Indus Water Treaty

[SSridhar]

Ajit, welcome to BRf.

[arun]

Pretty dismissive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s claims of being done in by India on water.

Hmmm ......... "lakh hectares" :

Building on a Treaty
Author: Sam Burgess
16 May 2010 - Issue : 885 ............................

As the treaty mandates broad Pakistan approval for Indian works on the Western rivers, they used the opportunity to raise number of objections leading to considerable delays in implementation of the projects. The Sallal, Yuri, Dul Hasti and Baghlihar all run-off-river hydro-power schemes without any storage requirements were delayed with Pakistan questioning every aspect of the schemes like technical specifications, data on water flows etc.

In all the cases of objections, the Pakistani argument has been that sudden pondage and release of such waters could be used by India to dry up lower course of Chenab or cause floods that would render Pakistan economically and strategically vulnerable. The argument has no basis and those who know the geography and terrain of Valley would know that such a measure would damage India before it causes any hardship to Pakistan which is 110 Kms down the river course.

On Kishanganga:

The latest objections of Pakistan relate to the Kishanganga Project on a tributary of Jhelum which is also a run-off-the-river hydro electric project. The project involves channelling of waters of the Kishanganga tributary, which is known in Pakistan as Neelam, to feed the hydro-power project and the waters later re-join the Jhelum river in Pakistan. Total quantum of flow of water will not be affected. This is as permissible by the treaty and the project was initially proposed in the period during 1991-93. However, Pak-sponsored terrorism prevented its construction. It was proposed again in 2003 and again delayed due to terrorist activities. Pakistan was notified yet again last year about the taking up the project. Pakistan, therefore, is hurriedly putting up, with Chinese assistance, its own power project on the Neelam, north of Muzafferabad, to pre-empt the Kishanganga Project.

Pakistani objections to Kishanganga hydro-power project are based on claims that there will be 27% of water shortage in the tributary in the Neelam valley affecting irrigational use. Indian side provided data showing that flow reductions in the tributary during specific periods will only be 15-16% and this would not affect current pattern of use in the valley. Pakistan also claimed that 1.3 lakh hectares are under irrigation under the tributary, but was not able to show it when Indian experts visited the area, three times in 1991, 1996 and 2008. As Pakistan did not have a strong case to force the halting of Kishanganga project, it is creating a frenzy of orchestrated propaganda involving even terrorist groups with threats of launching suicide bombings and even nuclear attacks on Indian projects. Instead, it serves them better if they provide required data on their claims to Indian side for mutually beneficial negotiations or refer to a neutral expert for a ruling if they strongly feel of having a reasonable case.

Read it all:

Link

[chaanakya]

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_de ... p?Id=28734

It was decided that the previous Pakistan team headed by Professor James Crawford that had fought the legal battle against India on Baglihar Hydropower project will fight the case on Kishanganga hydropower project.

The said decision has reportedly been taken in the two-day meeting which ended on Friday. Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf chaired the meeting while Secretary Water and Power Shahid Rafi, Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Water issues Kamal Majidullah, Pakistan Commissioner of Indus Water Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Attorney General Justice (R) Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq and concerned officials of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Law and Justice, Nespak, Pakistan Army and ISI attended the meeting and discussed the strategy on legal battle in the ICJ.



Pakistan on April 19 has forwarded two names to India for the constitution of the arbitration court. India would also propose their names and then both the countries would agree upon on the name of chief of the arbitration court. The constitution of the court will take place within another five to eight months.

Some independent experts are of the view that Pakistan has delayed to move the international court as India has already managed to substantially construct Kishanganga project. According to some reports, India has completed 80 per cent construction on the project which was initiated by mid 1990s.

However, the physical work on Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project was initiated in 2007 and according to Wapda, about 15 per cent work has been completed. In case India completes its project earlier than the completion of Neelum-Jhelum, then it will clinch the water priority right of Neelum River.

Some might like to think that if India abides by the treaty provisions, TSP may not raise dispute. That is only wishful thinking. TSP has raised objections on each and every project of India and that includes Eastern Rivers as well to which India has exclusive rights.

There are set procedures laid down in IWT by which differences and disputes get addressed. Court of Arbitration is provided under IWT under Article IX(5) read with Annexure G.
Article IX(2)(b) reads that if a difference does not come within para (2)(a) or if NE informs the Indus commission in accordance with para 7 of Annexure F that the difference should be treated as dispute , a dispute shall deemed to have arisen to be settled as per para (3)(4)(5/ of Article IX....Provided further that any difference can be dealt with in any other way agreed upon by the Commission besides by NE and Court of Arbitration(COA).

(3) if a dispute has arisen the commission shall report the fact , at the request of either commissioner, to the two govt. as early as practicable with the following details:-Points on which commission is in agreement, the disputes, views of the each commissioner and his reasons.
(4) Either Govt , upon receipt of the report or if it feels report being unduly delayed, invite the other govt to settle the dispute by agreement.It will communicate names of negotiators and readiness to meet negotiators of the other govt at time and place indicated by the other govt and also enlist services of one or two mediators as may be acceptable.

(5)COA would be setup in the manner provided in Annexure G, upon mutual agreement by both parties to do so;at the request of either party , after negotiations have begun, if it is of the opinion that negotiations or mediators are unlikely to resolve the dispute; or at the request of either party after the expiry of one month of receipt of invitation by the other govt if that party comes to the conclusion that the other govt is unduly delaying the negotiation.
Above texts are not verbatim and I have only captured the essential steps.

