South India River Water Issues/Disputes

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 24 Nov 2011 18:26

Kerala clearly wants to rewrite the 999 year lease with a newer agreement. It is a smart move and TN realizes this and opposes this. Everything else is shadow games in the guise of TN is callous about Kerala people's lives etc.

PS: This issue has clearly started trending on twitter in the last 2-3 days. The whole issue has been going back and forth for years now. One picture I figure from social media analysis is that a dormant issue starts trending often by some vested source(s) planted at the right points. Give it a few days and it will die down on its own or it will become a bigger issue that needs immediate intervening from GoI. It cant stay in the same state forever. That perpetuity conclusion in itself is a no-brainer otherwise, but it is a reasonable conclusion from social media viewpoint as it is poorly understood as of now.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 24 Nov 2011 18:40

There is often blame on TN for idiots who run politics by making those sensationalizing statements (Vai Ko, Ramadoss etc.). The media in Kerala plays that role, the media in TN just follows the sensational garbage and focusses more on kolaveri this kolaveri that.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 Nov 2011 01:06

Dileep,

You are incorrect.

That is not how construction processes work. There is the issue of blasting near an existing unstable dam. There is also the matter of the silt dam that has built up. Quick calculation shows that this now weighs about 500 million tonnes. Must be drained away slowly/safely. You would never leave unstable debris behind a new dam. Esp. from the old dam. It could very easily foul the new Dam and damage its foundations. For their size dams are very delicately balanced. There is the worrying factor of weather. At Baglihar, the dam site has been repeatedly overwhelmed by the monsoon and the bypass tunnels collapsed leading to over flood of the half built dam. The exiting structure is a a gravity dam that depends on friction at the base for stability. Any flooding of the existing structure will dramatically lighten and weaken the base friction causing immediate failure....

I could go on.

The old dam will have to come down first. All sane reports agree on this.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Nov 2011 10:11

exploring desalination on a mega scale

She is one hell of a smart cookie. She made rain water harvesting compulsory in her earlier term, everyone grumbled, but it proved to be such a blessing, ground water levels improved , water quality improved.

Frankly, if it is a question of dam safety, it can be addressed sensibly.. But if the "dam safety" is a trojan horse used to push other agendas, like re writing existing water agreements, then there is no solution to it.

In fact, the Cauvery water issue is a case in point. From being a state that was both upstream AND downstream and sharing water with the state in between called Mysore, the states reorg turned it into something very intractable , leading to curtailment of historical water usage (over thousands of years) in the Kaveri delta regions. With that as a precedent, asking TN to renegotiate the lease agreement simply isn't on I think. Wont fly politically at all. JMT etc as usual.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Nov 2011 10:34

Theo_Fidel wrote:

The old dam will have to come down first. All sane reports agree on this.

There is unnecessary worry and fearmongering. DAM will not fail as long as it does not fail.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 25 Nov 2011 12:39

From the outside I find it insane that someone has to agree to a 999 yr lease.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 25 Nov 2011 13:10

Better than a 'lease' in perpetuity like Indus Treaty or Farrakha. Back then the area was very remote and only loosely under Travancore control. Dam area was 4 hour hike from Gudalur and 7 days travel from Quilon.

While we are at it, lets remember that a large chunk of the population below the dam is Tamil speaking as well. Not only that by some estimates (plantation workers/tribals) the population of Idukki district was/is Tamil speaking majority. TN did not press its case back then, part of it being this lease agreement. By the same token, 1/3 of Coimbatore if Keralite and drinks Sirunvani water. And much of the Bodi Metu area in TN is Keralite as well. As is the Marthandam area of Kanya Kumari district.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 25 Nov 2011 13:50

Sane Report == Report favouring TN. I get it.

I am not an expert, and you are definitely better than me in these matters. But I would place the opinion of the people who made the detailed proposal for the new dam much above your opinion.

You can have your 999 years or the old "aachanthiraarkkamE santhathi pravESyamE" (for the life of sun and moon, and all generations), if TN can guarantee and indemnify the safety of us. For example:

1. You underwrite every human life lost at Rs 1Cr, perpetually inflation adjusted, with no force mejuer clause

2. You underwrite every acre of land damaged at Rs 1Cr, perpetually inflation adjusted.

3. You underwrite every collateral damage, as assessed by an international agency.

4. All these underwritings backed by the sovereign guarantee of the govt of TN.

Deal?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 25 Nov 2011 18:45

Theo it does notmatter about past.

Purely looking at it - its unjust

you think after this - when 999 years are up Keralites will look with any sympathy??

even if the terms are to be made for 99 yrs which is reasonable whats wrong as long as TN will get the water??

BTW since you bring up the percentage of tamils etc - i think thats meaningless

My family origins straddle the line Palghat, coimbatore, wynad etc

We maybe Tamil but we are diff enough in habits not to feel any particular allegiance.

If anything we have a slight lean towards Kerala.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 25 Nov 2011 22:14

Surya, even if the 999 year argument is unjust, what was Kerala doing signing away an amendment in as late as 1970? They could have refused then, no?! Did they have enough time to think about unjustness of it all till 1970 or did TN force it on (coerced) them even then? Cmon....

Even if thats the main issue, why not be open instead of hiding behind a new dam shenanigan (as seen from TN's perspective)? It appears that safety issue has been raised post-facto when the legal claims have been settled. Would you blame TN to feel this way? Safety is important, but safety never seemed to that be a big issue (as it is now) during the 70s and 80s. Did anyone do a relay fast in the 70s? There were 2.8 tremors even then, and the structure is better now than in say 1970, with all the emergency and mid-term measures taken. After the height was reduced to 136 ft, everyone went home reasonably ok.

