed in 1985 and these reports were given to the provincial governments in 1990 after being kept hidden as a high state secret for five long years”. This secrecy led to many speculations on various aspects ranging from the dam’s design to its estimated cost. The cost was $5 billion in 1985, $10 billion during the Musharraf era and experts believe it could even be more than that now.

The first complaint of small provinces is about the terms of reference (TORs). Experts from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa accuse Wapda of specifically directing consultants through the TORs to come up with a design at the exact location of Kalabagh and with the exact storage capacity of 7.6 MAF instead of asking them to suggest the best location. Experts also claim that the Kalabagh Dam’s consultants had suggested that instead of a dam another structure, like a barrage, should be constructed at Kalabagh. This is because a dam will not evacuate silt. As a result, the dam at Kalabagh will be hydraulically unfeasible due to rapid silting and a short lifespan.

According to critics, the capacity inflow ratio must be kept in mind while building a dam or a reservoir. This simply refers to a ratio between the capacity of a reservoir at a site and the average annual river flow at that site.

This ratio is vital to estimate and know the lifespan and service value of the project to establish its economic viability. According to Engineer Fatehullah Khan Gand apur and other expert Wapda has demonstrated utter ignorance in understanding the CI ratio and its great importance. For example, in the first instance, Wapda states that the “CI ratio of a reservoir depends upon the topography of the site”. Second, it states that the “CI ratio is not the only criteria for planning a technically-feasible and economically viable multipurpose project”. Third, the CI ratio of the Kalabagh Dam is shown in percentage as 0.069 percent.

Gandapur asserted that in the case of the Kalabagh Dam portion of the reservoir at Attock on the Indus, the capacity of the reservoir is 3.5 MAF and the average annual inflow is 90 MAF. The CI ratio, therefore, amounts to 3.5:90 or 1:26. This is a ratio and is never expressed in percentage. Therefore, Wapda is wrong to show the CI ratio as 0.069 percent. The CI ratio shows rapid silting and short lifespan with a poor service value for the project, he added. So, the experts asserted that the Kalabagh Dam’s CI ratio (1:26) is the poorest in the world. Iftikhar Ahmed, an expert, agreed with Gand apur on the issue of the CI ratio.

The possible rapid silting is another factor that belies the claim of the site being the best option. Critics claim that heavy silting will take place in the 3.5 MAF Attock portion of the Kalabagh Dam reservoir against the heavy inflow of about 90 MAFs of water. The muddy River Kabul is also contributing about 110 million tonnes of silt, which is equal to 0.1 MAF, annually in addition to 0.2 MAF of silt flow from the Tarbela reservoir. In addition to that, restricted mid-level sluicing as opposed to unrestricted sluicing is another factor that puts question marks on its viability. Sluicing is the process of extracting or pushing out silt from the reservoir using the flow of the river. Exit points are provided in the dam which, when opened, let the water out along with the silt that it carries. The lower these exit points are, the more silt is carried out. The higher they get, the more silt is left behind on the riverbed.

As an alternative, experts believe that we should go for the multipurpose Katzara Dam, which has a storage capacity of up to 35 MAF, a 15,000 MW power generation capability and more than 1,000-year lifespan. According to an estimate from 2011, it will cost about $7 billion and can be accomplished in seven to eight years given its excellent site.

According to expert Munir Ghazanfar: “Nearly 60 percent of water gets wasted because of [the] flood irrigation system, mainly through seepage and percolation through canals distributaries, and water courses into the ground leading to water logging. Only 40 percent reaches the fields but, in fact, a mere 30 percent is actually needed by the crops”. So, this loss of water must be prevented by introducing efficient methods of irrigation. Many experts believe that instead of building large dams we should opt for aquifer storage and encourage greater efficiency in the use of water, especially in the agricultural sector, as it can save more than 10 MAF of water and end the need for large and expensive dams.

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 15 Nov 2017 18:15
by anupmisra
Bhasha dam ground breaking (again).

‘Bhasha Dam ground-breaking done five times

The Wapda chairman Tuesday admitted before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that there was no work done on Bhasha Dam project during the last 10 years, but the project would be (definitely) started next year and completed in nine years.
In the briefing on the Naulang Dam project, former Wapda chairman Shakil Durrani said it was on the priority list of former president Asif Ali Zardari and he directed the then former finance minister Abdul Hafeez Sheikh to release the funds but he did not do so.
the initial cost of the Naulang Dam project was Rs 9 billion but it crossed Rs 31 billion due to the delay, adding that the project was initiated in 2009 and supposed to be completed in two years, but had not been started yet
During the meeting, senior parliamentarian Mehmood Khan Achakzai and Durrani exchanged harsh words when Achakzai asked if the funds were not released then why the tenders for the project were offered thrice :mrgreen: .
If the projects were completed on time, around 200,000 acre of land would have been irrigated and the underground water situation also improved.


If...if...if wishes were horses, lal topee would be at the gates of the red fort in Delhi.

http://thenews.com.pk/print/244385-Bhas ... five-times

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 15 Nov 2017 19:58
by Peregrine
anupmisra wrote:Bhasha dam ground breaking (again).

‘Bhasha Dam ground-breaking done five times

If...if...if wishes were horses, lal topee would be at the gates of the red fort in Delhi.

http://thenews.com.pk/print/244385-Bhas ... five-times
amupmisra Ji :

If wishes were Tamarind Lal Topee would have the Mother of All Sore Throats! :rotfl:

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 15 Nov 2017 20:26
by SSridhar
So, the Indus Cascade project, which Nawaz & Xi signed with great fanfare during the BARF meeting in Beijing, is unravelling?

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 09 Dec 2017 02:05
by Peregrine
Can India really threaten Pakistan over water?