So if TSP thinks that there is a dispute then there is a dispute within the meaning of IWT. I am quite sure that TSP would not go to NE , having tasted failure there, and would try COA route. Now one may notice that if one party is determined to raise dispute then there are set procedures and requires strict adherence to it before mechanism gets invoked.

Despite all the rhetoric by TSP in public it is quietly following that procedure and are fully aware that it would take at least 8 months before COA gets constituted.

One redeeming point in IWT is that it does not have provision for status quo though one party may decide to stop the work as done by IN in case of Tulbul Navigation project . The work on Kishenganga falls in very special category as the party completing a project first would get the right to use it under the treaty.(clarified by SS garu in subsequent post, if existing means at the time of starting the project and not at the time of completion of the priject. Indian experts had visited the Neelum valley to ascertain agricultural usage by PK on invitation of PPIC and they had failed to substantiate their claim of agricultural usage.This was after preliminary work had started on KG ) TSP has to prove that it had pre-existing usage , power , irrigation etc. Onus is on TSP. There is none to my knowledge except may be for some irrigation works in Neelum Valley claimed by TSP and yet to be shown on the ground to IN experts. Kisheganga Dam is going to flood Gurez valley which may be a boon for IN as it is a major staging area for infiltration.

Theo_fidel, you are right that diversion is permitted on Jhelum subject to the conditions preceding and succeeding the highlighted part.Even Baglihar was not unqualified victory for IN. TSP had used its Non State Actors(NSA) to disrupt works several times on projects like Tulbul , Baglihar and Kishenganga. Recent influx in Neelum Valley, reportedly of Talibanis, point to old trick might be tried by TSP again to stall work on KG

But such is the nature of dispute settlement mechanism that TSP would raise it if it wants to and IN has to go by it if it does not abrogate the treaty, which is not needed as IN may continue to work on the project.

Why TSP feels confident that it would have a better outcome in COA.

COA will consist of two arbitrators each by either party.
Three umpires 1. Person qualified by status and reputation to be chairman, 2. highly qualified engineers and 3. person well versed i international law. Chairman shall be from 1 above. Parties shall nominate and maintain a standing panel consisting of four umpires in each of the category. by mutual agreement and consent of umpires being nominated and in the order in which they would be invited to serve on COA ( by mutual agreement or by lots)If panel is not nominated by procedures underlined in Ann G (some procedures not mentioned here, please refer to Ann G) then under para 7(b) remaining vacancies in umpires will be filled up by lot from
a. for Chairman:- Secy Gen UN and President WB
b.for engineers:-President MIT and Rector Imperial College of Sc & Tech London.
c.for legal members:-Chief Justice of USA and Lord Chief Justice of England

If USA is in TSP favour it would have 4 members in its favour. Decisions are by majority present and voting with each having one vote and chairman casting vote. This is just a conjecture and I have no reason to cast doubt on these eminent persons integrity.But International Diplomacy is such that one needs to be wary of pitfalls. TSP would certainly delay and not agree to anything reasonable under the sun and see that Umpires are nominated from this list. Paranoia may be.



Hopefully IN continues its work apace despite COA proceedings and completes the work for it to become fait accompli.

[Gagan]

The current move by the pakistanis seems aimed at two fronts:
1. The age old - get a stay order from a court. In the interim, build their own Neelum-Jhelum project.
2. Give an impression to the common citizens in Pakistan that the Army and the ISI is looking after the interests of Pakistan.
The idea being that any concession that the arbitration court will grant to Pakistan will be hailed as a major victory for Pakistan and the Army there will be at the forefront to accept credit. Here it does not matter if the victory is a 'Hezbollah victory', H&D needs to be preserved.

On both counts this is wishful thinking. India has already delayed the Kishenganga-Tulbul Navigation-Wullar Barrage project for many years when the paksitanis were showing India a rudimentary tunnel at Nauseri as proof that they were working on the Neelum Jhelum Project. Fact was that they neither have the money nor the expertise to complete such a project of this magnitude. Recently they had to bring in chinese engineers to help build the tunnel linking Nauseri to Zaminabad to bypass the Kishenganga (Neelum) water into the Jhelum.


Pic: Neelum-Jhelum Project

However India's Kishenganga-Tulbul Navigation-Wullar Barrage project is nearing completion.

[Gagan]

X post:
The huge lake on the Hunza river as a result of a landslide is now available in High Res on Google Earth. The picture is dated March 19, 2010, when the lake is about 10.9Kms long. The town of Hullehgush along with about 15 Kms of Karakoram Highway is deep underwater.

Landslide:


The same area in 2006: There is a small area of low resolution in the middle of this pic.


The lake in March 2010: Notice that the Karakoram Highway is deep underwater.


The same area in 2006

Pak-Cheeni dosti deeper than oceans and taller than mountains indeed.
AoA

[SSridhar]

Gagan, superb effort.

[SSridhar]

On the Kishenganga project. there are many under a wrong impression that India must complete its works before the Pakistanis. That is completely wrong. The IWT is very clear. It says that any existing Pakistani hydroelectric project should not be adversely affected.

Pakistan did not have an 'existing' project when India made its intentions known about the Kishenganga project. Secondly, even if there is such a project, India, must ensure that the Pakistani project is not adversely affected; that's all.

[chaanakya]

On the Kishenganga project. there are many under a wrong impression that India must complete its works before the Pakistanis. That is completely wrong. The IWT is very clear. It says that any existing Pakistani hydroelectric project should not be adversely affected.