If TN is being accused of being callous, Kerala is being opaque too. Lets not make it a one side is pristine, another is an asshole type nonsense. That is precisely how this whole issue is being presented: TN cant care about us kaafirs, as if TN is made of all believers. Look at the dramatization of the accusation list. TN is asked to underwrite people's life and safety while all along even the Kerala minister for water resources says, "We have to rewrite the lease deed." You cant blame it on people if they enter skepticism territory. On the one hand, people in Kudankulam are accused of being adharmic, anti-xyz's and here, we have people saying, "I question the Instrument of Accession." Waa-re waa, super logic of patriotism etc. Patriotism and nationalism are all abused entities useful when it suits anyone. I dont claim any super-Indic or super-nationalist credentials on my part, but I cant notice the loud and thunderous silence of those [not Dileep, to be true, Dileep never questioned anyone's patriotism nor do I question his, my issue is with the losers on the nukular dhaaga who also post rubbish here and accuse people there of being this and that] who raise such matters when they are confronted with quite complicated issues like these.

For my part, if Kerala feels unsafe, there is no point arguing endlessly about a new dam. Just build it, cost is something we have to argue about -- what fraction each govt is going to pay will have to be settled in paper and pen. If you want to undo the lease agreement, well back off. TN feels enough water insecurity as it is to not be pushed into a corner on this matter. The Cauvery tribunal's verdict has not been implemented even 30 years past the award. Same here with the 2006 judgment. People tend to get sick when even the highest tribunal/court's awards are not implemented. TN is no saint, but none of the surrounding states have behaved like pristine gods, everyone is selfish here, so lets not moralize unto eternity.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 26 Nov 2011 14:40

For my part, if Kerala feels unsafe, there is no point arguing endlessly about a new dam. Just build it, cost is something we have to argue about -- what fraction each govt is going to pay will have to be settled in paper and pen. If you want to undo the lease agreement, well back off. TN feels enough water insecurity as it is to not be pushed into a corner on this matter. The Cauvery tribunal's verdict has not been implemented even 30 years past the award. Same here with the 2006 judgment. People tend to get sick when even the highest tribunal/court's awards are not implemented. TN is no saint, but none of the surrounding states have behaved like pristine gods, everyone is selfish here, so lets not moralize unto eternity.

As per the available info, the full cost of construction will be borne by the Govt of Kerala. Secondly, the dam is going to be built in the Kerala State, not even on the leased land to TN. Thirdly, the Kerala Govt has promised to release the water from the New Dam to TN.

I don't know the correct legal position about the 999 year lease between the then British Govt and Rajah of Travancore (which again is accused to have been signed under duress), but I often wonder why this lease agreement is allowed to continue, when all(?) other such agreements were annulled or re-written.

About TN not being a saint, it is much worse. Have a look at all the water/river treaties between TN and Kerala, you will find a set pattern of brow-beating the other party (in this case Kerala) by TN. Parambikkulam-Aliyar treaty has lapsed more than a decade back. TN is not taking any interest in renewing it. In fact they stopped attending meetings called by Kerala for renewal of contract. In all these years, TN has released the quantity of water due to Kerala in two or three years only (i.e., flood water, because they could not store it). The Parambikkulam-Aliyar project has affected the Eastern parts of Palakkad Dist (Chittoor area has become dryland, and Pollachi has prospered). Same is the case with Siruvani (supplying drinking water to Coimbatore), Tunakkadavu, Sholayar and other minor projects. Add to that the behaviour of forest and irrigation officials of TN in diverting waters from rivulets by illegal construction of check-dams and diversion of water to TN, thereby reducing flow in the western flowing rivers of Kerala.

Kerala, from the time of inception of the state has always co-operated with TN when it comes to water sharing. Major reason for this is, that they can afford to share it with TN due to the copious Monsoon (even Karnataka doesn;t release Kaveri water due to kerala). But the attitude of TN is somewhat unhelpful...It is the ridiculus statements from people like Vaiko, Jaya etc, which has brought the situation to such a passe..TN cannot say that since most of the water flowing through the Kerala rivers is ending up at sea, allow us to divert it to TN. There is a limit (because you can't really catch every drop of water during the monsoon fury), and within that limit, everything is possible. But if people think things could be done by rabble rousing, then there is bound to be problems.

If TN wants water from Kerala, negotiate and come to an amicable solution. Just saying that the Mullapperiyar dam is safe and nothing is going to happen to it, is not going help. Nobody believes the dam will survive for 999 years. If a new dam has to be build after a few years, why not now? what is the problem in taking a precautionary measure?. If the dam breaks, obviously it will happen when it is full...and it is going to have a cascading effect. The Idukki dam, one of the largest in India may also burst and the population of south Kerala will reach Arabian sea along with the flood waters.

If the attitude of TN is "who cares", it is not going to be beneficial for them. The crux of the matter is not water, but control of the new dam. TN knows they are on a sticky wicket on that point. That is why all these rabble rousing.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 27 Nov 2011 05:18

Series of tremors in Idukki district

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 27 Nov 2011 10:32

OK, let me debunk two of the BSes being peddled around.

1. The new dam can't hold the same level of water.

Google earth is your friend. It gives terrain information that is pretty accurate. Take a look around and see for yourself!!

The new dam is at around 350-370 metres downstream. It can very well maintain the same water level as the current dam.

2. The river flows via ravines between hills between Mullaperiyar and Idukki.

Once again, google is your friend. Shown below is a video I made from that, which clearly shows that the inhabitation are very close to the river, and the riverbed itself is too shallow. Even a regular flood would affect these regions, let alone the wall of water rushing down.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 28 Nov 2011 06:02

^^^

That is not the dam Kerala experts are proposing.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 28 Nov 2011 09:32

There's a movie that's been released just 2 days ago on this called DAM999.

http://www.damthemovie.com/actors.php

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 28 Nov 2011 22:08

The RWH scheme JJ instituted in Madras receives praises from across all sections of people. TN urgently needs to explore alternative ideas. Clean Water, garbage disposables and toilets should be part of election planks across the country and implemented with modern science and technology. MGR had initiated some schemes for desalination plants, they soon ran into problems. JJ has a history of supporting desalination: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3 ... desal.html

Politicians pander and posture. And they bend to Corporation pressures. They get money from them. They would not want to be seen as spineless and bending down to other politicians, let alone politicians of other state. To increase the trust between the GoK and GoTN, and the people, maybe a new joint-committee could be set up.

