Objection against DDF should have been thrown out by COA and I agree with you there.SSridhar wrote:Chaanakya, I understand where you come from on this. Let me explain my position though.
Pakistan placed largely two issues before the CoA. One was the specific question of diversion of waters from Kishenganga to Bonar Madumathi Nallah and the other was the general question of whether India was at all at liberty to use draw down flushing (DDF) except in an emergency as per the IWT. Pakistan knew well that it had no strong case in its claim that the IWT did not allow diversion of waters to another tributary of the Jhelum, though it continued to proclaim that probably as an attempt to conceal its real intention which was the DDF and generally to paint India as a villain in violation of its bilateral / international commitments. The effort partially succeeded because India slightly goofed up the response in defending its choices for managing sedimentation. The CoA has specifically said that DDF must not be used in future projects by India. It has also said that the ruling does not apply to Indian projects already in operation or under construction, whose designs have been communicated to Pakistan by India and not objected to by Islamabad.
The Neutral Expert’s ruling in the Baglihar case allowed Low Level Sluice Gates (LLGs) and allowed even DDF for managing sedimentation (but not for regular operations).Now, LLG, also known as ‘flushing’ which is used to remove already deposited sediments while ‘Drawdown’ is used to remove almost real-time incoming sediments during a flood season. Therefore, DDF may be used for a short period during a specific time when water flow and velocity of flow would to Pakistan be high anyway due to floods. Pakistan was miffed by the NE’s allowing both LLG and DDF. Pakistan’s attempt is clearly to make these Indian projects useless or ineffective as it did with Salal. What are the reasons for Pakistan’s objections to DDF ? One argument by Pakistan is that such DDF allows, through the backdoor, more live storage in the project than has been designed for as communicated to Pakistan by the Indian PIC. And the other is environmental issues downstream. Pakistan knows that the genuine reason for low-level gates or DDF is to manage the very high sedimentation in these Himalayan rivers. Pakistan has first hand experience of this in Tarbela where it is losing over 1% live storage capacity every year and a 25 ~ 30 Km long island has formed upstream of the Tarbela in the middle of the Indus and its power generators frequently shutdown. Notwithstanding Pakistani objections regarding live storage, DDF remains an effective mechanism for sedimentation and especially so in these rivers. The CoA *should* have thrown out the Pakistani objection in the larger interest of the sustainability, viability and the life cycle of the project. A fake paranoid-ridden Pakistan will conjure up all sorts of scenarios to scuttle Indian projects. Whether water is let through the DDG or LLGs or Spillways, it is eventually going to reach Pakistan and Run-of-River projects cannot store more than a week’s worth of waters per IWT anyway. I do not believe that Pakistan is worried about environmental damage to itself either resulting from a heavy discharge through DDF upstream. It is simply to make India’s position miserable, to make India appear as a violator, perk up its citizenry and generally mask its inefficient handling of its water situation. It would also like India to take the sediment load and leave so much less of a botheration for itself. Tarbela experience has taught lessons to the Pakistanis.
Annexure E, Paragraph 23 says, “When the Live Storage Capacity of a Storage Work is reduced by sedimentation India may, in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Annexure, construct new Storage Works or modify existing Storage Works so as to make up the storage capacity lost by sedimentation”. India can raise the height of the project but that would be costly and not a lasting solution. India *has* to find other means to flush the sediments into the Pakistani side. I am convinced that the CoA is not going to change its mind on the Drawdown Flushing technique. From that point of view, it is a sort of victory for Pakistan.
This, I thought, was the original question that Vipul asked.
Not allowing DDF in Kishanganga does pose problem of sedimentation control , but COA has not made any design changes. For future applicability, I would like to question COA power , although interpretation of treaty does fall in its domain.
But I dont fall for Paki explanation, which of course I saw on some channel being explained by Paki Lawyer , about victory in DDF and that question of diversion of water was a secondary issue. This diversion would result in making NJP more costly and unviable in the long run. As long as LLG stays , Paki fear of intentional release of water from dead storage would remain a possibility. There is no getting away from that, DDF or no DDF.
While DDF should have been stressed upon , Indian expert certainly goofed up ( was it deliberate??) Indian engineers would certainly think of additional features to counter this for this project . We are sure not going to close this chapter here. Anyway project designs of many future dams have already been communicated .
Regarding increasing the height of the dam , if you recall, this dam height was reduced to make it ROR but its foundation has not been changed. hence there remains less costly option to increase the height at a later date, just like in many other india dams we do or propose.
Pakis are reluctant to realise that their NJP is doomed forever.
I also think that *This* COA is not going to change its opinion.
. Then he decries the Pak fauj for having atim-bum and not being able to do anything.