Pakistan did not have an 'existing' project when India made its intentions known about the Kishenganga project. Secondly, even if there is such a project, India, must ensure that the Pakistani project is not adversely affected; that's all.

Well I have revised the post. Thanks for clarification

Now all this have to be proved in COA as and when it gets constituted and proceedings commenced. IN has a strong case so no cause for worry. Hopefully In does not stop the work. Yet TSP would use all resources at its command to stall the work by any means.

[ajit_tr]

Thanks sridhar for welcome, Theo for the full IWT link.I'm posting the snapshot of SUMMARY OF LOSSES / DAMAGES DUE TO LAND SILDE / MOVEMENT OF TERRAIN, VILLAGE ATTA ABAD/KOHISTAN - PERIOD COVERED UPTO 14 MAR 2010. hope its not the re-post..coz i've checked it with whole thread.

[ajit_tr]

Sridhar,
OT but my Id name has been spelled as as AjayT instead of Ajit

[SSridhar]

AjayT, sorry for the misspelling.

[vic]

I started drawing a diagram of Baglihar and then I got it. Didn't quite tidy up the diagram, though.

Only in one instance of objection was Pakistan after a smaller dam. In all other cases, it is not the amount of storage that worries Pakistan. It is India's leeway in varying the flow of the river. Notice that India would have to violate the IWT to play games with the water flow; but assuming that India wants to violate the treaty, certain dam design characteristics make India's task easier.

Let me explain: (all elevations in meters above sea level).


(3) Therefore the dam must be capable of discharging that much water safely. Pakistan's first demand was that the dam not have gates (i.e., the flood water must discharge by overflowing). But for 16,500 cubic meters to discharge by overflowing, the water level must be 12m above the top of the dam, so the dam maximum height can only be 840m - 12m = 828m.

The Neutral Expert rejected this as reducing Baglihar's hydroelectric potential too much and also as being contrary to modern engineering. All modern dams with more than 14,000 cubic meters/sec discharge have gates.

Gates, by providing an opening at a lower level in the dam, allow for sufficient discharge without overflowing the dam.

(4) Now, the lower the gates, the more the volume of water India can play with. E.g., if the gates were at the base of the dam, then the entire reservoir can be discharged. Or India can empty the reservoir to the bottom sill of the gates, and then close the gates and accumulate water not letting any water downstream. Again, if the gates were at the bottom of the dam, India could empty the reservoir and then accumulate some 400 million cubic meters of water, not letting a single drop reach Pakistan. So Pakistan wants the gates as high as possible.

The Neutral Expert found India's design OK, but actually wanted the sluice gates lowered by 8 meters (contra Pakistan) for the safety of Pul Doda town.

(5) The Dead Storage (the water India cannot use) is some 385 million cubic meters. Pakistan wasn't worried by that. Pakistan wanted the live storage - the pondage - to be 6.22 million cubic meters. India's calculation was 37.5 million cubic meters. The live storage is calculated by the formula in the IWT treaty, that it can be twice the amount needed to level out the fluctuations in the demand for power. I.e., when during the time of day when power demand is high, the power intake will use more water than when the power demand is low, and there must be a buffer to smooth this out compared to the slower rate of change of river inflow.

Notice that the larger the pondage, the more India can control water flow, i.e.., India can start from a position at dead storage level, and withhold water till the pondage is filled.

The Neutral Expert reduced the pondage to 32.56 million cubic meters, and raised the dead storage level by 1 meter to 836m.
The dead storage increases to some 390.39 million cubic meters. (Again, dead storage is not what concerns Pakistan).

(6) Likewise, the lower the power intake the more leeway India has to play with water flow. India had the intake at 818m, the Neutral Expert raised it by 3m. Note that there are engineering reasons for having the intake sufficiently below the surface. India's design had the intake 17m below dead storage level; the Neutral Expert changed that to 15m.

(7) India had the crest of the dam 4.5m above the full pond level. This is a safety margin, to be able to handle e.g., the possibility of a malfunctioning of a spillway gate - the water level will rise somewhat till the increased water pressure causes sufficient discharge from the remaining gates, but the dam will not overflow.

The Neutral Expert reduced the margin to 3m, so the dam crest is 843m above sea level instead of 844.5m. But remember, he also lowered one set of gates from 808 to 800m.




and I must link to flickr, so
http://www.flickr.com/photos/macgupta/4 ... 1/sizes/l/

The obvious question would be that "why India did not design for sluice gates at the bottom". If the sluice gates are for emptying the dam and washing away the silt then that would have been better, isn't it? Won't the dead level pondage will ultimately be silted up? what is the benefit of dead level pondage at all?

[ajit_tr]

Sridhar can you change my Id name ti just "Ajit".coz most of times i forget to log by name "ajayT"....And here is article on latest situation on Hunza lake in asia times.

Karakoram traders flee border post
By Syed Fazl-e-Haider

KARACHI, Pakistan - The damage to Pakistan's already fragile economy caused by a landslide blockage of the Karakoram Highway (KKH), the country's key landlink with China, is mounting, with the evacuation this week of Sost, the land port on the border between the two countries.