To their defense, politicians will embark on progress and development if they see a chance in the next elections (and of course some kickbacks) and if they are under no pressure. For any meaningful solution, the situation has to be diffused. Tension has to be brought down. The politicians will not do it. Period. The only way to counter mafia of dam builders is by creating a mafia of desalination corporations and smart irrigation companies.

Added: Even if we get lucky and politicians from the two states turn wise and compromise and create a win-win situation, their political opponents will create dharnas, bandhs ityaddi showcasing how their state lost to the other state. How one set of people lost to another set of people. Democracy.

ps1: And why is secularism getting a rap here?
ps2: Last time I was in Kovai, it was astonishing to see the number of Keralites. And forget Palani Malai

ps3: Can't we all just get along

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 29 Nov 2011 02:30

SwamyG wrote:Added: Even if we get lucky and politicians from the two states turn wise and compromise and create a win-win situation,

What is the compromise you have in your mind?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Nov 2011 03:13

^^^
Thanks for asking

Seriously, we have to truly understand what the States want. They want both tangible (water, electricity, possession etc) and intangible (pride, ownership etc) benefits. So give the two states some of all that they want.

One possible conversation could go something like this (there are other possible conversations - key is everybody takes home something that they can be proud of):
Mallu:
"Is it my fault that South TN is a rain shadow region? Why should I and my people suffer for geographical constraints of tamil naadu, if the dam is weak - it should be strengthened. However, being a human I am willing to share the water to tamilians. One Indian to another. One human to another"

Tamilian:
"Great. Thanks for sharing. I know the 999-yr contract sucks for you. But it is still a contract. Let the SC decide. Meanwhile, as one human to another human. One Indian to another Indian, if you think the dam is weak, let me contribute to building another dam. But no re-signing the lease."

Mallu:
"Great. Thanks for contributing. That will help us sell the idea. How about little more water, electricity, commodities etc for us? Let the Court decide about the 999-yr lease thingie."

Tamilian:
"Nice. Yeah let the courts figure it out. So you want more? But what do I get?"

Mallu:
"Times are changed. Your population has grown. Our population has grown. The contract was written 100 years ago. It makes no sense. But since, you are contributing some money, and are willing to pay more. How about we let you keep the 999-yr contract. We will tell the SC to not worry."

Tamilians:
"Nice. On our part, we will take into account inflation and adjust our payment each year."

Mallu:
"Good. Let us hoist our lungi, drink some kallu, eat some puttu and watch some Malayalam movies."

Tamilian:
'Malayalam movies? wink wink. Sure'.

You ask me how will this happen? Only when all politicians in both states buy in. Only when all interested groups and lobbying mafia are satisfied. The people are never the issue. We don't hate each other, it is just that we want take care of ourselves. It is natural. Even a few bad apples in both states can hijack the narration causing bandhs and protests.

So what to do? You pick the ruling parties from both States. Then pick the largest and influential opposition, bring them in a room first. Smack their head, arm twist them, remove their langot or what not. But knock some sense, threaten and cajole them. Carrot and stick. Tell them to keep their mouth shut, and let the experts figure it out without interference. Then let the politicians take the cake by proclaiming they have solved the issue. TN should praise Kerala. Kerala should praise TN. Matter over.

Going by my gut feeling, I think Stan has a point about gulf money wanting to build the dam. For me, safety and security if foremost. Be it here or the nuclear reactor. In a democracy you cannot go by squishing people's emotions, they have to be answered painstakingly - it is better than dictatorship though.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 29 Nov 2011 03:39

^^^

SwamyG,

At least in part, that is how 1970 agreement was signed. Both sides were very low key and relatively agreeable. TN gave up several 'face saving' things like fishing and tourism, Kerala gave up a few like minimum environmental discharge and dam access and wild prices increases.

Idukki had not been built yet. It was the building of Idukki and the failure to fill it that slowly changed attitudes over the years.

Such a peaceful agreement is now bandied about as complete sell out and TN beating Kerala over the head in 1970. All this is quite a shock from TN side as well.

In any case new dam has to be built.

But lets do it properly. Not the shortcut Kerala proposal where a down stream dam is built with high crest just below Kumili saddle so costly pumping or siphon system will be required. And lets NOT abandon the existing dam inside this reservoir as proposed. Any future quake will cause an underwater collapse which can cause a catastrophic lake Tsunami. The silt dam is particularly worrying. No mention is made of it in the Kerala DPR or atleast the version that is with me.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 29 Nov 2011 11:31

What happens if old dam becomes dysfunctional and inoperable in future? Would the agreement also become dysfunctional.
Would it be automatically transferred to new dam when constructed by Kerala without linkage to old dam?

If lives of so many people are at stake, why this can't be sorted out by both parties coming together to discuss all aspects including water and power sharing. Kerala politicians can't be immune to public safety and sentiments and they have to take a call on this. OTH TN can not show insensitivity to apprehension of Kerala people just because they don't have to win elections in Kerala

Theo has raised technical issues and I am sure they could be solved and if there is any lacunae in Kerala DPR experts could propose better solution. May be a joint team of experts is needed to prepare DPR.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 29 Nov 2011 15:02

chaanakya wrote:If lives of so many people are at stake, why this can't be sorted out by both parties coming together to discuss all aspects including water and power sharing.

<2 paise comment>perhaps like Sardara sarovara yojana, the issue could be that the environmentalists will go all the way to the Supreme Court and at various international forums. Need attitude like NaMo here to sort this out for otherwise there always will be confusion at the back of mind for everyone, including perhaps here. The environmentalists can create new issues as usual and one would never know what happens moving forward. Perhaps some insider who knows how to drive such a project, and has experience at other places like Saradara Sarovara Yojana etc. could work as a central Govt. tech aid a lot do the background work silently and properly that won't create issues( even in future) while discussions go on & on.
</2 paise comment>

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 29 Nov 2011 15:22

^^ EIA has to be part of DPR. While there is every possibility of case being dragged to SC that should not be a deterrent to finding a solution. Central Govt has already conveyed its willingness to SC to help in the issue. It is for the parties to come to a common framework of understanding and to abide by the final decisions even if there are some loss or gain.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Nov 2011 00:08

Not like JJ's statement to the PM should make much difference, but in any case...