We asked an expert to explain the Indus Water Treaty

Image

The signing of the Indus Water Treaty, Sept 19, 1960: (L-R) Prime Minister Nehru of India, President Ayub Khan of Pakistan and World Bank VP Sir William Iliff. The treaty decided on the use of six rivers and has been largely successful in ending water-related conflict between the two neighbours for ensuing decades - Photo: World Bank

India and Pakistan ended their talks in Washington over the Indus Water Treaty without reaching an agreement in August. This came a year after Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that blood and water can’t flow together in September 2016 when his government suspended the biannual Indus Water Commission meeting with Pakistan. In Pakistan, a fear had developed that India would turn off the taps.

Can India really threaten Pakistan over water? TFT asked Jaweid Ishaque, an economist who has worked in agriculture and is editing a forthcoming monograph on water in Pakistan by Adnan Asdar Ali, a civil engineer with diverse experience in structural and forensic engineering, who has become an advocate for awareness on water in Pakistan.

TFT: What are the rivers we are talking about?

JI:
There is a six-river system in the Indo-Pak subcontinent. Our current area was being watered by six rivers, tributaries and the main river Indus. The three eastern rivers of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej in India, had a course, which brought them from overall Kashmir down into east Punjab and into Pakistan. Ravi was entering Pakistan around Narowal, Beas enters Pakistan just south of Kasur and Sutlej enters Pakistan in Haroonabad district, Bahawalnagar. In Pakistan, you have the three western rivers, of Jhelum, Chenab and Indus.

TFT: What is the Indus Water Treaty?

JI:
At Partition, Ravi and Sutlej were major rivers and Beas was already almost reduced by half in its inflows. The headworks of both these rivers were uniquely given to India at Partition in the last minute revision of the Radcliffe Award (that decided the boundary), although both the headworks belonged to districts which were originally Muslim majority and which were expected to come to Pakistan. This is the crucial, unfinished business of Partition!

The Radcliffe Award twisted it in the last moments—although this is a story for another time—when both the headworks were given to India. So now, for the three eastern rivers, the major headworks were in India, and their water was coming to Pakistan. So India started flexing its muscle in 1948. They stopped water first in 1948, sparking a diplomatic crisis for the fledgling state; then in 1954-55 when peak floods came they let out more flows and when there was a drought in 1955-56 they reduced the flow unilaterally. Then there was another similar problem in 1958, though of smaller magnitude.

Then when Ayub Khan came to power in 1958 he developed a good relationship with the US administration at the time. The Eisenhower Administration used its global clout to involve the World Bank into an in-depth assessment of the fundamentals of the simmering water disputes and insisted on diplomatic engagements under the moderations of US and WB officials.

In 1960, after years of negotiations, finally, the Indus Water Accord (also called the Indus Waters Treaty) took place. It was signed in Washington and guaranteed by the World Bank, because the US involved it. They wanted a principled and enduring solution. Combined we, (India/Pakistan) made up one-fifth of humanity at that time and were mired in poverty and subsistence agriculture. They did not want this one-fifth of humanity going to war over water. The Eisenhower Administration inducted the WB because the accord that took shape needed major infrastructure investments, which were subsequently underwritten by USAID and the WB.

TFT: What did the treaty decide?

JI:
A compromise is alway a give and take. In the give and take, the people who have more, give more, and the people who have less take more. Otherwise there can be no compromise, just hegemony. When the IWT happened, we had to compromise, there had to be some give and some take on both sides. Therefore it appears frivolous when we observe statements by “responsible” politicians on both sides that leaders of that time “sold out” the interests of respective nations.

In the Accord, it was decided that for the disputed rivers, allocations should be on the basis of share of river runs or courses as measured from their headwaters to their lower confluences with a larger river. Thus the eastern rivers whose courses primarily ran more in India, were allocated to India, and the three western rivers, that come directly from Kashmir into Pakistani Punjab and pass less through India, should be allocated to Pakistan.

TFT: So we gave up three rivers to India?

JI:
Everyone says we took three and gave up three. But a reality check is in order: What did we give up and what did we get? A PPP leader had said that Ayub Khan gave our three rivers away to India in the IWT because he was a dictator. A little scientific evidence is in order here and the numbers present a different picture.

All river flows are measured at rim stations which are the northern most monitoring stations. They were established in colonial times starting around the 1860s. [We] extracted the readings of the Indus rivers at the time that this Accord was signed to see how much water was going where. We wanted to know what were the rim station readings which would have been on the table during the negotiations. It turns out, Pakistan gave up 29MAF of water in the three eastern rivers to India, a fact recorded in the IWT details. But at that time our three western rivers were giving us 114MAF.

Image

TFT: We still lost 29MAF to India?

JI:
When this happened, Pakistan asked what would happen to southern and eastern Punjab which were being served by the 3 eastern rivers allocated primarily to India. They feared they would be badly affected. That’s when the WB, the US and the UK got together. They asked, what is Pakistan losing? 29MAF? So, to make up for this you have excess water in the Jhelum and Chenab. Your population centres are more towards the Ravi, Sutlej and Beas. Pakistan’s rivers did not follow the spread of Pakistan’s population as it has taken place historically, over the last 100 years. The spread of the population and industrial centres took place more in the region of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej and to some extent in the Chenab basin: Gujranwala, Lahore, Faisalabad, Sahiwal. These points were getting water from Chenab, Ravi, Beas and the Sutlej. Sutlej feeds Bahawalpur and lower Multan division. Lodhran, Vehari, Chishtian, Bahawalnagar, Haroonaabad are the areas that would get affected by a reduction in flows of the Sutlej.

The IWT sponsor entities (US, UK & WB) decided to launch an ambitious scheme to compensate for the loss of the 29MAF of the eastern rivers. A whole new system of barrages, dams and link canals was master planned to bring water from Jhelum and Chenab, which are surplus water areas, into the water-deficient areas into the beds of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.

It was estimated to cost about $8b. The WB and USAID committed to provide, in the course of 10 years, funding on the softest of terms and the expertise to design and build this infrastructure. USAID and the WB literally midwifed our entire irrigation system [post-Partition]. (The British did a lot of work pre-Partition).