Continuing heavy rains in the mountainous Gilgit-Baltistan area and melt-waters from surrounding glaciers have brought fresh landslides and further raised the level of a vast lake - now 16 kilometers long - that has built up behind the initial blockage at Attaabad, about 750 kilometers north of Islamabad. The level of the lake at Attaabad has reached 97 meters, according to Dawn newspaper last week, citing the National Disaster Management

The rising waters have already have submerged parts of Gulmit, a tourist resort that has become an import money earner for the Hunza valley area in Gilgit-Baltistan since it opened in the mid-1980s. The lake has washed away two bridges in Ghulkin and Hussain, on the Karakoram Highway, and cut off three villages, Dawn reported on Sunday.

Downriver, where the Hunza flows into the Indus, about 11,000 families in Battagram, Mansehra, Shangla and Kohistan may have to be evacuated, the report said, citing the Provincial Disaster Management Authority. "We are preparing for a caseload of 40,000 [people] who could be affected by flooding," Nadeem Ahmed, chairman of national disaster management authority, told a press conference in the capital.

Flooding would put at risk 13,500 people downstream and about 25,000 people upstream who were "less threatened", he said. Meanwhile, large rockfalls continue in the area, one as recently as May 12 (for video, see here ) raising fears that one could block slipways being built to allow runoff from the lake. [1]

A 22km section of the Karakoram Highway has reportedly been washed out since the initial blockage by a huge landslide, put at 2km long, in early January, halting overland trade with China. Damage to the highway has increased transportation costs of goods between the two countries and is driving up prices of essential goods in the Upper Hunza, or Gojal, valley. The valley borders with the Xinjiang-Uyghur region of People Republic of China and Afghanistan.

With rain continuing to pour across the Hunza valley and water in the Attaabad lake rising by as much as a meter a day, scores of villages downriver are threatened by a possible breach of its banks. Residents from more than 36 villages have already been evacuated to safer places.

Shahid Siddiqui, Director of the Center for Humanities and Social Sciences at Lahore School of Economics, writing on his Internet blog, said that "the most painful part of the issue was the downplaying of the disaster by the federal and local authorities. They tried to create the impression that everything was either all right or under control. The reality, however, was just the opposite."
He said no help had been sought from China to meet the challenge, countering other reports that a Chinese engineering company had been called in to assist.

Strategically located Gilgit-Baltistan is seen by both India and Pakistan as part of the larger Jammu and Kashmir issue, which has not yet been resolved. Last year, Islamabad approved a package of self-governance reforms for what was then known as the Northern Areas, aimed at giving it full internal autonomy but without the status of a province.

China is playing a central role in efforts to develop the Gilgit-Baltistan region, with Chinese companies and engineers involved in major hydropower projects in the region, including the Bunji and Basha dams and the Kohala and Neelum-Jhelum hydroelectric projects.

[ajit_tr]

Hunza Landslide May 12, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5YqKuBieRo

Hunza Disaster, Progress at Spillway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoRHfbWm9BM

This shows just how close to the top of the dam the water level has now reached. The second and third show the impact of the rapidly rising water level:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3c4kVISdx8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kgA22a3gZk

[chaanakya]

Being part of Kashmir, these people are in fact India citizens living under foreign occupation. IN should highlight their plight and offer to help distressed people in any ways possible, rehabilitation, engineering and army support to clear the landslide, financial support to restart their lives, as indian citizens. Publicly, PK's apathy towards these people should be highlighted. Too much to ask for, given the thaw from thimpu

[ajit_tr]

If re-post then plz delete it....

Daily updates on Situation of Hunza artificial lake.


NDMA freeboard information for Attabad
In the absence of any other information on the state of play at Attabad, I have plotted up the daily updates on freeboard from NDMA. The reliability of these is somewhat unclear as there are often contradictions between the indicated water level rise and the daily difference between freeboard measurements. There are also sometimes errors - e.g. the data for 19th May suggests that freeboard increased rather than declined overnight, but I have corrected that. So the graph for the last 19 days or so looks like this (the last datapoint is for 19th May at 18:00 local time):



Over the last four days the water level has risen at an average of 1.1 m per day, which means that the remaining freeboard should be lost in 3 or 4 days from 19th May, even allowing for the apparent slight reduction in rate in the last couple of days. On this basis, overtopping might be expected tomorrow (22nd May) or on Saturday 23rd May, but happen earlier.

Of course all of this is dependent upon the NDMA values being correct, but for the last two weeks the Focus and NDMA freeboard figures have effectively been the same. This does also mean that some of the media reported values of lake rise due to the GLOF earlier in the week were wildly incorrect.

The final spillway at the Attabad landslide
The GLOF into the lake behind the Attabad landslide yesterday appears to have raised the water level by something over two metres, in addition to the increase of about a metre from the normal inflow (please see the data on my monitoring site). The upshot is that the freeboard is likely be 4 metres or less. Inflow has increased substantially as well to about 93 cubic metres per second. It has not been possible to measure seepage in the last 24 hours as the site is now too dangerous.

All work on the spillway has ceased and the machinery has been withdrawn. The final form of the spillway is shown in this Focus image:



It pains me to say this, but I simply cannot see how this will resist the peak flow in the Hunza River. However, it has at least served the purpose of reducing the total volume of water involved in any flood that should occur.

The boat service has also now ceased as it would clearly be too dangerous should a breach start.

Water flow past the blockage may start through one of three key processes:
1. Overtopping and water flow through the spillway. In Tangjiashan the initiation of erosion started some hours after initial flow; this may or may not be the case here. Erosion may start on the downstream face or at the crest of the spillway, or there may be slope failures on the downstream face. It is also possible that the sides of the channel may fail, creating a new blockage, stopping water flow for a while.
2. A seepage induced failure. This is less likely than 1., but remains a distinct possibility;
3. Overtopping initiated by a landslide into the lake.