அணை பாதுகாப்பு குறித்து 1979-ம் ஆண்டே கேரள அரசு பிரச்சினையை கிளப்பியது. அதைத்தொடர்ந்து, அணையை ஆய்வு செய்த மத்திய நீர்வள ஆணையத்தின் தலைவர், அணை முழு பாதுகாப்புடன் இருப்பதாக சொன்னார். அதோடு அந்த அணையை பாதுகாக்க 1980-ம் ஆண்டு முதல் 1994-ம் ஆண்டு வரையிலான காலகட்டத்தில் தமிழக அரசு எடுத்த பாதுகாப்பு நடவடிக்கைகளை கேரள அரசும் மேற்கொள்ளலாம் என்று அவர் அறிவுரையும் வழங்கினார். பாதுகாப்பு நடவடிக்கைகள் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்ட பின்பு முல்லைப் பெரியாறு அணை பாதுகாப்பாக இருந்து வருகிறது. புதிய அணை போன்று இயங்கி வருகிறது. இந்த கருத்தை தமிழக அரசு தொடர்ந்து வலியுறுத்துகிறது.

அணையின் கீழ்ப்பகுதிகளில் வாழும் அனைத்து மக்களின் பாதுகாப்பு மீதும் தமிழக அரசு அக்கறை கொண்டுள்ளது. அணை பாதுகாப்பாக இருப்பதற்கு என்னென்ன பாதுகாப்பு நடவடிக்கைகள் எடுக்கப்பட வேண்டுமோ அவை அனைத்தையும் தமிழக அரசு மேற்கொள்ளும். மூன்றாவது மண்டலம் பிரிவின் கீழ் வரும் முல்லைப் பெரியாறு அணை, இந்தியன் ஸ்டாண்டர்டு கோடு (ஐ.எஸ். கோடு) விதிமுறைகளின்படி, பூகம்பத்தை தாங்கக்கூடிய அளவுக்கு உரிய முறையில் வடிவமைத்து கட்டப்பட்டு இருக்கிறது என்று தமிழக அரசு கருதுகிறது. கடந்த 18.11.2011 நிகழ்ந்த நில அதிர்ச்சி ஒரு துளி கூட அணையின் மீது பாதிப்பு ஏற்படுத்தவில்லை. உண்மையைச் சொன்னால், அணை பகுதியில் நில அதிர்ச்சி உணரப்படவே இல்லை.

சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டு உத்தரவின்படி அமைக்கப்பட்ட அதிகாரக்குழு முல்லைப் பெரியாறு அணை பகுதியில் ஆய்வு நடத்தி இருக்கிறது. தொடர்ந்து ஆய்வு மேற்கொண்டு வருகிறது. அணையின் பாதுகாப்பு குறித்து இதுவரை எந்தவித எதிர்மறையான கருத்தையும் அது தெரிவிக்கவில்லை. இத்தகைய சூழ்நிலையில், கேரள அரசுக்கு தாங்கள் (பிரதமர்) தங்கள் அதிகாரத்தைப் பயன்படுத்தி உரிய அறிவுரைகள் வழங்குமாறு வேண்டுகோள் விடுக்கிறேன்.

1886-ம் ஆண்டு ஒப்பந்தம் மற்றும் அந்த ஒப்பந்தத்தை தொடர்ந்து, 1970-ம் ஆண்டு போடப்பட்ட துணை ஒப்பந்தத்தில் தமிழகத்திற்கு உத்தரவாதம் அளிக்கப்பட்ட உரிமைகளை மதிக்கவும், கடந்த 27.2.2006 அன்று சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டு அளித்த உத்தரவை மதித்திடவும், 2006-ம் ஆண்டு செய்யப்பட்ட சட்ட திருத்தத்தை ரத்து செய்திடவும் கேரள அரசுக்கு தாங்கள் அறிவுரை கூற வேண்டும்.

My xlation:

The Kerala government made an issue of dam safety even in 1979. Following that, the Central Water Commission team's Commissioner that looked at this issue assured full safety of the dam. He also suggested that the Kerala government oversee the interim measures taken by the TN government to strengthen the structure from 1980 to 1994. After these measures were taken, the Mullaipperiyar structure has remained safe. It is functioning essentially like a new dam. The TN government has been re-emphasizing this point in any deliberation.

The TN government is aware of its responsibilities towards the safety concerns of the people who live downstream. Whatever efforts need to be/have to be made to maintain the safety of the dam structure will be undertaken by the TN government. The TN government believes that the dam structure and the interim measures undertaken under the Indian Standard Code thereof protect the structure against any tremors that is possible by being in the Third Seismic Zone. The tremor on November 18, 2011 did not cause any damage to the dam structure. To be truthful, there were no tremors that were felt on the dam structure at all.

The Supreme Court appointed panel is looking further at the issues raised by the Kerala government. The panel has not made any statements that question the safety the dam structure so far. Under these conditions, I request you as the Prime Minister to advise the Kerala government of the following.

I request you to implore the Kerala government to honor the agreement signed in 1886, the amendment made to this agreement in 1970, and the Supreme Court judgment of February 27, 2006. I also request you to let the Kerala government to abrogate the 2006 Act in the Kerala Assembly.

Vai Ko spews out a lot of nonsense, but these are what I deem as the pertinent remarks (it has a bs line on no single drop of water --- that is Vai Ko):

புதிய அணை கட்டுவது என்ற பெயரால், தமிழகத்துக்கு 999 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு உரிமை உள்ள அணையை உடைக்க, பல வழிகளிலும் களத்தில் இறங்கி உள்ளது. புதிய அணை கட்டினால், தமிழ்நாட்டுக்கு ஒரு சொட்டுத் தண்ணீரும் கொடுக்க வாய்ப்புக் கிடையாது.