A fact that is never mentioned is that $60m was even levied on India as contibution, however small but by no means negligible in those times, as its compensation to the building of this infrastructure in Pakistan. No reciprocal payment was to be made by Pakistan for its full usage of flows from the western rivers, most probably in recognition of the fact that there was no substantive agricultural usage in the Indian geography of the western rivers. However, some marginal use for “domestic and industrial” segments was allowed to India from these rivers. Furthermore, a period of 30 years was agreed as the time required to build up the “alternative infrastructure” on both sides.

By putting the treaty in place, we crystallised for all time to come an agreement to share the waters, which is guaranteed by multilateral institutions as well as de facto by the US government. In fact, a detailed procedure for “dispute resolution” was also envisaged and embodied in the treaty/accord, which to date has stood the test of time even during active armed conflict between the two nations.

TFT: What happened in Pakistan after the treaty?

JI:
This infrastructure building was a multi-decade programme. The WB said the first priority would be to make Mangla dam on the Jhelum, the second would be Tarbela and the Indus Waters programme clearly stated that after the completion of these two, the Pakistani government will need to undertake at least three more dams, one in each succeeding decade. This was all thought out in 1961-65. The WB and US assisted and directed the making of two dams immediately because storage was needed to develop Pakistan’s agricultural sector. Thus Mangla started construction in 1967 and was completed in 1971. Tarbela was started in 1974 and was completed in 1979.

The Accord has clearly stated that Pakistan will need to build at least three more dams. We are stressing this because today everyone is taking credit for these dams. Well, this was actually envisioned back in 1967.

TFT: But we still share water with India and it can stop the supply?

JI:
A smaller clause in the treaty was that India would let at least 6% of the eastern river flow into Pakistan or whatever peak floods allowed. But it has to give a minimum of 6%. That is why if one takes readings from the rim stations for even the last decade one can see what has been happening. India is messing around with it a little but is still giving us water. If you freeze the levels in time, and just consider a flow of 29MAF from the rivers, 6% of it comes to 2-2.5MAF and India has been regularly giving between 1MAF and 3MAF, sometimes even more during flood flow years. But this is nothing to fight about. It does not appear a big deal, at least in our humble opinion when seen in the background that we are losing far greater amounts from our own water flows through surface and unlined canal seepage, water logging, wrong choice of crops, surface evaporation due outmoded irrigation practices, rainwater wastage in Balochistan, etc. Peace is far more important than 2-3MAF of water.

TFT: What are other restrictions on India?

JI:
There is no lingering problem on the Eastern rivers. On the Western rivers, concurrently, it was envisaged that Pakistan would have exclusive rights—but India can use the water in its own territory for “run-of-the-river” projects to create hydroelectricity or even for domestic and industrial and some “limited” agricultural uses. But this was capped or limited to never exceed 5% (equivalent in cusecs) of the three western rivers wherever they wanted to do work, on Kishanganga or Wullar barrage or Baglihar.

If India wants to make a dam or barrage it can only do this if it is for a run-of-the river project (ie they don’t store water), they make electricity and let bulk of the water pass through. Whenever dams are built for run-of-the river projects, a lake will always be created behind the dam. But the difference is that if it is an RoR project then the lake will only have the capacity to allow the turbines to get the headflow and avoid siltation on lake bed. You don’t make a bigger lake unless it is for storage. It would be a lake for a maximum of 2MAF. Storage lakes are bigger. India dandi mar sakta he, they are allowed as long as at any point it is not taking more than 5% from the flow of the river.

So, we are not that worried about the Eastern rivers because while we may have lost 29MAF, the link canals and infrastructure that was added, brought in 20MAF or slightly more from other rivers and compensated for that “loss”.

TFT: Who checks this?

JI:
Independent experts. Of late a satellite image-based, telemetric system has been emplaced to record and monitor flows of all disputed rivers. Everything is in place; it is the most well-recorded irrigation system outside of the US and EU. I think they might even be able to tell you how many fish passed in a river! Because it is monitored by the WB as a third party. IWC members are paid by the WB. So no one can say dandi mar rahe hain, or stealing. Their website is updated weekly, monitored by the WB.

TFT: What if Modi turns off the tap to Pakistan’s water?

JI:
Let’s suppose he has his finger on the “water button”. All of India’s dams on these existing rivers; how much water do you think they can store? It is less than 5MAF. [So if they stop the water from flowing down to Pakistan and store it] what will they do after [their dams] fill up after eight days? They will be forced to let the water through [or their dams will burst]. There is a limit to how much they can stop.

On these three rivers they have barrages but they have only two or three dams and they can store a total of only roughly 4-5 MAF. They will talk of stopping the Western rivers but as yet lack the capacity to hurt Pakistan beyond the above volumes. Wullar barrage hardly has 1MAF of storage.

TFT: Why have they left it like that?

JI:
India has built a lot of dams—small dams. You need to undertand the geography to understand the politics. They will have to let the water through particularly from May to September which is peak monsoon flow season. It is all dhamki that they will stop our water.

Let’s assume India decides to store and build storage for 10MAF on the eastern rivers, which it could do. But the day India takes over 5% Pakistan can go to the IWC Tribunal or even the ICJ. Both these courses are open to us, without need for recourse to diplomatic spats or armed threats.

TFT: So India just sat there all these years?

JI:
The IWT of 1960 has a clause that says that for 30 years, other than these approved projects, India and Pakistan can’t interfere in each other’s waters and cannot make any structures on rivers allocated to the other country. Even beyond the 30 years if India wishes to develop dams or barrages on the western rivers they will need to share the design so Pakistani experts can ensure that the parameters of minimum water storage are being complied with.

We are making them on the western rivers, but they are already approved. We did Mangla, then Tarbela and then we had approval for two or three more. We have exclusive use by the treaty. We can keep on making dams on these western rivers whether for hydel or storage.