None of these can be ruled out at this stage, but 1. is the most likely. If so, the size of the resultant flood will depend upon the rate of erosion, if any.

I hope above all hopes that erosion happens slowly. My thoughts are with the people of Hunza.


Even more seepage at Attabad
The rate of seepage at the Attabad landslide is now increasing at a rapid rate, and a new seepage point emerged in the last 24 hours. This graph shows the seepage rate since the start of monitoring:



The current rate of increase does pose the risk of a seepage-induced failure. This is not inevitable, but the risk is increasing with time. The authorities need to be prepared for the possibility that seepage could develop very rapidly indeed. The most recent Focus update provided an image of the two main seepage points:



The one below the spillway is the one that developed at the end of last week - yesterday this was discharging about 1 cubic metre per second. To the right is the main seepage point - yesterday this was producing 2.8 cubic metres per second. Note how much erosion these seepage points have generated in the channels they have cut. This does not bode well.

Attabad - the spillway
The Pamir Times has today published a photo of the final spillway at Attabad. All work has now apparently ceased as the overtopping approaches:



The likelihood of a flood from the Attabad landslide
The water level at Attabad is now within ten metres of the base of the spillway at the saddle, and continues to rise at about 90 to 100 cm per day. Thus, water flow through the spillway is now about ten days away, or possibly less.

So what will happen when water flow starts? Regular readers will know that I have been continually pressing the authorities to assume that a large flood will occur, even if this was an outside possibility. My recommendations were, and still are, to evacuate everyone downstream of the dam located within 60 metres of the river level. Past experience suggests that the flood could be large all the way to Tarbela - i.e. that standard attenuation models don't apply here.

Throughout this crisis I have maintained that a catastrophic flood was possible but not probable. This was very much based upon the plans for the spillway, which we were assured would be 30 metres deep, up to 40 m wide, and with a low longitudinal gradient. We were even assured that the base would be armoured to prevent erosion.

The reality is rather different. A couple of days ago the Pamir Times published this image of the spillway (the annotation is from them - I would like to formally thank them for highlighting the monitoring site I run):



Those building the spillway have admitted that it is just 5 metres wide and 14 metres deep. None of us should be under any illusions - this is unlikely to be large enough to cope with the flows that the river experiences in the summer floods. Furthermore, even though the flow from seepage that has developed below the spillway over the last few days is a fraction of the current inflow (seepage = 510 litres per second; inflow = 77,750 litres per second), the water flowing from the seepage point has been able to erode the dam materials. This does not bode well in terms of the landslide dam resisting erosion.

The increase in seepage rate remains a source of concern too, both in terms of the potential for an earlier water release and the likelihood of internal weakening of the dam structure.

All of this means that a flood is now likely, hopefully of just a moderate size, but possibly larger. Once again I urge, as I have throughout this crisis, that the authorities assume that the flood will be large and thus ensure that everyone within 50 metres of the river between Attabad and Tarbela is protected.

Finally, I just cannot understand why the authorities are not getting expert advice to help them to deal with this. Help is being offered - why are they not accepting it?

Developments at Attabad
I have today revamped the monitoring website of the Attabad landslide in Hunza, Pakistan to make the display of information more straightforward as we enter the end game of this situation. In the last day or so there have been three critical developments:

1. Seepage is increasing rapidly
Today's seepage figure is 2.53 cubic metres per second - that is a substantial increase on yesterday, as the graph below shows:



2. A new seepage point has developed
Part of the reason for the increase in seepage is the development of a new seepage point below the spillway. This is not unexpected, though the rate of seepage is increasing quite quickly at this point. The location is shown in this image, provided by Focus:



Note two things here. First, the seepage is probably allowing water to flow beneath the spillway, which will be reducing the resistance to erosion. Second, and more importantly, even though the water flow here is just 0.23 cubic metres per second, a substantial amount of scour and erosion has already been initiated. Readers will not need me to describe the implications of this in terms of the likely performance of the spillway when water flow commences.

3. The authorities are now admitting that the dam will probably breach
For the first time, government agencies are admitting that the dam is likely to erode away. For example, Onlinenews is reporting that Lt General Shahid Niaz stated today that the water will be flushed out within 2 to 3 days. This is a good development. Indeed, he is also reported to have said "“Such types of lakes have to ultimately breach and there is no chance for its preservation as a dam or a permanent water reservoir,”

I also note that he stated that "international experts’ help is also being taken on the issue". I wonder who is providing this help, as they haven't spoken to me. I am delighted that they are getting some expert input though.

I'll post again on this tomorrow. The current probable window of overtopping is 22nd to 26th May, though this could easily change to an earlier date.

New satellite image of the Attabad landslide, Pakistan
NASA have released a new ASTER image of the lake that continues to build behind the landslide at Attabad in Hunza, N. Pakistan. Included in this image is the outline of the lake as it was in their image in March, showing the increase in surface area:



A couple of things to note on this image:
1. The red areas indicate vegetation. Given that this area is very close to being a high altitude desert, this indicates the location of cultivated areas. The image clearly illustrates the way in which cropland is now being inundated;
2. The cultivated area on the southern side of the image is Shiskat, which is built on a fan. The image dramatically shows how the recent growth of the extent of the lake has left this area completely isolated. If the lake were to last through the summer then this area is likely to face serious challenges next winter;
3. The danger posed by a further landslide into the lake creating a wave that could rapidly overtop the dam is dramatically illustrated here. There is no shortage of potentially unstable slopes. This is a source of very real worry to me now.

