Indus Water Treaty

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

neeraj wrote:Kishanganga hydropower project
Pakistan has been vehemently opposing the construction of the Kishanganga hydropower project. Pakistan believes that the diversion of waters of the Neelum is not allowed under the 1960 Indus waters treaty, and it will face a 27 per cent water deficit when the project gets completed in 2016.

The reduced water flow in the Neelum would not yield the required results of the proposed $1.6bn Neelum-Jehlum hydropower project that has been designed to generate 969 MW of electricity.

Pakistan believes Wullar barrage can be used as: :(( :(( :((
a) a geostrategic weapon -- a means to intimidate Pakistan
(b) potential to disrupt the triple canal project of Pakistan (upper Jhelum, upper Chenab, Lower Bari Doab canals)
(c) to badly affect the Neelum-Jehlum hydropower project
(d) to affect agriculture in Azad Kashmir
(e) would dry 5.6 million acres of land of Punjab’s cultivable land, in case Kishanganga water is blocked and the excess is diverted to Wuller barrage
(f) would result in loadshedding, if Pakistan does not get enough water to run its turbines
(g) would dry Mangla dam. :rotfl:
A lot of the above letter in Dawn is based on this article which appeared three days ago in the News:

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Pak harps on water over terror

The Foreign Minsters of India and Pakistan will meet on July 15th. India has ruled out conceding any ground to Pakistan on the water issue.

Minutes after India's External Affairs Minister SM Krishna had a telephone conversation with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the latter held a press conference in Islamabad. During the press conference, Qureshi emphasised the primacy of water issues over India's concerns over terror from Pakistan soil.

Pakistan's decision to pick on the water dispute is particularly noticable as just a few days ago LeT, HiZB and other top terrorist groups have demanded Pakistan go to war with India over water.

Highly placed sources in government have told TIMES NOW that New Delhi will not concede any more ground on the question of the Baghlihar and Wullar or Tulbul barrage or the Kishenganga water projects on the Indus and Jhelumrivers. New Delhi has made it clear that the issue was settled in the 1960s after the World Bank mediated a solution and the two countries signed an agreement.
In TV debate with Arnab , Maroof makes the points on IWT compliance by India

1. 80% of indus basin waters is allowed to pk
2.IN is allowed to use waters on three western rivers for permitted uses and also for storage(presently not utilised by IN)
3.40% water entering pk is wasted due to poor water management.
4.So far IN is in full compliance of IWT, NE has also decided in IN favour on baglihar
5.Not more than 3% of total waters on western rivers could be stored by dams , existing and proposed so In is not with-holding waters
PK experts were seen squirming in the chair and almost conceded all points. They had one point to make , i.e. RT data was not available on Baglihar and IN does not provide data to PK. This was countered by Maroof saying that In has allowed international experts ( though not provided under the treaty nor mandatory) to see for themselves and get all relevant data.

Although he did not mention that PK had to provide for the cost of data since 2006 as demanded by IN. Yet IN has not stopped giving data.This point is often mentioned by PPIC in support of his claim that they do not know if IN violated IWT since IN do not provide timely data and hence everybody assumes that In is in violation of IWT. One would do well to go through the provisions of IWT and educate themselves as to what type of information /data are required to be provided and at what interval and in which format.


1. Appendix I to Annexure D ( paragraph 5) to be furnished not later than 31.2.1961 for existing structures

2. Appendix II to Annexure D ( paragraph 9) New run of the river plants, six months in advance of start of the work

3. Appendix III to Annexure D ( paragraph 19) Small plants located on a tributary of western rivers, two months in advance.


4. Appendix to Annexure E( paragraph 4 and 12) six months before beginning of construction of storage dams, if meant for flood control on jhelum main then 4 months (paragraph 9)


5. Appendix II to Annexure H ( forms of water accounts:- 1a,1b,1c and 2 to 9), one needs to see those forms to appreciate them.

6.Pk and IN will notify to each other crop statistics for each kharif year not later than 30 Nov ( in the event of crop failure not later that 30 june , in case of punjab only) each district and tehsils irrigated from western rivers, irrigated crop area. (PK will provide similar info forr RAVI water as may be available for use , not amounting to any rights)

Exchange of data is governed by Article VI

1. Daily gauge and discharge data relating to the flow of rivers at observable points
2.Daily extractions or releases from reservoirs
3.Daily withdrawals at the Heads of all canals/Link canals
4.Daily escapages from canals/Link canals
5.DAily deliveries from Link canals

These data have to be transmitted to the other party as soon as data for a month is collected and tabulated, but not later than the three months after the month they relate to. Provided that either party can demand such data daily or at less frequent intervals as may be requested. Should the one party request supply of any of these data by telegram, telephone or wireless it shall reimburse the other party cost of transmission of such data.


Now collecting data and transmitting them to PK at different intervals require investment and Pk will have to incur the cost.PPIC would like to clarify if IN has failed to supply data for any reporting month not later than three months then there may be a case for violation of IWT. Asking Real Time data free of cost is not envisaged under the treaty and IN has provided such data upto 2006 and demanded payment only after 2006. PK is yet to pay, still they get the data.

Now the whole misinformation game being played by PK and their non astate henchmen needs to be squarely exposed, since exchange of data is the last point of their otherwise weak arguments on violation of IWT by IN. PK must inform the community what data were demanded by them and how those has not been supplied by IN in spite of their making payment to IN, for then only such action would constitute violation. Experts would know that RT data does not come cheap, though IN could afford it why should it give free of cost.

They have not said of any other violation of IWT by IN so far.

Are they begging for data, let them say so.
Last edited by chaanakya on 11 May 2010 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by CRamS »

chaanakya:

The goal is not to legalities; TSP knows that. What they want, and have succeeded is getting India to talk to them about water at gun point; hoping that the WKKs and peacenicks will make some concessions beyond IWT in the interest of "peace".
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

CRamS wrote:chaanakya:

The goal is not to legalities; TSP knows that. What they want, and have succeeded is getting India to talk to them about water at gun point; hoping that the WKKs and peacenicks will make some concessions beyond IWT in the interest of "peace".
IWT is one area where IN has not made concessions beyond it despite all provokations.Gun will always be pointed at IN , water issue or not.
Anything beyond IWT means revision of treaty and PK is afraid that 80% of water and 40% of wastage will play into IN hand only, so they talk abt spirit and rather vague points on IWT.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

chaanakya wrote:IWT is one area where IN has not made concessions beyond it despite all provokations.Gun will always be pointed at IN , water issue or not.
Anything beyond IWT means revision of treaty and PK is afraid that 80% of water and 40% of wastage will play into IN hand only, so they talk abt spirit and rather vague points on IWT.
This is not true.