India started planning in 1987 because the 30 years were to be over in 1990. They prepared for Wullar barrage in 1987 and for Baglihar around 1996-97. It was completed in 2011-12. Kishanganga started in 2007-2008 and is still being planned and it is a problem as it is on the Neelum. They state it is their river, which we dispute since it is a tributary of the Jhelum, meeting at Muzaffarabad and will directly impact the inflows into our river rights. These design features are still under adjudication by the Arbitrator under IWT provisions, which Pakistani experts are pursuing vigorously.

Whatever they did was after 1990. The clauses said you can do hydro, you can do run-of-the river and you can do storage, but not more than what the clauses specify, which is why we objected to the design of Baglihar and Wullar. In Wullar barrage our position was held up. In Baglihar our contention was modified. India had actually offered in 2008-09 that they were willing to modify the design just enough to to maintain what is called the mean dead level.

You are allowed to keep a mean dead level of water otherwise the damn starts to silt up. But the PPP government at the time insisted on going to the international court. At the end of the day, even if there is a difference of say 1MAF, is it worth bad relations?

TFT: But what about India saying it will build dams?

JI:
They say they have six projects in line. Let them say it. Why create war, jang ka samaa? Sit and talk. Have another Indus water commission meeting.

We must assume that they have saner voices on the Indian side too. They have a National Water Authority for the IWC. Its experts openly stated that India can’t stop Pakistan’s water; it is an international treaty guaranteed by the World Bank and the US government. Why are you putting all your foreign policy at stake on a small matter. You can’t do it technically, others said.

TFT: What would happen if they built more dams upstream on “our” 3 western rivers?

JI:
If they do so without significantly altering or reducing the flows of these rivers, and after sharing the design features with Pakistani experts, we should welcome it in the interests of good neighbourly relations. It does not violate the IWT.

However, we would be sceptical of the technical possibility. They would have to build further and further upstream into the mountains. They would have to contend with what is called the silt load. They made plans to make lots of dams in Uttrakhand and Arunchal Pradesh. Bhagirathi river and Alaknanda come out of Kashmir and go through Uttrakhand and meet up with the Ganges. They thought of a series of dams here. All initial construction work along with mountains of silt washed away villages and towns downstream. The environmentalists went to court, which stopped 23 out of 30 projects to build dams.

If they stop our water they will have to make dams to store it in the mountains. You can’t just build a dam at 12,000 feet altitude.

TFT: Any threat to build a dam is hollow?

JI:
It’s not a hollow threat in the sense that it would take them eight to ten years to do it. Make a noise, object, but don’t make it an existential issue. That gives you enough reaction time. It’s not like you press a button and stop the waters. It is physically, engineering-wise not possible.

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 09 Dec 2017 11:21
by Vips
In other words:

-Pakistan got unrestricted right of use on their rivers, where as we get only restricted share of our allotted rivers.
-Even in our eastern rivers, Pakistan gets guarantee of 6% of the total flow every year.
-They got 114 MAF, we got 29 MAF of water
-Even for losing out on the 29 MAF feet of the easterns seas to India they got Dams and Canals built for free and even got India to pay $60 Million

So India gives , gives & gives and Pakistan only got everything. Nehru the assh**e truly screwed India. The Britishers/Americans must have had some very nasty photos of him with Edwina for him to sign such a lopsided and anti-india agreement .

I am surprised some Nationalist did not put him out of his misery and he got to die a natural death (But that was only after he gave a shameful account of himself in the 1962 war with China).

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 09 Dec 2017 12:06
by SSridhar
Peregrine wrote:Can India really threaten Pakistan over water?

TFT: So [b]we gave up three rivers to India?

JI:[/b] Everyone says we took three and gave up three. But a reality check is in order: What did we give up and what did we get? A PPP leader had said that Ayub Khan gave our three rivers away to India in the IWT because he was a dictator. A little scientific evidence is in order here and the numbers present a different picture.

All river flows are measured at rim stations which are the northern most monitoring stations. They were established in colonial times starting around the 1860s. [We] extracted the readings of the Indus rivers at the time that this Accord was signed to see how much water was going where. We wanted to know what were the rim station readings which would have been on the table during the negotiations. It turns out, Pakistan gave up 29MAF of water in the three eastern rivers to India, a fact recorded in the IWT details. But at that time our three western rivers were giving us 114MAF.

TFT: We still lost 29MAF to India?

This grievance of we gave up 29 MAF and we gave up three rivers have become institutionalized in Pakistan. Total falsehood & unreasonable as well. But, then, Pakistan is utterly unreasonable and duplicitous anyway. Nothing surprising.

The WB asked both parties at the start of the negotiations for the IWT to submit their estimates of total water flow in the Indus system of rivers and also their national requirements in order to arbitrate and come to a compromise.

India estimated total Indus system of river flows as 119 MAF and Indian requirements as 29 MAF (Carefully note India's very initial demand of 29 MAF). The Indian demand for 29 MAF coincided with the flows Ravi, Beas & Satluj, the three rivers from which India felt it had reasonable chance of utilizing all the waters at that point of and in foreseeable time with the technologies available.

Pakistan estimated total Indus system of river flows as 118 MAF and its own requirements as 102.5 MAF leaving India with a meagre 15.5 MAF.

The average annual flow in the Indus alone is 144 MAF, but India, in its initial claim disregarded the contribution of the Kabul river (16.5 MAF) and other rivers which originate within PoK and contribute the rest to the Indus. IMO, this is a big mistake.

India therefore estimated, incorrectly, the total transboundary flow of the entire system of Indus rivers to be merely 119 MAF.

At the next iteration, India revised its requirements to "all three eastern rivers + 7% of three western rivers" while Pakistan demanded "all three western rivers + 30% of eastern rivers".

The final allocation was done almost exactly as the revised Indian demand with provisions on the western rivers for India for RoR hydroelectric projects, some consumptive use and some storage.