முல்லைப்பெரியாறு அணை, இந்தியாவிலேயே மிக வலுவானது. 200 அடிகள் அடிமட்ட அகலம் கொண்டது. அத்தகைய அடிமட்ட அகலம் கொண்ட அணை, இந்தியாவில் வேறு எங்குமே கிடையாது. 500 அடிகள் உயரத்தில், இடுக்கியில் கேரளம் கட்டி உள்ள அணையின் அடிமட்ட அகலம்கூட, 56 அடிகள்தான்.

In the guise of constructing a new dam, the Kerala government is trying to weasel out of its responsibilities in upholding the 999 year lease agreement. With the new dam, TN will get not a single drop of water.

Mullaipperiyar is perhaps one of the strongest dam structure in India. Its base width is 200 feet. There is no equivalent structure in India with such a base width. The Idukki dam constructed 500 feet higher also has a base width of only 56 feets.

A comment from Junior Vikatan

முல்லைப் பெரியாறு அணை உடைந்துவிடும் என்று கடந்த 30 ஆண்டுகளாக கேரளம் செய்துவரும் பிரசாரத்தை உச்ச நீதிமன்றமே நிராகரித்துவிட்டது. ஏனென்றால், பெரியாறு அணை இருப்பது கடல் மட்டத்தில் இருந்து 2,889 மீட்டருக்கு மேல். இந்த அணை உடைந்தால் அழிந்துபோகும் எனக் கூறப்படும் குமுளி, கடல் மட்டத்திலிருந்து 3,350 மீட்டரிலும் பாம்பனாறு 3,750 மீட்டரிலும் ஏலப்பாறை 4,850 மீட்டரிலும் இருக்கின்றன.

The 30 year campaign waged by the Kerala government that the dam structure is unsafe has been denied by the Supreme Court. This is because, Periyar dam is at an altitude of 2889 metres. The claim that the structures at Kumuli (3350 metres above sea level), Pambanaaru (3750 metres above sea level), Yelappaarai (4850 metres above sea level) will also get destroyed if Mullaipperiyar gives way does nt hold water.

There is one more remark made which I cannot suitable translate nor endorse.

Disclaimer: Dont ask me whether and if I endorse these technical details. I know nothing of them to make any sense if they are bullshitting, which is what I am guessing is going on. I am just doing a translation service from vernacular press.

Some more: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_ad ... pm_1619157
Manmohan may convene Jayalalithaa-Chandy meeting
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... epage=true

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Nov 2011 01:23

There are other remarks made by people. Goes along these lines. If the Kerala government cant be expected to uphold even the highest Court's verdict, what hope is there in the future that it will stick to its words and promises? One day, they will give a word, another government will come and will unilaterally pass an Act in the Kerala Assembly saying no more water. So even if we get water today or tomorrow, there is no guarantee that they will be held to account for all their words and promises. We have precedents to that effect. Why, even the Cauvery tribunal award has not been implemented after 30 years. So why should we believe in the benevolence of these states or they expect us to trust them. There seems to be nothing sacred even with Supreme Court judgments these days as procedural lags are introduced to sustain status quo. If people are unable to cultivate the land for 3 years due to procedural lags, there will be famine deaths/farmer suicides that will put the cotton suicides to a minor irritant. Then, why should we expect that the Center will be able to force these governments to act according to tribunals/awards/compromises? The Center has been unable to do a single thing and works to dissolve immediate crises with words to both sides. It does nt do much to resolve basic insecurities of either side. Since each government is to his/her own, you cant expect the Center to be benevolent and understand problems, it only manages irritants.

These are the remarks of Cho Ramasami, Thol. Thirumaavalavan, Ramadoss, Pazha. Nedumaran etc., if you cut through their nonsense and just pick the real whine profile.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Nov 2011 04:34

I am no expert on game theory, but I like using it with my half-baked understanding of it. So please indulge.

Player A: The dam structure is unsafe, it needs to be reconstructed, but we will pay for it.
Player B: The dam structure could be unsafe and may have to be reconstructed, but I am getting the benefits, so why am I not being asked to pay 1/2?
Player A: You will get the same benefits as before, and we will reconstruct it, but it needs to be reconstructed. In fact, you are getting benefits as we speak from other sources.
Player B: I am offered the same benefits, and no cost for reconstruction. Sounds so irrational.
Player A: Yes, you heard it right. We will give it in writing to the PM too. You can even have a neutral third party to run the new structure.
Player B: Something so extraordinary that is not humanly possible. Absolutely irrational. What do I make of this suggestion/demand/offer? Something is fishy. In my rationalist framework, all this could make sense only if the cost of reconstructing the dam structure is small when compared to the benefits/advantages reaped from the reconstruction. Player A has changed goal posts even before, Player C too has done it, everyone does it, if given a chance, I will do it too. I have no reason to trust anyone in this game. What if Player A is going to use other chips in the future to threaten me after I lose the benefits now? I can threaten with what I have, impose a blockade etc., but will it make a dent? Will it continue to make a dent as things globalize? If I trust Player A now and get shafted later, it will be akin to suicide. The cost of trusting and losing is so monumental that I am willing to slug it out for status quo. Yes, I dont have any sticks in this carrot and stick or worse, my sticks are all useless and the other side knows my strategy too. So status quo it is.

Solution to this stalemate: trust. Player B needs to trust Player A, Player A needs to believe that Player B wants to play the game. Player B has to believe in the power of its sticks. Player A has to believe that this is symbiosis. Player B has to believe that too. IOW, we need a rational-player game. No trust, no rationality. No rationality, no trust anymore. Circle of life.