Look up Salal & Wullur barrage issues.

Also Kishan Ganga.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25119
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Pakistan is waiting for Indian response to take Kishenganga to Court of Arbitration
Now that the first milestones on the road map for the resumption of dialogue have been laid, Pakistan hopes that India will respond to its note verbale for arbitration on the construction of the Kishanganga project.

The note verbale was sent to India on April 9 and Foreign Office sources said a delay in the Indian response could raise suspicions.

Pakistan decided to invoke Article 9 of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) after exhausting options to resolve differences with India over this project within the Permanent Indus Waters Commission.

Islamabad is now awaiting a response from New Delhi on its decision to invoke the disputes settlement mechanism.

“India needs to tell us who its two negotiators will be in the court of arbitration and also inform the World Bank about the need to appoint a neutral expert, since the two countries have been unable to resolve differences over the project.”

Ahead of his teleconference with External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna on Tuesday, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi met Indus Waters Commissioner Syed Jamait Ali Shah on Monday to discuss issues relating to the IWT and the meeting of the Permanent Indus Waters Commission in India later this month.

Amid demands from a section of technocrats for reworking the IWT, Mr. Qureshi said it was an effective mechanism and reiterated the need to address all differences including outstanding issues between the two countries over the Kishanganga project in accordance with the Treaty.

While Kashmir remains a key issue for Pakistan, the acute water shortage being faced across the country has given it an opportunity to fuel its anger towards India. Just this past Sunday, several leading political parties — including the ruling Pakistan People's Party — put their signatures to a Jamaat-ud-Dawa statement to launch a countrywide movement against India's “water aggression.”{The list of attendees included PPP, PML-N, JI and Imran Khan's Tehreek-e-Insaaf. The statement demanded that the mujahideen be given a free hand as PIC could not solve the issue}

According to newspaper reports, the joint statement said the government should give top priority to Kashmir and water issues in the Pakistan-India dialogue.

“If India is not willing to focus on these vital issues, there is no gain in continuing such a dialogue. Pakistan must keep open the option of using force to protect our precious water resources if India does not stop these projects [Baglihar and Kishanganga].
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25119
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Omar Abdullah calls for assessment of financial loss to J&K due to IWT
Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has called for an assessment of the financial impact of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) on Jammu and Kashmir.

“We don’t know the quantum of the losses suffered by Jammu and Kashmir on account of the treaty. There are no definite estimates,” he told a seminar in Srinagar on Tuesday.

He said some sources have estimated a loss of Rs 800 billion while some have made estimates of Rs 200 billion. “We need to assess the losses and explore ways to seek compensation if the compensation is needed at all,” he said. He also asked India and Pakistan to review the treaty, which bars IHK from harnessing its abundant water resources.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Theo_Fidel wrote:
chaanakya wrote:IWT is one area where IN has not made concessions beyond it despite all provokations.Gun will always be pointed at IN , water issue or not.
Anything beyond IWT means revision of treaty and PK is afraid that 80% of water and 40% of wastage will play into IN hand only, so they talk abt spirit and rather vague points on IWT.
This is not true.

Look up Salal & Wullur barrage issues.

Also Kishan Ganga.
Well you need to specify where IN as granted concessions beyond IWT on these projects. Work is going on at "Indian pace of work". Nothing surprising .
IN has maintained that its projects are withing IWT and may have changed design taking into consideration PK objections as provided for in IWT.
The contentious issues that remain are reduction in flow of water to Neelam, diversion of water via 100 km link( of which 27 km is canal and rest a tributary) is not as per IWt and Kishanganga dam would reduce capacity of its project(yet to take off) and pre-existing usage,
PPIC asked IPIC to consider 8 questions raised by it as objections and not as differences. Thereby meaning that there is dispute to be settled by Arbitration. Now PK has taken another step before matter gets refered to court of arbitration as per IWT.

These actions are as per IWT both for IN and PK. IN has not abandoned its claims on any of these issues and would perhaps abide b decisions by Court of arbitration.

It is where things would become difficult for Pk if IN successfully demonstrates its legal claim. Note the use of word "Legal" as opposed to "technical" which would have to be decided by NE.

So I don't think your perceptions of IN making concessions beyond IWT is correct.These projects will materialise in due course, notwithstanding any action by PK within or without IWT.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

I repeat.

Look up both Salal & Wullur barrage projects.

Neither are optimally functional due to concessions granted by India over and above the treaty.

Even Kishan Ganga has been changed to less optimal design as a concession, even though storage is very much our right.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

Ataabad lake water seeps into eastern part of spillway
HUNZA: Ataabad lake water has started to seep into the eastern side of an under construction spillway, raising fears that it may submerge several other areas. It is being feared that the lake water if continued to enter the spillway could inundate many other areas and hamper the construction work.According to information reaching here, Shashkat is already under the water and affected people are busy in pulling their valuables out of the water on self-help basis.While relief camps have been set up at Aliabad, Hussainabad, Khanabad, Shashkat, Chalat, Sikandarabad, Gulmat and Shayar, where displaced people will be offered stay and other relief goods. Some 4000 people are likely to become homeless due to the flooding. Speaking to Geo, Major General (retd.) Muzaffar Jhang said the he had already apprised the government seven years ago that cracks had appeared in mountains and any mishap could take place anytime.
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=104716
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=104715
RAWALPINDI: Engineer In Chief of Pakistan Army Lt. Gen. Shahid Niaz has said that the artificial lake created near Attabad due to land sliding poses no threat to Tarbela Dam.n a news briefing here on Thursday, Lt. Gen. Shahid Niaz said a 24 metre deep spillway has been made for the discharge of water from the lake which is going to reduce the risk (of flooding) by 50 percent.He said the outflow of water from the lake will begin by the end of current month through the spillway. The water level is rising by 3 feet every day in the lake created by land sliding on January 4 this year, he said.The Engineer In Chief said all possible measures are being taken to rescue and save the local people.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gagan »

The government should have two security related measures in place immediately.
1. Increased security and a reassessment of security at the sites of the projects that the JUD / LET keeps harping about. Measures must be in place to thwart any possible terrorist attack. This must be in place not only on the work site, but also in the offices and residential areas.
2. India must have a plan in place to militarily either pre-empt or to inflict reprisals against any such attack by the LET.