It is the initial Indian demand of 29 MAF that Pakistanis have been brainwashed to believe was 'lost to India' from its rights, by Ayub Khan. When opposition grew to Ayub Khan, especially by his trusted lieutenant ZA Bhutto, this accusation was fabricated. In paranoidistan, anti-India sentiments are inflamed through falsehoods and conspiracy theories at convenient times. These CTs eventually get stuck in the Pakistani narrative of the long list of imaginary grievances against India.

If Pakistan had got that 29 MAF also, India would have received 0 MAF water from the entire Indus system of six rivers.

The expert whom TFT engaged with should think whether that would have been a likely outcome at all even with a most generous country, India.

But, Pakistanis should be pardoned for assuming that they could have had all the water and left India high & dry because Indian suckers have always behaved like that with Jinnah & his Muslim League and later on after Independence too until very recently.

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 09 Dec 2017 16:35
by Peregrine
Peregrine wrote:Can India really threaten Pakistan over water?

TFT: So [b]we gave up three rivers to India?

JI:[/b] Everyone says we took three and gave up three. But a reality check is in order: What did we give up and what did we get? A PPP leader had said that Ayub Khan gave our three rivers away to India in the IWT because he was a dictator. A little scientific evidence is in order here and the numbers present a different picture.

All river flows are measured at rim stations which are the northern most monitoring stations. They were established in colonial times starting around the 1860s. [We] extracted the readings of the Indus rivers at the time that this Accord was signed to see how much water was going where. We wanted to know what were the rim station readings which would have been on the table during the negotiations. It turns out, Pakistan gave up 29MAF of water in the three eastern rivers to India, a fact recorded in the IWT details. But at that time our three western rivers were giving us 114MAF.

TFT: We still lost 29MAF to India?
SSridhar wrote:This grievance of we gave up 29 MAF and we gave up three rivers have become institutionalized in Pakistan. Total falsehood & unreasonable as well. But, then, Pakistan is utterly unreasonable and duplicitous anyway. Nothing surprising.

The WB asked both parties at the start of the negotiations for the IWT to submit their estimates of total water flow in the Indus system of rivers and also their national requirements in order to arbitrate and come to a compromise.

India estimated total Indus system of river flows as 119 MAF and Indian requirements as 29 MAF (Carefully note India's very initial demand of 29 MAF). The Indian demand for 29 MAF coincided with the flows Ravi, Beas & Satluj, the three rivers from which India felt it had reasonable chance of utilizing all the waters at that point of and in foreseeable time with the technologies available.

Pakistan estimated total Indus system of river flows as 118 MAF and its own requirements as 102.5 MAF leaving India with a meagre 15.5 MAF.

The average annual flow in the Indus alone is 144 MAF, but India, in its initial claim disregarded the contribution of the Kabul river (16.5 MAF) and other rivers which originate within PoK and contribute the rest to the Indus. IMO, this is a big mistake.

India therefore estimated, incorrectly, the total transboundary flow of the entire system of Indus rivers to be merely 119 MAF.

At the next iteration, India revised its requirements to "all three eastern rivers + 7% of three western rivers" while Pakistan demanded "all three western rivers + 30% of eastern rivers".

The final allocation was done almost exactly as the revised Indian demand with provisions on the western rivers for India for RoR hydroelectric projects, some consumptive use and some storage.

It is the initial Indian demand of 29 MAF that Pakistanis have been brainwashed to believe was 'lost to India' from its rights, by Ayub Khan. When opposition grew to Ayub Khan, especially by his trusted lieutenant ZA Bhutto, this accusation was fabricated. In paranoidistan, anti-India sentiments are inflamed through falsehoods and conspiracy theories at convenient times. These CTs eventually get stuck in the Pakistani narrative of the long list of imaginary grievances against India.

If Pakistan had got that 29 MAF also, India would have received 0 MAF water from the entire Indus system of six rivers.

The expert whom TFT engaged with should think whether that would have been a likely outcome at all even with a most generous country, India.

But, Pakistanis should be pardoned for assuming that they could have had all the water and left India high & dry because Indian suckers have always behaved like that with Jinnah & his Muslim League and later on after Independence too until very recently.
SSridhar Ji :
Guru Ji - you have committed the Venial Sin of forgetting Prime Minister "Give Away" not consulting the Indian Parliament in respect of the I W T as well as giving the Terroristanis about US$ 65 Million to buy 19.8% of the Indus Waters when the United States of Ummahrica had given Mexico - IIRC - 8% of the Rio Grande Waters!

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 09 Dec 2017 17:28
by SSridhar
Peregrine ji, I have written enough many times earlier about how our negotiation was totally visionless etc. We all know that Nehru was an authoritarian especially in foreign policy matters and decided everything single-handedly. Unfortunately, the blame was laid upon our Chief negotiator Gulati and Nehru's 'reputation' was sought to be protected by vested interests. Therefore, gifting away our waters to Pakistan was not the focus of my comment.

It is that 29 MAF that the Pakistanis repeatedly keep complaining about that caught my goat.

I have written a BRM article on IWT.

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 09 Dec 2017 17:40
by Peregrine
SSridhar wrote:Peregrine ji, I have written enough many times earlier about how our negotiation was totally visionless etc. We all know that Nehru was an authoritarian especially in foreign policy matters and decided everything single-handedly. Unfortunately, the blame was laid upon our Chief negotiator Gulati and Nehru's 'reputation' was sought to be protected by vested interests. Therefore, gifting away our waters to Pakistan was not the focus of my comment.

It is that 29 MAF that the Pakistanis repeatedly keep complaining about that caught my goat.

I have written a BRM article on IWT.
SSridhar Ji :

Guru Ji, Venial Sin is Forgivable Cardinal Sin is not :rotfl:

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 09 Dec 2017 19:27
by komal
SSridhar wrote:I have written a BRM article on IWT.


Sorry -- what is "BRM". How can I access the article? Thanks

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 09 Dec 2017 19:57
by SSridhar
komal, "BRM" is Bharat Rakshak Monitor which we used to bring out until about a decade back. Its successor was SRR - Strategic Research review. If you are lucky, you may get old articles from these sources from the 'SRR Magazine' link in the home page.