PS: I know this is life or death for some, but game theory has been used in nukular scenarios too. So yea.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 30 Nov 2011 07:30

conflict of interests/aspirations.

aspirations are legitimate. it is unreasonable to assume that aspirations of normal alive people will be tied to/limited by xx year agreements. aspiration is the most rational/natural thing.

it will be more problematic if india has a population with no aspiration. Such people have no imagination of how to better themselves. how are these people better than the bonded labour under an obligation to a zamindar?

the issue is problematizing the aspirations of people. i dont understand how a 40 year old agreement is more important than the concerns of the contemporaries? imagination of india has changed a lot in 40 years, aspirations of its people have changed a lot. if 40 year old economic policy is not valid anymore, how is 40 year old resource sharing plan valid? every generation will have to renegotiate their terms with their neighbors.

as the people of krishna-godavari-kaveri basin, we have more in common than we have in differences. we are best served by integrating our topology, geography and resources. dont need delhi, just need statesmen in h'bad, chen'i, b'luru and t'puram. there is no reason godavari and kaveri have to empty that much water into the bay.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 30 Nov 2011 07:38

drinking water is hardly the issue. the issue is water for prosperity.

the problem stan is law is different from justice. as i said we have more in common than law. hopefully. if we have lost that connection then sharing of waters is the least of our concerns.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 30 Nov 2011 13:21

These are the remarks of Cho Ramasami,

I saw Cho Ramaswamy saying that in TV. His face expression itself revealed that he was not convinced himself about such an argument put forth..

Now, for the time being, let us assume that Kerala is not going to honour its commitment...What will TN do?? Anyway, the dam is going to burst some time in the future, if left like this. After the burst, there is no water for TN, and due to public fury, Kerala will not give any water from the new dam constructed.

The argument that base width of Mullapperiyar is 200 feet and that of Idukki is only 56 feet is the kind of arguments put forth by TN continue status quo.

If the accusation is that Kerala is not honouring SC verdict, then why there is a panel to go into the details of the safety of the dam??

the answer is, that SC felt its order to allow the water level to be raised was flawed..and reports submitted by expert committee may not have reflected the actual ground realities.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Nov 2011 13:42

geeth wrote: If the accusation is that Kerala is not honouring SC verdict, then why there is a panel to go into the details of the safety of the dam??

the answer is, that SC felt its order to allow the water level to be raised was flawed..and reports submitted by expert committee may not have reflected the actual ground realities.

Geeth, Kerala government's review petition on the 2006 judgment by the Supreme Court was rejected immediately. What was filed then was a curative petition, the standard for which was only formalized in 2002 by the Supreme Court. The Empowered panel was set up under the curative petition clause because Kerala brought in new concerns (legally new, but technically a rehash of the same concerns presented before the 2006 verdict of how the structure is unsafe) of dam safety in the light of additional studies. Whether these studies themselves are biased or are addressing a point of importance will have to be decided by the Empowered panel. The two studies used to browbeat are the IIT Roorkee study and the IIT Delhi study, both of which are dismissed by the other party as biased because of the source of funding. There are no neutral examiners as of now, which is probably what the Empowered panel will have to look into from a technical angle.

Despite all that, a curative petition does not allow the Kerala govt to pass an Act when the matter is clearly sub-judice. Clearly, this is a contempt of Court situation. When the final verdict will be delivered, Kerala government will be pulled up independent of the verdict. The Supreme Court has not put a stay on its 2006 verdict as much as I have looked at it. I will be surprised if it has and TN is still pulling up this angle.

PS: Actually, I got that reverse. Review petition dismissed, Act passed by CPM government, TN pulls up Kerala in the SC, curative petition filed. That is the chronology if I remember right.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 30 Nov 2011 14:26

The two studies used to browbeat are the IIT Roorkee study and the IIT Delhi study, both of which are dismissed by the other party as biased because of the source of funding. There are no neutral examiners as of now, which is probably what the Empowered panel will have to look into from a technical angle.

If anybody does a visual inspection of the dam, you can see the various cracks developed and is still developing. What is adding to the concern is the seismic activity in the recent past. TN can brush away the reaction of the Kerala Govt as fear mongering, but the fact remains that new cracks have developed due to the seismic activity and the dam is much more weak than it was thought.

As I said before, I don't know what is the legal position, but people say Kerala is within its right to pass legislation. Now they are actively considering to annul the 999 year contract.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Nov 2011 14:36

If safety is the issue, that is ok. TN will come around. It better. That is only rational to an irrational sticking point.

Some sticking points remain on the "assurances" given on water. Let me ask them.
1) What is the guarantee that no future Kerala government will abrogate its responsibility? What happens to the 999 yr lease and the amendment signed by the Achutha Menon government and the case disposed off by the Supreme Court? If Kerala abrogates a contract signed today citing "need of the day", what is the legal sanctity with which every word it utters has to be taken?
2) There is a fear that the proposed site for the new dam in the DPR (at a lower alt than the existing structure) will eventually ensure that the water flow will come to a trickle. Can the new dam be constructed at the same site?
3) What mechanisms are being undertaken to ensure that the Idukki does nt break?
4) If a new dam is constructed for a 7.0 temblor under existing tech advances, will the ownership of the new dam be handed over to TN as per existing lease?
5) Who gets to build the dam? Will TN have a say in this matter, as in, can TN veto someone it believes to be a suspect (on a "rational" quid pro quo)?

Shaardula, justice is a two-way street. When justice is perceived to be a one-way street by either party, one needs laws to resolve matters. There are many people who will uphold the sanctity of the Indian Constitution than any dharma-karma rigmarole, which itself is subjective and does nt appear to be objective. I think universality of dharma is neither desirable nor realizable, but that is me. And if the Government of TN does nt stand up and fight for what are its citizens' interests, who is going to stand up and fight? That is just democratic dharma, the trust reposed in a govt by the people. If the Govt of TN did nt fight, I would have an issue. The same applies to every other State, the fact that many dont do it and get browbeaten instead of fighting for their rights does nt make TN's acts immoral let alone illegal.

PS: And dont worry about the longevity of the 999 year period. In TN, we have a 1800 year old dam that works just fine. Someone will be there to ensure the handover after the 999 year lease period is over.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 30 Nov 2011 15:32

^^^

TN is getting water from Kerala under an agreement. TN has no right over the water that they are getting, except that Kerala had agreed to give it. I.e., TN is not a lower reparian state, and also, the existing dam itself is in a place belonging to Kerala.