LET HQs in muridke, muzaffarabad and other staging areas need IED mubaraks on the double. This should have happened a long time ago.
Mitsy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 31 Mar 2010 00:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Mitsy »

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 928528.cms

The interesting part is..
The lake has submerged a big chunk of the Karakoram Highway and threatens to wash away a number of bridges on the highway. "The trapped water in the lake has touched dangerously high levels. Everyday the water level increases by three feet," said a top Pakistani army engineer. "More parts of the highway could be washed away if the Lake's banks burst :wink: "
Also, Can someone pl help in understanding if there are any precedents (relatively recent) to such a scenario and what would be the course of action for Pakistani agencies?
I mean, if they keep working towards removing the artificial landslide now (as mentioned earlier in the thread - was to take 2 months), there is a good chance that sudden water burst would lead to devastating floods in the downstream areas..
Anindya
BRFite
Posts: 1539
Joined: 02 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Anindya »

From http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_in ... er_1383265
sides reached at an agreement in this regard during the dialogue between a group of experts from India and Pakistan. The dialogue was held in New Delhi from May 5 to 7 under the auspices of the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation (CDR).

According to a participant of the dialogue, which is part of Track II diplomacy, Pakistan’s side succeeded in persuading India to install telemetry systems to ensure transparency in water flow and prevent any sort of water theft. The Pakistani experts also convinced them for a joint watershed management of the rivers which steer to Pakistan.

According to the experts, if the plans materialise, water dispute between Pakistan and India would be resolved. The telemetry systems would ensure the transparency of quantum of water that will travel from India to Pakistan, while with watershed management, ecology of the area where a particular river originates will automatically improve resulting into a better flow of water in Chenab and Jehlum rivers.

The group included Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, Sherry Rehman, Syeda Hameed, member of Planning commission of India, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Ahsan Iqbal, Najmuddin Shaikh, Salman Haider, Neerja Chowdhry, Humayun Khan, General Jehangir Karamat, former Pakistan army chief Gen VP Malik, former Indian army chief General Dipankar Bannerjee, V Balachandran, Amitabh Mattoo and Bushra Gohar
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by abhishek_sharma »

^^ Is this serious? What do we get in return?
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

^^^ Peace requires nothing in return :wink:
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10196
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by sum »

abhishek_sharma wrote:^^ Is this serious? What do we get in return?
We are big brother onlee who should show "leniency" to retarded small brother and must bend backward to fulfill every fantasy of the smaller retard.

Ack thoo on this spineless GoI ( esp MMS and SSM combo)
Jaspreet
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 02:22
Location: Left of centre

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Jaspreet »

I didn't know what watershed management meant. So I googled it up and found
Watershed management is the process of creating and implementing plans, programs, and projects to sustain and enhance watershed functions that affect the plant, animal, and human communities within a watershed boundary.[1] Features of a watershed that agencies seek to manage include water supply, water quality, drainage, stormwater runoff, water rights, and the overall planning and utilization of watersheds
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_management.

While installation of telemetry devices is understandable, "joint watershed management" is totally unacceptable. People are right in asking whether this report is serious. We should search for more reports before coming to a conclusion. Try to find the official statement.
Jaspreet
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 02:22
Location: Left of centre

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Jaspreet »

Will this "joint" exercise be on an official basis or unofficial one? Will Indian unofficial agencies be allowed to manage watershed under PoK?
Jaspreet
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 02:22
Location: Left of centre

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Jaspreet »

I did some more googling and found that Pak has been asking for joint WM for sometime. I also didn't find any reference to GoI agreeing to any such thing.
I'm not sure what influence do the participants in these track II exercises have over Indian policy. That they agreed to something or other is probably akin to us agreeing or not on BRF.
Also, note that the "if"
According to the experts, if the plans materialise, water dispute between Pakistan and India would be resolved.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25119
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Jaspreet wrote:While installation of telemetry devices is understandable, "joint watershed management" is totally unacceptable. People are right in asking whether this report is serious. We should search for more reports before coming to a conclusion. Try to find the official statement.
Jaspreet, both telemetry and joint watershed management are unacceptable.

The basic approach of Pakistan is to intrude into the rights of the upper riparian. Pakistan has successfully managed to convince everyone that it is paranoid about India and somehow this justified paranoia confers legitimacy on it to demand bizarre things from India even to the extent of violating India's sovereignty or legal Treaty requiremnets. Our generosity (otherwise known as dhimmitude) is then expected or even demanded to resolve the issue.

The IWT lays down what data can be demanded and at what frequency. We should simply stick to that. Article VII (Future Cooperation) states:
(a) Each Party, to the extent it considers practicable and on agreement by the other Party to pay the costs to be incurred, will, at the request of the other Party, set up or install such hydrologic observation stations within the drainage basins of the Rivers, and set up or install such meteorological observation stations relating thereto and carry out such observations there at, as may be requested, and will supply the data so obtained.
We should simply reject the telemetry request as impracticable. The babus can give a thousand reasons. One simple reason is that they have not been found to work in Pakistan itself. It is tough luck for Pakistan if it doesn't trust Indian data.

Watershed is the drainage area (or catchment area) for a river. Joint watershed management completely intrudes into Indian sovereignty. No upper riparian has ever been subjected to such a bizarre demand. This speaks volumes for the audacity of Pakistan, which is anyway legendary. Besides, the Indus originates near Kailash-Manasarovar.

I am sure GoI will not consider these mad things at all. The Government of the day can unilaterally decide to concede in some areas, like for example, equating India & Pakistan as equally affected by terrorism or allowing Pakistan to include Indian-sponsored terror in Balochistan in talks etc. But, it will not be able to do so easily in legal treaties between India and other nations. It cannot decide to take some unilateral action in Siachen without the buy-in from the Army.

Some of the Indian participants in that Track-II delegation will even sell India to Pakistan. Probably these delegates divided themselves into groups to discuss parallelly several issues and the participant in the 'water' panel from India was another smitten-by-Pakistan WKK. Nothing else can explain this.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12390
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by A_Gupta »

I assume technology has advanced and so hydrological stations with telemetry is much cheaper today than when the IWT was signed. Just as the Neutral Expert ruled in the Baglihar case based on the latest engineering principles for dams, the exchange of data can follow the latest engineering standards. So like Jaspreet, I'm not worried by the data issue.

Joint watershed management is unacceptable.

As always, however, consider the source:
According to well-placed government sources in Islamabad, the two sides reached at an agreement in this regard during the dialogue between a group of experts from India and Pakistan. The dialogue was held in New Delhi from May 5 to 7 under the auspices of the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation (CDR).
And why could not DNAIndia confirm this with one or other Indian involved in these talks?

Here's how Dawn reported it:
With the growing attention being paid in both countries to the issue of water, the participants were briefed by experts from both sides. “The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 was always intended as a permanent solution to the division of waters and had worked well for fifty years. Both countries must continue to respect this treaty,” both sides agreed.