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 14:13
by Peregrine
X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

In Kashmir, India and Pakistan race to tap the Himalayas

MUZAFFARABAD: Several hundred metres underground, thousands of labourers grind away day and night on a mammoth hydroelectric project in contested Kashmir, where India and Pakistan are racing to tap the subcontinent's diminishing freshwater supplies.

The arch rivals have been building duelling power plants along the banks of the turquoise Neelum River for years.

The two projects, located on opposite sides of the Line of Control — the de facto border in Kashmir — are now close to completion, fuelling tensions between the neighbours with Pakistan particularly worried their downstream project will be deprived of much-needed water by India.

The Himalayan region of Kashmir is at the heart of a 70-year conflict between the nuclear-armed foes, with both sides laying claim to the conflict-riven territory.

The rivalry on the Neelum is underlined by both countries' unquenchable need for freshwater, as their surging populations and developing economies continue to stress already diminished waters tables.

This situation represents a serious challenge to Pakistan's food security and long-term growth, its central bank recently warned in a report.

The geography of the wider region only exacerbates the problem.

The Indus River — into which the waters of the Neelum ultimately flow — is one of the longest on the continent, cutting through ultra-sensitive borders in the region.

It rises in Tibet, crosses Kashmir and waters 65 per cent of Pakistan's territory, including the vast, fertile plains of Punjab province — the country's bread basket — before flowing into the Indian Ocean.

The Indus Water Treaty , painfully ratified in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, theoretically regulates water allocation between the countries and is considered a rare diplomatic success story Kishanganga power station is also in its final phase, but has delayed its late 2017 completion date, according to an official, in part because of ongoing unrest in the Kashmir valley.

Pakistan has filed cases at the World Bank against India and the Neelum dam, which it says will unfairly restrict the amount of water headed downstream.

According to the plant's director Nayyar Aluddin, the production of electricity could shrink by 10-13 per cent because of the Indian project.

But the hydroelectric projects on the Neelum River are only one of several points of friction between the two countries as the Indus Treaty faces increasingly pressing disputes.

Beyond the technical bickering, Islamabad is especially afraid of India cutting into its precious water supplies during strategic agricultural seasons that are key to feeding the country's 207 million residents.

The possibility of hitting Pakistan's food supply is regularly amped up by both Indian and Pakistani media, stretching perennially taut relations.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi hinted at such reprisals following an attack in Kashmir's Uri by Pakistan-based terrorists in September 2016.

"Blood and water can't flow together," he said.

However, a blockade of any significant magnitude is not really technically feasible, while neither party has seriously sought to challenge the Treaty of the Indus.

The problem is that the rival countries conceive water as a zero-sum game — if one taps the resource, it means they are lost to the other.

But Islamabad must do its part, wrote Neil Buhne, UN coordinator in Pakistan, in an op-ed calling for the country to diversify "its water resources" while reigning in inefficiencies that wastes water.

Cheers Image

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 18 Dec 2017 00:39
by Peregrine
Pakistan Needs to Diversify its Water Resources By Neil Buhne

FOR many, climate change conjures up images of forsaken polar bears floating on icebergs made from melting ice caps, or hurricanes in the Caribbean turning island paradises into island hells. But the ones who are most affected worldwide are those with the least resources in fragile environments — including people in places like Pakistan.

For people in Pakistan, perhaps the most immediate and serious impact is on water availability. According to a report by the World Resources Institute, Pakistan is on track to become the most water-stressed country in the region, and 23rd in the world, by the year 2040. No person in Pakistan, whether from the north with its more than 5,000 glaciers, or from the south with its ‘hyper deserts’, will be immune to this.

Pakistan’s economy is the most water-intensive worldwide, according to an IMF report. According to the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Pakistan may run dry by 2025 if the present conditions continue. They claim that the country touched the ‘water stress line’ in 1990, and crossed the ‘water scarcity line’ in 2005, more than a decade ago, and that in relation to the scale of the problem relatively little has been done to improve the use or supply of water.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation measures the pressure on national water resources by calculating water withdrawal as a percentage of total renewable water resources (TRWR). Stresses are considered high if the TRWR value is above 25 per cent. Pakistan’s water pressure amounts to a staggering 74pc. This level of pressure is high, even when compared with neighbouring countries, such as Iran at 67pc, India at 40pc,Afghanistan at 31pc, and China at 19.5pc.

Pakistan must diversify its water resources.

With new challenges in trans-boundary water talks, understandably much focus is directed towards Pakistan’s interstate water issues with India and Afghanistan. But international experience shows that water scarcity can exacerbate internal tensions. According to the UN Peace Institute, evidence from Pakistan shows that water scarcity, droughts, floods and domestic mismanagement can prompt tensions locally and this can escalate intrastate water disputes.

As with other diverse and larger countries, Pakistan has defused these tensions — but with current signs pointing towards greater water scarcity these tensions are likely to increase, making improved water management an economic, environmental and political imperative.

Crafting sustainable solutions will require an integrated approach to supply and demand management. In the long-term planning, coming up with strategic conservation strategies is key. Both surface and groundwater resources are being used at capacity, and current methods of extraction and uses are not only unsustainable, they are also damaging to the economy and human security today and in the future.

With the population growing even faster than projected, and the intensity of water use remaining high, if no remedial actions are taken now the water needs of the estimated 208 million Pakistanis will continue to escalate dramatically. While more reservoirs and dams may be a part of the answer, they are just one part. So, apart from building more dams and reservoirs, it is essential that Pakistan diversifies its water resources to ensure water availability. We have examples from many countries that can be adapted to Pakistan.

For instance, Singapore follows The Four Taps Strategy to tackle water shortages, and Japan has invested heavily in water-saving technologies. Similarly, we have plenty of rainwater year-round that can be recycled and stored as is being done in the Maldives.