If you take all these facts into consideration, don't you think it is better for TN to negotiate and come to an amicable solution?

All that Kerala is saying is that, we are willing to give water under the previous agreement, but will construct a new dam and control the water. If it is not acceptable to TN, I don't know if anyone can help them really.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Nov 2011 15:49

You mean to say that, TN has to re-negotiate with Kerala now. I dont have an issue if it is safety, lets sit down and re-negotiate, but I have an issue if it is ownership. What if Kerala gives a guarantee, but the construction of the new dam and the implementation of the agreement is such that the same quantum of water does nt flow to the South districts of TN that get the benefit of the prior agreement?

Further, what if someone else comes tomorrow and says, TN has to re-negotiate again citing some other cause? Where is this going to end? How many times should TN re-negotiate with Kerala? Was the 1970 amendment signed by a duly elected Kerala Assembly's representative? Or was it a rogue agreement?

PS: It is not the ownership of the water that flows, it is the ownership of the dam structure, the ability to renovate and make interim, short-term and long-term safety measures, the ability to use the water to generate electricity, the ability to de-silt, etc. That is what the problem is and that is what noone talks about in public. All these aspects are under TN's control now, Kerala does nt want them left to TN. Kerala is feeling the brunt of electricity shortages and wants the Idukki to water-up more so that more power can be generated. That is my best guess. With TN control on Mullaipperiyar, Idukki is becoming a dud. It would be best if people (both sides) discussed things openly instead of making things so ambiguous. But maybe there is a reason why these things are not discussed publicly. Less is more is the mantra behind all governments including GoI.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 30 Nov 2011 15:59

What if the subsequent govt feels the clauses in the agreement was not followed by the subsequent TN govts? That is what the Kerala Govt is saying now - that there are clauses by which they can withdraw from the agreement, if it is not followed in letter and spirit (I haven't read the agreement, so no way to verify).

Now let us say the status quo is maintained. What are the options for TN when a new dam is to be constructed? Either they have to demolish the existing one (in which case the farmers will not get any water for few years till a new dam is in place), or they have to construct the new dam at a site belonging to Kerala.

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 30 Nov 2011 16:16

@Stan_Savljevic : after construction of new dam , a new contract can be made such that TN should not have any worry abt rule changes right..?

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Nov 2011 16:30

geeth wrote: That is what the Kerala Govt is saying now - that there are clauses by which they can withdraw from the agreement, if it is not followed in letter and spirit (I haven't read the agreement, so no way to verify).

That is not how you can withdraw from agreements. You go to the Supreme Court and contest a case saying that the other party has not followed the stipulations of the agreement in letter and spirit. The 2006 judgment went essentially in favor of TN subject to making interim and long-term safety measures. The interim measures have been done by TN. Now if there are further issues, one should go again to the SC and that is where the curative petition stands. It claims that subject to new conditions and new studies, those measures are insufficient. Now again, this is a technical matter and an empowered panel has been formed to decide on the validity of the claims of either parties. Annuling or abrogating agreements unilaterally when the case is sub-judice is not only illegal and will draw the strict sanctions of the SC, but also unethical.

Either they have to demolish the existing one (in which case the farmers will not get any water for few years till a new dam is in place), or they have to construct the new dam at a site belonging to Kerala.

There may be a way to find an alternate arrangement of water in the interrugnum period when the dam is demolished. Let the dam come up where it is now. Let it be constructed to withstand a 7.0 or a 8.0, I am sure engg practices will allow these types. Being in a zone 3 seismic zone, that should assure Idukki residents and elsewhere. There is no reason why a new structure should be constructed anywhere else in Kerala or Idukki unless the empowered panel comes up with a technical reason why such an exercise is necessary. Again, sub-judice. Kerala is jumping the gun and whipping up emotions to build a "moral" case based on safety by learning the lessons of Kudankulam when the morality of the whole exercise is questioned.

Jimmy, South TN needs water and water badly. Kerala needs safety. Both TN and Kerala need electricity. Cost needs to be low in maintaining or constructing any new structure. There should be safeguards where new crises should not rise and public emotions should not be whipped up. There needs to be a credible technical panel that both sides agree to. There needs to be a trustable adjudicator before things get drawn to the SC. If all these things can be put on paper and let the ink dry for ever, everyone will be game, including TN and Kerala. The devil is in the details. The missing factor is trust.

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 30 Nov 2011 16:36

^^agree with you.... TN need to trust kerala govt ready to give water ,and kerala govt should agree to sign the deal instead of telling these...
but i dont understand why the politicians in TN like vaiko simply blabbering all the time "kerala wont give single drop of water.." i think some one should control his mouth

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 30 Nov 2011 16:48

Vai Ko is often an idiot, forget his nonsense on "not a drop of water". I know you cant, but ground realities are messed up. When Cauvery dries up, and no water comes from the tribunal award, reality looks like there is not a drop of water. When people say "nadandhaai vaazhi kaveri", they did nt mean to walk on the dry river bed. But that is how things are. The whole summer is dry and hence water insecurities can be explained away by illogical statements. But you cant completely dismiss all of Vai Ko's statements. His statements on what could happen 20 years down the line is a valid one. You, me and everyone should ask. If you are talking of how a dam structure will survive 999 years, you should be willing to hear questions on how long an agreement stitched now will last 20 years.