The issue of water needs to be addressed not so much in the context of a dispute but that of further improving both the working of the treaty and greater cooperation in matters like telemetric and real-time data exchange under the terms of the treaty and the possibility of joint action in such issues as watershed management and environmental protection.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25119
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

A_Gupta wrote:I assume technology has advanced and so hydrological stations with telemetry is much cheaper today than when the IWT was signed. Just as the Neutral Expert ruled in the Baglihar case based on the latest engineering principles for dams, the exchange of data can follow the latest engineering standards. So like Jaspreet, I'm not worried by the data issue.

Joint watershed management is unacceptable.
That is besides the point. The request for telemetry comes from a distrust of data supplied by India. The request for telemetry data is to bypass Indian compilation of data and take it directly from the RIM and other stations bypassing India. How India collects data that needs to be supplied to Pakistan is India's botheration. Ultimately, it is India that must supply data within the parameters of the IWT.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7845
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Anujan »

"Joint watershed management" is just euphemism by Pakis to regulate the quantum and duration of Indian use of waters allocated to India.

Note that Indians can irrigate 1.3M acres on western rivers and can use all of the eastern rivers. Pakis are of the opinion that Indian usage of the river system should go down if the quantum of waters in the Indus goes down. This is total BS and not part of the treaty. This is what is being proposed to be enforced through "Joint watershed management". Also be prepared for 10,000 objections to dam construction based on concerns about "ecology" of Indian territory.

Why would some aspects of sovereign Indian territory be under "Joint control"?

Instead, I think that the best way to move forward is to appoint an Indian committee of neutral experts who can assist in arbitrating provincial water disputes in Pakistan. This will have a more impact on water squabbles.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25119
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Anujan, one thing that India has to understand in dealing with TSP is that 'give it an inch, it will demand several hundred square miles'.

I like your idea of Indian neutral experts resolving Pakistan's water woes. :D
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7845
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Anujan »

I only made it half in jest.

It should be repeatedly hammered into people's heads that No 1 reason (apart from engineering issues of badly constructed canals and outdated agricultural practices, which will take years to rectify), is water stealing by Paki army & other Punjab elites and inequitable distribution of water between the provinces. The blame on India stealing water is directly because of this. So obviously, reducing tension & blame on India stealing water can be done only by addressing the "root cause". Which would be inequitable distribution of water between the provinces. India should show every initiative and enthusiasm to help. We can share our experiences with water distribution, and use our good offices to arbitrate.

Providing telemetry & joint watershed management is not solving the problem at all and it serves only to draw us into an irrelevant discussion!! Instead why dont we sit down and solve the actual problem? We need more statements and articles from Indian press and babus highlighting the actual problem, which would have 3 components: Engineering issue of canals, agricultural issue of agricultural practices, Political and criminal issue of inter-provincial water sharing.

We should be proactive and offer to help in all three, instead of being on the defensive to deny a cooked up problem.

In fact, this should be another litmus test of Pakistani sincerity towards solving its water problem: Identifying the actual issues causing the problem with proper data, facts, figures and rationalization. After that, we can see what we can do to help. Else we will go nowhere.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Theo_Fidel wrote:I repeat.

Look up both Salal & Wullur barrage projects.

Neither are optimally functional due to concessions granted by India over and above the treaty.

Even Kishan Ganga has been changed to less optimal design as a concession, even though storage is very much our right.
The question , all along , has been that if IN has any sovereign rights over waters of rivers originating in its territory ( Jhelum and Chenab) or a major portion of it passing through like Indus . PK , a lower riparian state, always claimed it had all rights to water of five rivers by virtue of existing use. It got a shocker when supply of water was stopped from Madhopur headworks.

Once IWT came into existence Pk felt that it had been assigned exclusive rights of waters of three western rivers and that In had no rights at all. The use of western waters by In is deemed theft since IN has no sovereign rights. This impression was perpetuated and PK made objections to all and sundry proposals of IN. Salal Dam is first such dam to be constructed on Chenab. The concession granted by IN is primarily in design part- gated vs un-gated spillway. IN agreed to un-gated spillway.This did result in problems due to silt management. But look from IN point of view PK was forced to ack that IN has rights to use waters within IWT. And it forcefully established the fact that gated spillway is technically better than gated spillway. Baglihar verdict was clinched in favour of Gated spillway because of salal dam data. This dam is upstream of Salal. Read the award.It accepted India's right to construct 'gated spillways' under Indus water treaty 1960.

Now all designs are that of Gated spillway type which is a sort of victory for IN besides PK understanding that IN has rights to use waters of Indus basis within the meaning of IWT.

As for Wullar barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project the issue is still under negotiation under IWT and IN has not yet conceded PK point that it is a storage type project rather than Navigation project. It would be continued in due course, as I said at "Indian pace of work". Talks were almost final except for the fact that PK insisted for stoppage of Kishanganga project, which In has not accepted.

In fact I would like In to highlight the fact of Pk objecting to such projects which would benefit people from J&K. yet it is Pk which highlights and spread disinformation that water and power from projects in J&K is being used in Northern IN. IN has failed to highlight the fact that under IWT J&K has not been give its due share and from two rivers that rises in HP/J&K any use of water by people of J&K is termed as stealing /water theft.


As for Kishenganga , the issue is on its way to being referred to Court of Arbitration as provided in IWT and is long time to go. Hopefully IN does not stop work on its being referred to IWT.

Construction of a series of water/power projects on Indus Basis by IN would certainly rattled PK as it would use all means at its disposal to stop them. Will they succeed? Depends on how IN continues its work yet involved in protracted Negotiation/sweet talk in Tract-II.

I think it is now firmly established that IN has enough rights on Indus waters. That way salal dam is a success.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Theo_Fidel wrote:
I think you are talking about a gravity arch dam or a masonry dam.

A concrete gravity dam like Baglihar is very different. It is hundreds of feet thick.
By Prof Chandra Kishen IISc. Bangluru.
Concrete dams, like all concrete structures, suffer from cracking which is caused by various factors such as construction,
alkali-aggregate reaction, load application, etc. Of greater concern are cracks that develop as a result of hydrostatic load application. Because of the joints generated by a step-wise successive construction and because of thermal operating gradients, cracks can have relevant dimensions from the beginning1. As such, it should not come as a surprise that numerous dams all over the world have shown disturbing signs of cracking. Due to this growing concern, concrete dams are increasingly coming under the scrutiny of regulatory agencies and other groups that are responsible for dam safety
A concrete gravity dam operate under equilibrium of Hydrostatic pressure of water+silt acting horizontally, weight of Dam itself acting downward and foundation rock uplift pressure acting upward. The friction between rock layer of the foundation coupled with weight prevents such dam from sliding or toppling over. So it might take large charge ( in tonnes which terrorists can not muster) to cause a crack in dam body/tunnel within the dam body but once it happens rest is automatic. Downstream dams may fail, in the event, due to hydrostatic load.