In all those countries, a price is put on water use, so it’s important to note that for a country like Pakis­tan water is almost a free commodity. Unlike electricity, there are no water meters in houses where people pay accor­ding to usage. Thus, there is enormous, unmeasured water was­tage. To sensitise the public on water wastage it is critical that water usage is metered. Public outreach campaigns have worked elsewhere for helping put a value on water; and decreasing the intensity of water used.

Current irrigation practices are largely inefficient, and water productivity is lowest in the Indus basin’s irrigated agriculture. According to UNDP, the development of laser levelling technology and furrow-bed irrigation has resulted in saving 30pc of water and has led to an increase in productivity by 25pc in Punjab’s Okara district. Such a model should be replicated in other areas, as well as other methods, such as expanded drip irrigation farming systems.

Delaying efforts to address Pakistan’s water scarcities will intensify tensions between different stakeholders. If more Pakistanis are not to be left behind and the SDGs are to be met rapidly, reducing ‘water stress’ is crucial. Water management needs to become a top priority for Pakistan.

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 18 Dec 2017 22:08
by chetak
Images show China may be using a secret tunnel to divert Brahmaputra water into desert





Images show China may be using a secret tunnel to divert Brahmaputra water into desert
COL. VINAYAK BHAT (RETD) 13 December, 2017

Image

Satellite photo of China blocking Brahmaputra river
China blocks Brahmaputra completely | Vinayak Bhat
Latest satellite imagery shows the river Brahmaputra disappearing into a 900 m underground tunnel in China.

In what is perhaps the first evidence of a possible diversion project by China, latest satellite imagery shows a massive new dam on the Brahmaputra river — Yarlong Tsangpo in Tibetan — with an underground tunnel that seems to engulf the entire water flow for almost one kilometre.

The Brahmaputra is sacred to Indians and Tibetans alike and has its origins in the Angsi Glacier in Purang county of Tibet. It has been in the news for water reportedly turning black on the Indian side and in connection with Chinese plans to divert it to the arid lands of the Taklamakan desert.

Although the Indian government has said that there is no evidence of any water diversion project, satellite imagery from 26 November 2017, courtesy US commercial vendor of space imagery DigitalGlobe, indicates a new project in an advanced stage. This report – based on latest satellite images — examines only the actual ground position. Measurements are made on very low resolution images and may not be exact.

NEW PROJECT

The available images show a new 200 m wide dam that seems to have completely blocked the water of the Brahmaputra. The entire river seems to be forced into two inlets of almost 50 m width each towards the west of the river. The water flow comes out after around 900 m downstream in two outlets very similar to the size and shape of the inlets.

The project – currently under construction – is located 60 km east of Shannan township as the crow flies. The location is also almost 40 km east of Sangri county.

Image

Source: Vinayak Bhat
What has raised questions about this project is that another project – Tsangmo or Zangmu Dam — has recently been constructed just 13 km downstream. This run of the river dam was made operational in end-2015 and has a capacity of 510 MW power production. Beijing did not pay any attention to India’s objections to the Tsangmo dam.

POSSIBLE DIVERSION PLAN

The construction of another dam 13 km upstream of Tsangmo which diverts the entire water inside the mountain suggests that its purpose may not just be hydropower generation. The purpose of this project is possibly for diverting a portion of the Brahmaputra to the parched areas of Taklamakan desert.

The geography of the area, when studied deeply with the elevation profile, clearly indicates that China may actually be planning to divert the waters of the Brahmaputra approximately 1,100 km northwest of the project site.

The path indicated on the image below shows the possible route of the underground tunnel which does not touch any water body on its way. The height difference at the project site and the point of Taklamakan desert suggest that a clear downslope will be available for the water to flow naturally without any additional constructions for large storage wells in between.

Image

Source: Vinayak Bhat
India being downstream of the Brahmaputra has full rights over its waters and any diversion of water from this river could likely hurt Indian agriculture. During any emergency, a sudden release of water from this project can also cause havoc on the Indian side.

BLACK WATERS

Satellite imagery shows that polymer resin adhesives are being sprayed by China all around this project area as a dust suppressant system. The resin adhesives are commonly used for large construction projects but are never used for projects near water, according to some water projects construction engineers, since these polymer resin adhesives are said to be harmful to humans and animals.

The resin sprays have been observed over the last two months. The rough estimate of time for water flow to reach India from this project location is 15 to 20 days. The colour of the Brahmaputra water in Assam acquiring a darker shade, according to reports in the media, could possibly be due to the use of these resin adhesives at this project site.

CONSTRUCTION IN FULL SWING

Satellite images clearly show stone crushers and cement plants at the site. The products of this facility are obviously used inside these tunnels for construction purposes. The material being quarried from inside these tunnels is being piled along the river up to the road level. Most of the stones have been crushed to different sizes and some of it may be pushed into the river along with the water flow.

A large number of tippers and other vehicles are seen carrying material to and from this area. An administrative area is also seen east of the project with a large number of red-roofed houses and barracks, possibly living quarters for staff and may also contain administrative buildings.

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 18 Dec 2017 22:23
by pankajs
Anyone knows how dams are constructed across a perennial river in a mountainous region?

You somehow have to build across a flowing river. Please find a documentary on one such project in India. I had seen this quite a while back but believe it has the answer if you watch it fully.

Karcham Wangtoo Dam: India's Largest Hydroelectric Project

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 20 Dec 2017 20:34
by Malayappan
Environment ministry’s panel clears 800 MW Bursar hydroelectric project in J&K
The project, permitted under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), is strategically important for India and its clearance is in line with the Indian government’s decision to step up exploitation of India’s share of water in the IWT.

The project, a storage scheme permitted under IWT, is the first such with a storage capacity of 0.5 MAF (Million Acre Feet) in the Chenab basin. It has been declared a national project and is under the Prime Minister’s reconstruction plan for J&K.

The Bursar project is proposed to come up on Marusudar River, a tributary of the Chenab, near village Pakal in Kishtwar District. It envisages construction of a 265 m high concrete gravity dam. The project is proposed to be completed in 163 months including a pre-construction period of 36 months for infrastructural work.