FYI, there are many such idiots in TN including Ramadoss, Pazha. Nedumaran, Thirumaavalavan etc. Obviously, each one has a constituency where they draw support from and in turn cater to. Not all of JJ's or Mu Ka's statements are holy either. The role of TN politicians is ably played on the Kerala side by Manorama, Deepika, etc. Or at least that is the chargesheet. When you have a case that is sub-judice, what is the role of a relay fast over so many years? Is nt that whipping people's emotions and making them get charged up? Sure, things work like this onleee in India, but whipping up emotions is a fair accusation at both sides. I pointed out earlier as to how a gelf emir is the CEO of Sohan Roy of DAM 999's company. Noone said anything about why this guy is getting involved in this mess and what explains his gelf emir's interests in this matter. Are they after reconstruction contracts or are they being philanthropic here? Allow people to be skeptical and cynical. This is a part and parcel of democrazy Indian style.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 30 Nov 2011 17:28

Suppose there was no Mulla periyar Dam, no agreement and Kerala wanted to construct a new dam now, would TN still be entitled to share of water /power from Kerala? Such entitlement stems from the fact of being part of riparian states. So apart from that 999 year agreement what creates rights for the water.

Jimmy, South TN needs water and water badly. Kerala needs safety. Both TN and Kerala need electricity. Cost needs to be low in maintaining or constructing any new structure. There should be safeguards where new crises should not rise and public emotions should not be whipped up. There needs to be a credible technical panel that both sides agree to. There needs to be a trustable adjudicator before things get drawn to the SC. If all these things can be put on paper and let the ink dry for ever, everyone will be game, including TN and Kerala. The devil is in the details. The missing factor is trust.

I agree with last para of Stan however instead of adjudicator , if all parties sit together and work out a solution with centre facilitating it. Centre has already expressed its willingness to play such a role.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 30 Nov 2011 17:46

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullaperiy ... _Agreement

Current status

Tamil Nadu is the custodian of the dam and its surrounding areas. In 2006, the Supreme Court of India by its decision by a single bench, allowed for the storage level to be raised to 142 feet (43 m).[18] However, the Kerala Government promulgated a new "Dam Safety Act" against increasing the storage level of the dam, which has not been objected by the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu challenged it on various grounds. The Supreme Court issued notice to Kerala to respond; however, did not stay the operation of the Act even as an interim measure. The Court then advised the States to settle the matter amicably, and adjourned hearing in order to enable them to do so. The Supreme Court[19] of India termed it as not unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution bench to hear the case considering its wide ramifications. The case involves pre-constitutional agreement between two entities which does not exist now.

Kerala's Stance: Kerala did not object giving water to Tamil Nadu. Their main cause of objection is the dams safety as it is as old as 110 years. Increasing the level would add more pressure to be handled by already leaking dam. No masonry dam may survive for 999 years so a new dam may replace the existing one in near future.

Tamil Nadu's Stance: The State wants that the 2006 order of Supreme court be implemented so as to increase the water level to 142 feet (43 m).

The arguments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu are continuing in the Constitution bench of Supreme Court. Adv. Harish Salve appeared for Kerala and Adv. Parasaran appeared for Tamil Nadu in Supreme Court.[20] Kerala argued that if Mullaperiyar is an interstate river, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to intervene in the issue and that it must be dealt with by an independent tribunal. It also argued that if Mullaperiyar is an intrastate river, then the Dam Safety Authority of Kerala is constitutional, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to intervene in a pre-constitutional agreement. Thus, the water provision is now done under the 1970 review agreement between the States. Together with safety concerns, now the Kerala government argues that if the water level is increased to 142 feet, wide forest areas that are inhabited by conserved flora and fauna will be inundated. Tamil Nadu insists that the non-implementation of Supreme Court Order to increase water level by Kerala is the first issues tobe tackled. Tamil Nadu also asserted that Mullaperiyar is not an interstate river, and thus, there is no need for forming a tribunal. The Tamil Nadu counsel pointed out that Kerala has an ulterior motive to make a new dam and keep it under its control. Tamil Nadu fears that the water supply will be restricted if Kerala builds a new dam and controls it.

[edit] Justice A.S. Anand Committee

On 18 February 2010, the Supreme Court decided to constitute a five-member empowered committee to study all the issues of Mullaiperiyar Dam and seek a report from it within six months.[21] The Bench in its draft order said Tamil Nadu and Kerala would have the option to nominate a member each, who could be either a retired judge or a technical expert. The five-member committee will be headed by former Chief Justice of India A. S. Anand to go into all issues relating to the dam's safety and the storage level. However, the ruling party of Tamil Nadu, DMK, passed a resolution that it not only oppose the apex court's decision to form the five-member committee, but also said that the state government will not nominate any member to it.[22] Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said that immediately after the Supreme Court announced its decision to set up a committee, he had written to Congress president asking the Centre to mediate between Kerala and Tamil Nadu on Mullaperiyar issue.[23] However, Leader of Opposition J. Jayalalithaa objected to the TN Government move. She said that this would give advantage to Kerala in the issue.[24] Meanwhile, Kerala Water Resources Minister N. K. Premachandran told the state Assembly that the State should have the right of construction, ownership, operation and maintenance of the new dam, while giving water to Tamil Nadu on the basis of a clear cut agreement. He also informed the media that Former Supreme Court Judge Mr. K. T. Thomas will represent Kerala on the expert panel constituted by Supreme Court.[25] On 8 March 2010, in a fresh twist to the Mullaperiyar Dam row, Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that it was not interested in adjudicating the dispute with Kerala before the special “empowered” committee appointed by the apex court for settling the inter-State issue.[26] However, Supreme Court refused to accept Tamil Nadu's request to scrap the decision to form the empowered committee. SC also criticized the Union Government on its reluctance in funding the empowered committee.[27]

Construction of a new dam

Kerala enacted the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006[28] to ensure safety of all dams in the State including the Mullaperiyar dam. The law empowered Kerala's Dam Safety Authority to oversee safety of dams in the State with powers to direct Tamil Nadu to suspend or restrict the functioning of the Mullaperiyar dam, to prevent submergence of land beyond the leased land; protect environment, flora and fauna; promote tourism and ensure the safety and security of its inhabitants.

In pursuance of Kerala's dam safety law, in September 2009, the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Government of India granted[29] environmental clearance to Kerala for conducting survey for new dam downstream. Tamil Nadu approached Supreme Court for a stay order against the clearance; however, the plea was rejected. Consequently, the survey was started in October, 2009.