Dams and Public Safety, published in 1980 by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Water and Power Resources Service, did not anticipate that one of the concerns about the safety of dams in the United States would involve the possibility of terrorist attacks. In spite of that understandable oversight, a section about demolition discusses the fact that many "deliberate efforts have been made to destroy dams, including bombing sabotage and demolition."


"Although the consequences of hostile action against dams have been severe in some cases, the historical frequency of such events has been comparatively low. This is not necessarily reassuring, however. Looking to the future, the increasing potential for damaging attack cannot be disregarded. Both the numbers and sizes of dams have expanded rapidly in the 20th century. The record height doubled approximately in the period between the two world wars and has increased more than half again since World War II. This rapid growth has been experienced in both embankment and concrete dam construction. Even with the significant advances which have been achieved in the technology, these phenomenal statistics warrant serious analysis as parameters in the hazard equation."http://www.cenews.com/magazine-article- ... -4617.html
It may be difficult but not impossible.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Joint Watershed management was rejected at the time of negotiation of IWT. I don't see why IN would agree to that notwithstanding any discussions by well meaning but un-experts in water issues individuals. Data formats are well defined under IWT and anything beyond that is not acceptable to IN simply because it casts doubt on integrity of all data supplied by IN. Why should IN agree to the statement that it is not providing accurate data? And in what way PK is well placed to judge India Data?

As for sending Indian experts, I suggest to send a team comprising of TamilNaud Karnataka and Kerala to solve PK's inter state water issue.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Since J&K does not figure in IWT IN can divert as much water as it likes from western river to give exclusively to J&K from western rivers. Only balance should be allowed to flow through. If Pk raises objection it must be painted as villain (which it is ) to J&K people.

Just a thought.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

IN should insist that if PK continues to waste 40% waters flowing below RIM station in Indus basin due to its poor water management, IN would impound water and not allow that much water to flow through till Pk revamps its canal system.IN must be allowed to inspect all its system by PK to ascertain the damages done to Indus system by PK's poor water management.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264949

Speech by High Commissioner of India at the function organized by the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations and Pakistan-India Citizens Friendship Forum

Global water resources, taken for granted by mankind, are getting increasingly scarce and coming under added stress because of growing population. Water supplies are getting adversely affected by factors such as climate change. Because water is a precious resource, its depletion is a matter of serious concern and arouses public anxiety. But precisely because water is precious, public discourse on its growing scarcity ought to be well informed, so that it leads us to the right approach in ensuring the water security of our own and coming generations.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the issue of water sharing that arose between our countries in 1947, was settled with the coming into force of The Indus Waters Treaty in 1960. This treaty was the result of 8 years of painstaking negotiations carried out by India and Pakistan with the good offices of the World Bank. The Treaty was voluntarily accepted by the two sides as fair and equitable. The thoroughness with which it deals with various aspects of water sharing is a testimony to the hard work put in by the negotiators of both sides to produce an enduring framework. It laid down the rights and obligations of both sides in relation to the use of waters of the Indus system of rivers. It also laid down a framework for resolution, in a co-operative spirit, of the questions, differences or disputes that might arise in implementation of the Treaty, through bilateral means or use, if necessary, of the services of a neutral expert or a Court of Arbitration.

Those who question the fairness of the Indus Waters Treaty to Pakistan need to note that it assigned 80% share of water of the Indus system of rivers to Pakistan. The Treaty gave the use of Eastern Rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi) - with a mean flow of 33 MAF - - to India, while giving the use of the Western Rivers, viz. Indus, Jhelum and Chenab -- with a mean flow of 136 MAF -- to Pakistan. Since Pakistan was dependent on water supplies from the Eastern Rivers until the 15th of August 1947, India also agreed to pay a sum of 62 million Pounds Sterling to Pakistan to build replacement canals from the Western Rivers and other sources. These were clearly not the gestures of an upper riparian bent upon depriving the lower riparian of water, as is alleged by some today. The Treaty also permitted limited use of water of Western Rivers by India as follows: -

1. Domestic use: - This includes use for drinking, washing, bathing and sanitation etc.
2. Non consumptive use: - This covers any control or use of water for navigation, floating of timber or other property, flood control and fishing etc.
3. Agricultural use: - India can draw water from the Western Rivers in terms of maximum permissible Irrigated Crop Area. The total area permitted to be irrigated by India is 1.34 million acres.
4. Generation of Hydroelectric Power :- India can use water from the Western Rivers for run -of- the river hydroelectric projects as well as for hydroelectric projects incorporated in a storage work, but only to the extent permitted in the provisions regulating storage of water by India from the Western Rivers.
5. Storage of water by India on the Western Rivers: - The Indus Waters Treaty allows India storage capacity on Western Rivers to the tune of 3.6 MAF, in addition to the storage that already existed on these rivers before the coming into force of the Treaty. Out of this, 1.25 MAF is general storage. The remaining quantity is split between 1.6 MAF for generation of hydroelectricity and 0.75 MAF for flood control. In terms of rivers, 0.4 MAF storage is allowed on the Indus, 1.5 on Jhelum and 1.7 on Chenab.

This limited use of water from Western Rivers by India is subject to the conditions laid down in the Treaty to protect the interests of both countries. However, India is yet to use fully its entitlement to the waters of Western Rivers. As against its storage entitlement of 3.6 MAF, India has built no storage so far. Out of the area of 1.34 million acres, permitted for irrigation, we are currently irrigating only 0.792 million acres. We have exploited only a fraction of the hydroelectric potential available to us on these rivers. Out of a total potential of 18,653 MW, projects worth 2324 MW have been commissioned and those for 659 MW are under construction. In any case, even after India starts using its full entitlement of water from the Western Rivers under the Treaty, it will amount to no more than 3% of the mean flow in these rivers. ( a point made here by SSridhar)

In order to ensure that implementation of the Treaty received constant attention, a Permanent Indus Commission was created, with a senior and widely experienced Commissioner for Indus Waters from each side. The Commission is charged with the responsibility to establish and maintain co-operative arrangements for implementation of the Treaty, to promote co-operation between the Parties in the development of the waters of the Rivers and to settle promptly any questions arising between the Parties. Each Commissioner for Indus Waters serves as a regular channel of communication in all matters relating to implementation of the Treaty. The Commission undertakes a general tour of inspection of the rivers once in five years and special tours in the interim. The Commission meets regularly at least once a year and in the interim as required. It has so far undertaken a total of 111 tours, both in India and Pakistan, and has held 104 meetings. The Commission has shown tremendous potential in ensuring smooth functioning of the Treaty. In the 50 years of the Treaty, only once was an issue, viz. Baglihar, referred to a neutral expert. We believe that the potential of the Permanent Indus Commission can and ought to be used more effectively. In fact, we could even have the Commission sit in the nature of a consultative dispute avoidance body and take the views of experts – national and international – with a view to bringing up-to - date technology to the notice of the Commission to help it reach correct and acceptable solutions.