Meanwhile, the seepage rate continues to increase as the lake fills, and a new seepage point emerged yesterday. The graph of measured seepage against time shows the continuing increasing trend:



Whilst the seepage is not yet at worrying levels, the rate of internal erosion from this water flow could increase rapidly as the flow rate rises. Therefore, we need to continue to be mindful of the threat that this seepage potentially poses, especially in the last few days. We cannot rule out the possibility of a piping-induced failure.

The rate of increase of water level has slowed a little over the last few days, probably because the surface area of the lake has dramatically increased. Based on current rate of filling this has pushed the estimated date of water flow through the spillway back a little to 25th-28th May. This may well come forward again if the rate of inflow into the lake increases, which is what we would expect at this time of year. As of yesterday, the freeboard was just 12 metres, with the rate of rise of the water level being about 80 cm per day. Downward excavation of the spillway has now apparently ceased at a total depth of 14 metres (against the planned 30 m); the focus is now on widening the channel. As far as I am aware there is no armouring of the structure to prevent erosion.

[SSridhar]

Sridhar can you change my Id name ti just "Ajit"

AjayT, that id is unavailable; there is already another user. Suggest another name if you want.

[SSridhar]

Pakistan sends a second note verbale on Kishenganga

Pakistan has sent a note verbale to India on May 17 on the disputed Kishanganga project, clearly indicating its intention to set up a Court of Arbitration as provided in the dispute settlement mechanism under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).

This was disclosed here on Thursday by Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit. This is the second note verbale that Pakistan has sent to India in two months over the project in Jammu and Kashmir. The first one was sent on April 9 where it informed India of its decision to invoke Article IX of the IWT to seek World Bank arbitration.

India till date has not responded to Pakistan's first note verbale in which Islamabad has asked New Delhi to decide on its two negotiators for the arbitration process and also inform the World Bank about the need to appoint a neutral expert as the two countries have been unable to resolve differences within the Permanent Indus Waters Commission.

The second note verbale, according to Foreign Office officials, has to do with disputes relating to water flows while the first was about “differences” over technical issues of the project. “We hope India would respond positively so [that] we can proceed ahead and have our differences and disputes over the Kishanganga project resolved amicably.”

[chaanakya]

Tarbela can absorb Hunza lake water
Wednesday, 12 May, 2010

ISLAMABAD: The overflowing Hunza lake does not pose any threat to Tarbela dam which has sufficient capacity to store additional water.

Sources in the Indus River System Authority said the water level in Tarbela currently stood at about 1,388 feet, just above the dead level of 1,378 feet, that meant it still had more than 160 feet of capacity to be filled.

They said the storage level could be raised by 10 feet a day till such time it reached 1,500 feet.

When Tarbela’s storage level crosses 1,500 feet, safety requires it to be filled at the rate of two feet a day.

The sources said Wapda had not intimated it about any decision to release water from the dam in anticipation of any unusual water inflows.

On Tuesday, Irsa increased water releases to Sindh from 60,000 cusec to 70,000 cusec to meet its additional irrigation requirements and Balochistan’s share has been enhanced to 6,000 cusec from 2,000.( preparing the dam for disaster)

The sources said a delay in undertaking a study to assess the impact of rising water level at Hunza had fuelled apprehensions that the lake might overflow and people in large areas in downstream Hunza had moved to other places.

They said the water level at Hunza had increased to 314 feet and the lake had expanded to over 15 kilometres.

The sources said an official of the federal flood commission who had supervised the study had been sent to the National Disaster Management Authority on deputation despite initial opposition by the NDMA.

Army takes over Hunza relief operation

Friday, 21 May, 2010

Two army helicopters started airlifting over 500 people of Gojal who were stranded in Aliabad because of suspension of boat service since Sunday. The army also transported floating bridges to sites where flood could damage the bridges.

He asked the authorities to immediately post a doctor in Shishkat. The Baitul Mal’s chief announced a grant of Rs50,000 for each affected family. The new Chairman of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Lf-Gen (retd) Nadeem Ahmed, visited the affected areas to oversee preparations to deal with an emergency.


According to experts, water inflow into the lake has reached 3,500 cusecs, with seepage of 150 cusecs, increasing the level by an average of 3.4 feet daily.

The 18kms-long lake has gained a maximum depth of 361 feet. About 12 feet of free board remains to be topped by the water from the spillway.

According to the experts, since the structure of the spillway was very narrow, the water level in the lake would continue rising for three days even after start of the release from the lake.

This is the first indication that tarbela dam may be at risk. If water flow is uncontrolled than dam safety would be compromised. There is a urgent need to start releasing water. The landslide dam is prone to another phenomenon , water and soil mixing together forming a colloidal mass without holding capacity. This happens due to seepage which is currently reported at 150 cusecs/day. If water reaches spillway then there will be large mixing leading to rapid deterioration of bonding & holding capacity of the dam. If there is sudden burst, then huge load of water and silt will travel downstream threatening all and sundry. Army has taken over but seems poorly prepared. However the distance to Tarbela dam from the dam burst site may save it by absorbing water before appreciable quantity of water reaches it.Lets hope the best for those people who have lost everything just by being under PK's control.

Any more discussion on Hunza may be OT here.