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 20 Dec 2017 21:06
by SriKumar
pankajs wrote:Anyone knows how dams are constructed across a perennial river in a mountainous region? RefilZnco[/youtube]


The same way you build it across any river- you divert the river by cutting a diversionary channel around the dam site, build coffer (temporary, stone) dams to block the main river to force the water into the diversionary channel. In this case, they cut diversionary tunnels (and not channels) presumably due to the mountainous terrain. This is described from 6:45 onwards, for about 1-2 minutes. Same technique is needed even for innundatory rivers since dams likely take more than 1 year to construct and innundatory rivers will flood once a year, every year.

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 20 Dec 2017 22:31
by pankajs
SriKumar wrote:
pankajs wrote:Anyone knows how dams are constructed across a perennial river in a mountainous region? RefilZnco[/youtube]


The same way you build it across any river- you divert the river by cutting a diversionary channel around the dam site, build coffer (temporary, stone) dams to block the main river to force the water into the diversionary channel. In this case, they cut diversionary tunnels (and not channels) presumably due to the mountainous terrain. This is described from 6:45 onwards, for about 1-2 minutes. Same technique is needed even for innundatory rivers since dams likely take more than 1 year to construct and innundatory rivers will flood once a year, every year.
Exactly

chetak wrote:Images show China may be using a secret tunnel to divert Brahmaputra water into desert
NEW PROJECT

The available images show a new 200 m wide dam that seems to have completely blocked the water of the Brahmaputra. The entire river seems to be forced into two inlets of almost 50 m width each towards the west of the river. The water flow comes out after around 900 m downstream in two outlets very similar to the size and shape of the inlets.
But the headline is
Images show China may be using a secret tunnel to divert Brahmaputra water into desert

followed by the sub headline
Latest satellite imagery shows the river Brahmaputra disappearing into a 900 m underground tunnel in China

Both sensational but contradicted a bit later in that very article. Proves again not to be taken in by headlines.

Not to say that China will not divert the water at some later date but the current development/construction looks normal for a dam project of this nature.

Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 27 Dec 2017 02:32
by Peregrine
Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat

China promises to keep India informed about artificial lakes along Brahmaputra

BEIJING: China on Tuesday promised to keep India informed about the condition of the artificial lakes that have come up along the Brahmaputra in Tibet near the Indian border with China. At least three major lakes have come up, worrying sections of people in the Indian north east who fear that the lakes might burst and flooding waters flow downstream into India.

"It is caused by natural factors. It is not a man-made accident," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said, citing satellite imagery. "We hope the Indian media will not make a groundless speculation on this," she said.

There are fears in India that the three artificial lakes might endanger lives of people living along the Siang in Arunachal Pradesh and downstream of Brahmaputra in Assam. The size of the lakes and the quantum of water in them is not yet estimated. China is saying they have been created due to landslides along the upstream areas of Brahmaputra, which is called Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet, after a 6.4 magnitude earthquake last month.

"The Chinese side, through the existing channels, will maintain communication with the Indian side on the cross-border rivers," Hua said. The lakes are on the eastern section of the India-China boundary, she said.

There were earlier reports about heavy pollution in the Siang river suspected to have been caused by heavy construction and tunnel building on the Chinese side of the border. China had denied these reports. Indian officials are believed to have taken up this issue during the recent 20th border talks between NSA Ajit Doval and Chinese state councillor, Yang Jiechi on December 22 in Delhi.

India and China share a long boundary which includes a 3,488 km long Line of Actual Control (LAC). China claims Arunachal Pradesh as Southern Tibet, India asserts that the dispute covered Aksai Chin area which was occupied by China during the 1962 war.

Cheers Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 03:51
by Gagan
Nimoo Bazgo on the Indus is complete
Google earth has updated the images of the area

34.214666, 77.185545

Col Bhat is wrong! This is not the location where the Chinese want to divert water from. That line he has drawn for a tunnel, is not possible with current technology. That is a several thousand Kms long tunnel - not happening.

To build a dam, a small diversion tunnel is dug on the side of a river, less than half a Km long, and then the river is stopped at the dam site so that the dry river bed can be dug up to lay the foundation of the dam. A dam foundation is usually several meters deep (a hundred odd meters or much more), depending on the geology in the area.
Col Bhat is posting the image of one such dam construction on that stretch of the river.
The Chinese will eventually have 4 dams within a stretch of 15 Kms one after the other, all geared towards making power. If these dams stop water, how will they make power hain ji? These are run of the river dams

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 03:54
by Gagan
Map of the stretch of the Brahmaputra / Yarlung Zangbo river with proposed and under construction dams
Image

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 10:39
by deejay
Gagan wrote:Nimoo Bazgo on the Indus is complete
Google earth has updated the images of the area

34.214666, 77.185545

Col Bhat is wrong! This is not the location where the Chinese want to divert water from. That line he has drawn for a tunnel, is not possible with current technology. That is a several thousand Kms long tunnel - not happening.

To build a dam, a small diversion tunnel is dug on the side of a river, less than half a Km long, and then the river is stopped at the dam site so that the dry river bed can be dug up to lay the foundation of the dam. A dam foundation is usually several meters deep (a hundred odd meters or much more), depending on the geology in the area.
Col Bhat is posting the image of one such dam construction on that stretch of the river.
The Chinese will eventually have 4 dams within a stretch of 15 Kms one after the other, all geared towards making power. If these dams stop water, how will they make power hain ji? These are run of the river dams


Gagan Ji, with all respect to Col Bhat and his analysis, he is often mistaken in inferences. I feel he plays up the threat matrix. China is ahead and has done crazy things but pumping the entire water of Tsang Po across Tibet would be too much even for them.

Without inferring competition I do find your satellite picture analysis far more accurate and reasonable. I have had the opportunity to look at those terrains first hand (both from air and on ground). Admittedly, it was more than a decade and a half earlier, but the actual ground conditions are hard to understand from satellite imagery.