Ladies and Gentlemen, public discourse in Pakistan has of late increasingly focused on certain alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of India as being responsible for water scarcity in Pakistan. “Water issue” between India and Pakistan is spoken of as an issue whose resolution is essential to build peace between our two countries. Preposterous and completely unwarranted allegations of “stealing water” and waging a “water war” are being made against India. It is alleged that we are hindering water flows into Pakistan and developing the infrastructure to stop and divert these flows to serve our own needs. Such accusations bear no relation whatsoever to the reality on the ground. The fact is that India has been scrupulously providing Pakistan its share of water in keeping with the Indus Waters Treaty. We have never hindered water flows to which Pakistan is entitled, not even during the wars of 1965 and 1971 as well as other periods of tense relations and we have no intention of doing so. Those, who allege that India is acquiring the capacity to withhold Pakistan’s share of water, completely ignore the fact that this would require a storage and diversion canals network on a large scale. Such a network simply does not exist and figures nowhere in our plans.

I shall now deal with the apprehensions, misconceptions, misinformation and allegations pertaining to India that characterize the debate on water scarcity in Pakistan.

The Indus Waters Treaty does not require India to deliver any stipulated quantities of water to Pakistan in the Western Rivers. Instead, it requires us to let flow to Pakistan the water available in these rivers, excluding the limited use permitted to India by the Treaty, for which we do not need prior agreement of Pakistan. :rotfl: :rotfl: Reduced flows into Pakistan from time to time are not the result of violation of Indus Waters Treaty by India or any action on our part to divert such flows or to use more than our assigned share of water from Western Rivers. Water flows in rivers depend, inter alia, on melting of snow and quantum of rainfall. India itself suffered serious draught conditions in 2009, with around 250 districts bearing the brunt of draught. Rainfall during the monsoon season was 20% less than normal countrywide, with many states in the North experiencing a much higher percentage of shortfall. Even winter rains have fallen far short of normal. The quantum of water flow in Western Rivers, as indeed in any other river, varies from year to year, dipping in certain years and recovering in some subsequent years. Permit me to illustrate this point by using the flows data in respect of the three rivers.

Let us start with the river Chenab by using the average flows data for the month of September over a period of ten years since 1999 at six recording points, beginning deep on the Indian side at Udaipur and moving westwards to Marala, where Chenab enters Pakistan. The flows (Discharge in Cusecs) are as follows:-

Image

It will be seen from the above table that increase or decrease of flows at Marala is reflected in the flows at all the points on the Indian side. This shows that when Pakistan receives reduced flows, it is because of reduced flows available on the Indian side and not because of any diversion of water by India. Increased or reduced flows at Udaipur get reflected at all the subsequent points. This point is also illustrated by the following table of the annual flow in Chenab (MAF) from 1997-98 to 2008-09:-

Image

The above table shows that decrease of flow entering Pakistan is accompanied by corresponding shortage in India. The following table illustrates flows in Jhelum (MAF) at Uri during the period 1997 to 2009:-

Image

The annual flow in Jhelum at Uri, which was 8.29 MAF in 1997, dipped to as low as 3.07 MAF in 1999, but has subsequently recovered to register figures of 6.37 MAF in 2002, 6.31 MAF in 2005 and 5.67 MAF in 2008. The June to December flow in Jhelum at Uri shows the same pattern.
Combined annual flows (MAF) for January-December period in Indus at Nimoo and Chutak for the years 2001 to 2009 are no exception to the above trend as will be seen in the following table:-

Image

It will be seen from the above table that the combined flows rose from 6 MAF in 2001 to 11.30 MAF in 2003, only to dip to 6.51 MAF in 2004. The flows have been steadier in recent years, registering 9.41 MAF in 2005, 10.58 MAF in 2006, 8.41 in 2007, 9.95 in 2008 and 9.93 MAF in 2009.

The data that I have provided in respect of flows in all the three Western Rivers clearly demonstrates that these flows have followed a curve moving up and down, depending upon climatic factors from year to year, rather than showing progressive decline, which would be the case if there were any truth in the allegations of India building infrastructure to progressively deprive Pakistan of its share of water.

A complaint has often been made that India has not been providing data of water flows regularly. In accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty, India and Pakistan exchange daily data on about 600 Gauge and Discharge sites on a monthly basis. India has been fulfilling its obligation in providing this data. However, if for some reason, data for particular points is not available, it is so indicated and such information, when received, is provided as supplementary data. I am told that this practice is followed by both sides. India has also supplied in the past, as a gesture of goodwill, data on floods to enable Pakistan take timely action for preventing damage as a result of floods.

One also hears the accusation that India is building hundreds of dams/ hydroelectric projects to deny Pakistan its share of water. This does not correspond to the reality on the ground. There are no quantitative limits on the hydroelectricity that India can produce using the Western Rivers. There is also no limit to the number of run-of- the river projects that India can build. However, India has so far undertaken a limited number of projects. We have provided information to Pakistan, as per the Treaty, in respect of 33 projects. Out of these, 14 are in operation, 13 are under construction, 2 are still at the proposal stage, 3 have been
dropped or deferred and work on one project stands suspended.
Out of these 33 projects, as many as 20 have a capacity of 10 MW or less. Projects identified for implementation in the coming years number 22. This certainly does not make for hundreds of dams/ hydroelectric projects.

The Indus Waters Treaty requires India to provide certain specified technical information to Pakistan at least six months before the commencement of construction of river works for a hydroelectric or storage project (the period is two months for a Small Plant), in order to enable Pakistan to satisfy itself that the design of a plant conforms to the provisions of the Treaty. If Pakistan raises any objection, it has to be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. India has been meeting its obligation to provide the specified information as necessary. In all the cases in the past, India has responded to all queries from Pakistan about such projects, even if these were not strictly in keeping with the Treaty, in order to address Pakistan’s concerns. This has resulted in endless delays and cost overruns. The Tulbul Navigation project is a case in point. India provided information to Pakistan on this project as a matter of goodwill. As a further gesture of goodwill, works on the project were unilaterally stopped by India in October, 1986 and remain suspended to this day. However, infinite queries from Pakistan could amount to a virtual veto on Indian projects. This is not the intention of the Treaty in requiring India to provide information in advance of the river works. India is within its rights to proceed with the construction of a plant at the end of the period of advance notice, even if Pakistan raises objections, subject to any subsequent changes in design or any other consequences that may flow from resolution of the matter under Article IX of the Treaty.