[chaanakya]

Pakistan Seeks Resolution of India Water Dispute

Jamaat Ali Shah, Pakistan's Indus waters commissioner, said the country is now seeking formal arbitration proceedings—a treaty mechanism that neither side has used before—because it feels India is stalling on the Kishanganga dispute.
[INDIPAK]

Pakistan on Wednesday named two members that would sit on a seven-person arbitration panel. Under the treaty, India has 30 days to name its own two members, and the countries are supposed to jointly name the three other participants. If they can't agree, the World Bank would step in to name them.

Pakistani farmers and Islamist groups have staged protests against India's 330-megawatt hydroelectric project on the Kishanganga, which is a tributary to one of the rivers Pakistan was allotted under the treaty.

Water availability in Pakistan has fallen 70% since the early 1950s to 1,500 cubic meters per capita, according to a report last year by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. India says Pakistan's poor water management is responsible for the water shortages it is experiencing in some regions.

Now Pk has taken two steps at the same time one for NE and another for COA to take care of differences and disputes. If NE is to be appointed than Pk has technical issues to be resolved and the very basis for construction of KG DAM has to be accepted. In such a situation raising issues in COA would become infructuous. Although there is no specific bar in IWT to pursue both course of action, but raising one may preclude other.It looks like PK wants to keep both option open and try to stall the work as diversion tunnel is almost complete.

PK has gone upto the step of Article IX (4) on COA route. So one month time from 20.5.2010 is available to IN to decide on its panel as per IX(5)(c) i.e 20.6.2010.

[chetak]

Being part of Kashmir, these people are in fact India citizens living under foreign occupation. IN should highlight their plight and offer to help distressed people in any ways possible, rehabilitation, engineering and army support to clear the landslide, financial support to restart their lives, as indian citizens. Publicly, PK's apathy towards these people should be highlighted. Too much to ask for, given the thaw from thimpu

chaanakya saar,

Never fear but also don't let the milk of human kindness overflow.

Come the flood, you are bound to have "refugees" who will clamor to be accommodated in India, along with many terrorists and ISI agents tastefully pushed in by the pakis. The resulting cacophony from the DDM will make this easy for them to follow through.

You can bet your bottom dollar or what ever currency that takes your fancy, that arrangements for this have already been made. They are all crafty buggers on the other side, speaking in one voice onlee.

[SSridhar]

Omar Abdullah: assess losses to J&K from IWT

[SSridhar]

India preparing response on Kishenganga project

Under the project, India proposed to divert Kishanganga waters to another tributary of Jhelum, namely Bonar Madmati Nallah, which falls in Wullar Lake and joins the Jhelum thereafter.

Pakistan has objected to this saying that under the provisions of the treaty, India is “under obligation to let flow all the waters of the western rivers and shall not permit any interference with these waters.” It claims that India's plan to divert waters cause obstruction to the flow of Kishanganga.

India maintains that Pakistan has not established any existing hydroelectric or substantial agriculture use, therefore, India was entitled to construct the Kishanganga project.

Pakistan has also raised objection to the depletion of dead storage level in the proposed run of the river Kishanganga project. India maintains that, in the Baglihar dam, also constructed by India in Jammu and Kashmir, the neutral expert had given the verdict that for proper operation and maintenance of the reservoir, depletion below dead storage level was necessary to flush out the silt.

The Pakistan and Indian Indus Commissions are scheduled to hold their annual meeting at the end of the month but the Kishanganga project is not on the agenda so far.

[ajit_tr]

Sridhar can you change my Id name ti just "Ajit"

AjayT, that id is unavailable; there is already another user. Suggest another name if you want.

ajit_tr will do if it possible...
thx.

[chaanakya]

Neutral Expert's verdict on Baglihar is going to haunt PK in its pursuit of settlement of differences and disputes on Kishenganga Dam.

proper operation and maintenance of the reservoir, depletion below dead storage level was necessary to flush out the silt

and in all future projects.

[Prem]

x-post
Ghazwa-e-Pakistan Not So Far Wait & See 4 of 4 sarathipaul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCo4is-X ... re=related

[chaanakya]

Experts warn of high tidal wave in Hunza

Pakistan has a history of formation and catastrophic failure of landslide dams. Ken Hewit, a Canadian geomorphologist, has documented more than 35 natural dams formed in Karakoram-Himlayas of northern Pakistan in the past 500 years. Whereas a great majority of these formed in response to glacier surges, half a dozen of the natural dams formed in response to landslides. Amongst the historic landslide dams, an event at Raikot-Astor (Nanga Parbat) blocked the Indus River for more than six months with a catastrophic breach in June 1841 causing 25 m high devastating floods all the way to Attock. A Sikh army camped downstream from Tarbela was caught unaware resulting in causality of 500 soldiers. Another massive landslide dam and outburst occurred on Hunza River (some 4 km downstream from the site of the present-day Attaabad landslide dam) in 1858 when exceptionally high floods were again recorded at Attock. The same location was site of another landslide dam and outburst flood in 1962 but with lower intensity levels.

Once established that the Attaabad landslide dam is rated potentially unstable, the next question is when and how it is going to fail? Historic data from the Indus and Hunza rivers (1841 and 1858, respectively) suggest that landslide dams in these high-energy rivers have not survived more than 10 months at the maximum, depending upon the number of summer months involved. Glacial-melting induced water inflow in impounded lakes is so enormous that survival of any natural dam is questionable.