India had communicated information concerning Baglihar project on Chenab to Pakistan as early as in 1992. Pakistan’s objections were referred to a neutral expert in 2005 at the request of Pakistan. The expert upheld India’s design approach and suggested only minor changes in the scope of construction. Pakistan subsequently objected to the initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir. However, this was done by us in keeping with the Treaty provisions. In fact, the Pakistan Indus Commissioner was invited to India at his request in July, 2008 to be briefed about the procedure of initial filling. The actual filling was done in August the same year within the time window specified in the Treaty.

The Kishanganga hydroelectric project on a tributary of river Jhelum has also been objected to by Pakistan, inter alia, on the ground that Pakistan has existing uses on the waters of Kishanganga (Neelum). The matter has been under discussion since 2004. However, details of the claimed existing uses are yet to be substantiated. We believe that the matter should be resolved at the Commission level, keeping in mind the provisions of the Treaty and the findings of the neutral expert in the Baglihar case. In August 2009, we also informed Pakistan that in case technical experts were unable to resolve the issue, efforts could be made to take it up at government level.

Ladies and Gentlemen, India has all along adhered to the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty and will continue to do so. However, it is natural for questions and issues to arise in the course of implementation of any treaty. We believe that the Permanent Indus Commission is the best forum to resolve all such matters. However, for any issues that cannot be resolved in the Commission, Article IX of the Treaty provides a mechanism for settlement of differences and disputes, which can be resorted to by the aggrieved party. Since the Indus Waters Treaty provides an elaborate framework for distribution of water and resolving any questions, differences or disputes, we fail to understand attempts by some quarters in Pakistan to inflame public passions on the subject. Angry statements targeting India can neither increase the quantity of available water, nor can such statements become a substitute for the mechanism in the Treaty to resolve differences regarding its implementation.

Concerns have also been expressed about some Indian projects on Western Rivers from the environmental point of view. I would like to assure you that we have strict norms for such projects under our Environmental Protection Act and Forests Protection Act. These norms include Catchment Area Treatment Plans and Compensatory afforestation.

We have often heard the bizarre allegation that India wants to deprive Pakistan of water to dry up its canals and drains etc, which besides serving as irrigation channels, can also serve as defensive features in times of war. The Chenab Canal network is mentioned in particular in this connection. There is no truth in this allegation. It is clear from what I have mentioned so far that India has not taken any action to deprive Pakistan of its share of water and consequently to dry up its canals.

Another piece of misinformation being spread by certain circles is that a dam/hydroelectric project is being built by the Government of Afghanistan on the Kabul River with India’s assistance and this would adversely affect the flows of this river to Pakistan. I would like to inform you that there is no truth in this allegation. Those who make it ought to know that a dam or hydroelectric project is not something that can be built surreptitiously. It is highly undesirable to mislead people by making such baseless allegations on issues, which are easily verifiable on the ground.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the issue of water scarcity in Pakistan cannot be analysed fully without looking at the picture in the large part of the Indus basin – around 65% - that lies in Pakistan’s territory or territory controlled by Pakistan (he is refering to POK, with PK contributing hardly 10% of water to Indus beyond POK). A preponderant portion of the water of the Western Rivers flowing through Pakistan is generated in the catchment area within Pakistan or territory under Pakistan’s control. This share of water is completely controlled by Pakistan. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the excessive and, in many cases, exclusive focus of the public discourse on water scarcity in Pakistan on flows from India. Moreover, as water gets increasingly scarce, the issues of water management and avoidance of wastage of water assume greater significance.

The per capita availability of water in Pakistan is reported to be around 1400 cubic meters or even less. Speaking of the availability and use of water in Pakistan, the Pakistan Water Sector Strategy issued by the Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan, in 2002 stated the following: “The Indus River and its tributaries on average bring about 152 million acre feet of water annually. This includes 143 MAF from the three Western rivers and 8.4 MAF from the Eastern Rivers. Most of the inflow, about 104 MAF, is diverted for irrigation, with 38 MAF flowing to the sea and about 10 MAF consumed by system losses.” The same report stated that out of the 38 MAF flowing to the sea, 93.7% flow is during the Kharif season and for several months during winter, there is no flow to the sea. The report further stated that a part of this water could be effectively used for supplementing the irrigation water, hydropower generation and meeting the agreed environmental needs through storage in multipurpose reservoirs which could carry water over the winter season to ensure a good start to the Kharif cropping season. These statements do not signal shortage of water, but the urgent need for a closer look at the management of available water resources.

According to the report “Pakistan’s Water Economy” issued by the World Bank in 2005, salinity also remains a major problem in Pakistan. According to the same report, much of the water infrastructure in Pakistan is in a state of disrepair. Water loss between canal heads and farms is reported to be significant, as high as 30%. The report further states that Pakistan has only 150 cubic meters water storage capacity per capita as against 5000 cubic meters in the US and Australia and 2200 cubic meters in China. Pakistan can store barely 30 days of water in the Indus basin. The report points out that “Relative to other arid countries, Pakistan has very little storage capacity. If no new storage is built, canal diversions will remain stagnant at about 104 MAF and the shortfall will increase by about 12% over the next decade.” The Pakistan Water Strategy calculates that Pakistan needs to raise storage capacity by 18 MAF (6 MAF for replacement of storage lost to siltation and 12 MAF of new storage) by 2025 in order to meet the projected water requirements of 134 MAF. Water productivity in Pakistan also remains low. According to the above report, crop yields, both per hectare and per cubic meter of water, are much lower than international benchmarks. Improved irrigation efficiency, through techniques such as sprinkler irrigation and drip irrigation, is the answer to this problem. India has nothing to do with these issues of water management that are internal to Pakistan, but which nevertheless ought to be integral to any discourse on water scarcity. Only Pakistan can seek solutions to these matters.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Indus Waters Treaty is an example of mutually beneficial co-operation between India and Pakistan for the last 50 years. It has withstood the test of time. Article VII of the Treaty, which deals with future co-operation, recognizes the common interest of both sides in the optimum development of the rivers and lists out the avenues of future co-operation. We need to adhere to the spirit of co-operation, inherent in the Treaty, in ensuring its implementation and to identify further areas of co-operation within its framework. Let me end with the hope that the Indus Waters Treaty, which has completed its first fifty years successfully, will continue to guide us on water sharing in the future.
Well all points made in BRF extensively.legalities is the answer to PK's water terrorism.
Most important point made is that IWT does not require any stipulated quantities to be delivered to PK, only use as per IWT and allow water to flow as it comes. Neither there is any restrictions on number of Projects IN can build. Pk,s infinite objections would amount to virtual veto not allowed in IWT and IN can proceed with the work at the end of advance notice period.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

SSridhar wrote:Anujan, one thing that India has to understand in dealing with TSP is that 'give it an inch, it will demand several hundred square miles'.

I like your idea of Indian neutral experts resolving Pakistan's water woes. :D
Like i said long time ago, India shluld be talking to Sindh about directly supplying water via canals to be build within India for Joining of River water system. Same apply for Kabul river. Water is stolen and wasted by Paki Panjab mainly so they need to be bypassed to safeguard Sindh's water security.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

http://multimedia.wri.org/watersheds_2003/gm15.html

The analysis shows that by 2025, assuming current consumption patterns continue, at least 3.5 billion people— or 48 percent of the world’s projected population —will live in water-stressed river basins. Of these, 2.4 billion will live under high water stress conditions. This per capita water supply calculation, however, does not take into account the coping capabilities of different countries to deal with water shortages. For example, high-income countries that are water scarce may be able to cope to some degree with water shortages by investing in desalination or reclaimed wastewater. The study also discounts the use of fossil water sources because such use is unsustainable in the long term.

In the second map, a selected number of basins have been outlined. These watersheds represent basins that are in or approaching water scarcity and where the projected population for 2025 is expected to be higher than 10 million. Six of these basins including, the Volta, Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, Narmada, and the Colorado River basin in the United States, will go from having more than 1,700 m3 to less than 1,700 m3 of water per capita per year. Another 29 basins will descend further into scarcity by 2025, including the Jubba, Godavari, Indus, Tapti, Syr Darya, Orange, Limpopo, Huang He, Seine, Balsas, and the Rio Grande.
There are three river basins of India figuring in the list-Narmada,Tapti and Godavari as likely to become water stressed basis Indus is also in the list which will go into water scarcity by 2025. If PK continues with its obsession with IN it would overlook its problem of water management , efficiency and productivity per capita water use and land use thereby leading ot all sorts of problem. Atlas clearly indicates that Inuds is the only major source of water ( almost double of Nile discharge) while rest of PK is arid land. Its continued obsession will propel the whole country into arid zone.Pk is acting like ostrich. That land is not new to the phenomenon of Lost civilisation. It has happened in ancient past and could happen again.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Prem wrote:
Like i said long time ago, India shluld be talking to Sindh about directly supplying water via canals to be build within India for Joining of River water system. Same apply for Kabul river. Water is stolen and wasted by Paki Panjab mainly so they need to be bypassed to safeguard Sindh's water security.
Perhaps Jhelum and Chenab could be allocated to Sindh to be exclusively diverted via India. Changing natural course for such a long distances may not be allowed under IWT , though. This proposal could be put to Sindh Assembly/Provincial Govt directly. May be MQM could draw public opinion on it.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

“The work on Kishenganga power project is going on under the provisions of IWT,” Principal Secretary Power, B R Sharma told Rising Kashmir.
Rising Kashmir reporting work on the Kishanganga project is going on :

Work apace on 330 MW K’ganga project
ajit_tr
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 16 May 2010 21:28

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by ajit_tr »

There is no intro forum here so let me do it here.I'm ajit from defenceforum.in know as ajtr over there.I've been using vast amount of info compiled over here in this thread on dfi but with due created is given to posters here and the BR.i've just joined but have been reading this forum for long mostly this thread.I once mailed to SSridharji/webmaster BR (if he remembered) regarding using his article on indus water treaty around 2 months due to copyright issues. I've mostly used Ssridhar's,chanakayaji,Theo_Fidel and A_gupta's posts .due credit was give to all these guys and BR in IWT thread at DFI.If i ve missed i somewhere then i can be due to my negligence....now coming to point.


1.i've seen IWT document like this one

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTS ... ty1960.pdf

but i sometimes find various posters mentioning annxures in detail.but that detail info is not in this document. i tried to search annxures docs but couldn't get hold of any.can someone like ssridhar ji point to me that doc from where you guys quote such a detailed info about annxures .


Thanks
Last edited by archan on 17 May 2010 18:24, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: username changed. If you would like some other human sounding name, contact the moderators.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Gerard »

A preponderant portion of the water of the Western Rivers flowing through Pakistan is generated in the catchment area within Pakistan or territory under Pakistan’s control.
So 65% of the drainage basin lies in Pakistan. This needs to be repeated whenever the Pakistanis bring up the topic.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Ajit,

The full treaty and all the annexures have always been available at the source organization, the World Bank.

In fact it is required to make it publicly available including all other determinations.

See link below.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNA ... 47,00.html

If it doesn't work just go to the world bank site and search for Indus Treaty.

It is a Paki tactic to ignore these provisions. We need to do more to propagate knowledge of our rights under these.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

WRT to Kishan Ganga, this has been posted many times before but I'll do it again. Esp. as there appear to be many new posters who wonder if TSP has a case on Kishan Ganga.

When the Indus Treaty was written it was specifically understood that the Jhelum was a special case with many of its tributaries at very different elevations.

The Indian drafters therefore specifically included a special clause to cover this eventuality. They must have know that they would never live to see these projects. Yet showed the foresight to leave it for future generations. Sometimes credit should be given to the Government Babu's.

See clause 3 below. There is no squirming room for TSP.
15 . Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 17, the work s
connected with a Plant shall be so operated that (a) th e
volume of water received in the river upstream of th e
Plant, during any period of seven consecutive days, shal l
be delivered into the river below the Plant during the sam e
seven-day period, and (b) in any one period of 24 hour s
within that seven-day period, the volume delivered int o
the river below the Plant shall be not less than 30%, and
not more than 130%, of the volume received in the rive r
above the Plant during the same 24-hour period : Provided
however that :

(i) where a Plant is located at a site on the Chenab
Main below Ramban, the volume of water receive d
in the river upstream of the Plant in any one perio d
of 24 hours shall be delivered into the river belo w
the Plant within the same period of 24 hours ;

(ii) where a Plant is located at a site on the Chena b
Main above Ramban, the volume of water delivere d
into the river below the Plant in any one period o f
24 hours shall not be less than 50% and not mor e
than 130%, of the volume received above the Plant
during the same 24-hour period ; and

(iii) where a Plant is located on a Tributary of Th e
Jhelum on which Pakistan has any Agricultura l
Use or hydro-electric use, the water released belo w
the Plant may be delivered, if necessary, into an -
other Tributary
but only to the extent that the then
existing Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use b y
Pakistan on the former Tributary would not b e
adversely affected .
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25119
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

arun wrote:Rising Kashmir reporting work on the Kishanganga project is going on :

Work apace on 330 MW K’ganga project
We know that earlier too, in the Baglihar issue, the J&K Government solidly supported the project. It is gladdening that Kishenganga has also received a similar support.
Post Reply