.. The 1929 outburst flood from a natural dam on Shyok River was thoroughly documented and monitored up to some 1500 km downstream by Gunn (1930) and Mason (1932). According to these observations, the maximum flood rose to 13-26 m high in narrow gorges and 7-10 m in wide parts of the Indus River valley. Interestingly, flood levels rose to 7-8 m at Tarbela and Attock, respectively 1120 and 1194 km downstream from the outburst dam. This is almost identical to flood levels at Skardu at a distance of 500 km from the breached dam. This implies that flood levels rise 2-3 times higher in narrow gorges compared to places where valley floor is wide. Most importantly, Ken Hewitt (based on observations from Gunn, 1930 and Mason, 1932) concludes that “over much of their course in the mountains, the recorded (outburst) floods reach heights well above peak discharges from summer melting”.

Current NDMA data

Height of Water surface from River bed - 352 Ft
Length of Reservoir - 18.5 Kms
Rise in last 24 hours - 2.48 ft
Seepage of water - 186 Cusecs
Free Board - 3.1 M
Inflow - 2700 Cusecs

Expected time of over flow is likely b/w 23-25 May 2010.

[vic]

Repeating my question

The obvious question would be that "why India did not design for sluice gates at the bottom". If the sluice gates are for emptying the dam and washing away the silt then that would have been better, isn't it? Won't the level upto the bottom of sluice gate sill / dead level pondage will ultimately be silted up? what is the benefit of dead level pondage at all?


Further, IIRC correctly, neutral expert basically made adjustments to the dam that were already suggested/offered by India during the course of negotiations ??

[SSridhar]

Repeating my question

The obvious question would be that "why India did not design for sluice gates at the bottom". If the sluice gates are for emptying the dam and washing away the silt then that would have been better, isn't it? Won't the level upto the bottom of sluice gate sill / dead level pondage will ultimately be silted up? what is the benefit of dead level pondage at all?

vic, that was a decision based on several factors such as silt load, downstream geography, the width of the river at the top and the bottom, international practices etc. It was a very technical decision, but, let me simplify it as I understood.

Let us first have some technical specifications of the BHEP. These were based on the feasibility study conducted in c. 1984.

• Full Height Elevation - 840 m (Full Pond level)
• Dead Storage Elevation - 835 m
• Gross Reservoir Capacity - 395.95 million Cu. m.
• Operating Pond Capacity (Between El. 835 m & 840 m) - 37.5 million cu. m.
• Power intake sill level 818 m.
• Max. flood discharge 16500 cumec

First was the question of the spillway, whether it should be gated or ungated. A spillway is a flood management mechanism. The spillway gently slopes on the other side to safely discharge the maximum flood flow without damage to the project or the hillsides or the downstream areas. Part 3(e) of Annexure D of IWT states the following: (e) If the conditions at the site of a Plant make a gated spillway necessary, the bottom level of the gates in normal closed position shall be located at the highest level consistent with sound and economical design and satisfactory construction and operation of the works.

The downstream of BHEP was a steep and narrow gorge. It was found out that an ungated spillway at the elevation of 840m would have a chute that would be dangerous for the downstream geography because it would have to be long and therefore intrude into the steep slopes below. If that needs to be mitigated, then the height of BHEP would have to be reduced below 840m which would have meant reduced power generation and the project could be uneconomic. For this and other reasons, a gated spillway was needed because in a gated spillway, the crest would be at a lower level and hence the chute and its slope were within the permissible limits of the BHEP topography. That was the first decision.

Once this decision was made, the next decision was regarding the design of the 'gates' themselves. The calculation was 18m (height) X 12m (width) gates. In order to have safe spillways downstream that were not too long for the topography of the region, the gate height was increased to 19m. The crest level therefore became at an elevation of 821 m (840m - 19m gate height because the gates will be normally remain closed). The problem here was that this was a small project and the power intake (at 818m elevation) was way too close to the crest level (of 821m). This would have let the silt enter the intake damaging the blades of the turbine (as it frequently happens at Tarbela, for example).

So silt-control sluices needed to be designed. (Luckily, sluices are always gated structures, otherwise Pakistan would have raised objection to their gates!) Next is the question of the size and location of these sluices. For that, sediment load that needed to be managed had to be determined. It was estimated as about 30 million cubic metre per year at Baglihar. According to these studies, the reservoir is likely to get silted up to El. 840 metre (Full Pond Level) in about forty-six years. It was therefore estimated that the height of the sluice gates had to be 4m with an area of 200 Sq. M. By design calculations, they needed to be placed at an elevation of 801 m. (They need to be below the power intake in any case). However, because of the narrow gorge (and the consequent narrow width of the BHEP), the chute of sluice gates had to be co-located with the spillway chutes. This led to other technical problems of energy dissipation on the chute-side etc. and this idea was dropped.

So, the designers decided to couple the sluices and the overflow spillways into one, a sluice spillway which seems to be recommended modern practice for small projects like BHEP. The sluice spillways are recommended to be placed at mid-way point between the river bed and the FRL, which would have meant locating them at an elevation of ~780m, but due to other considerations, they were placed at 808 m elevation.

The designers are confident that with this design, they can manage the estimated silt load, manage the maximum expected flood discharge safely and operate the project economically for the power that would be generated.

[chaanakya]

Looks like you were in CWC or IIRC, SSridhar handling BHEP. What an astounding reply. Superb.

[SSridhar]

PIC Commissioners to meet

After threatening to move World Bank over Kishenganga project, Pakistan is set to rake up with India the issue of two more hydel power units being constructed in Jammu and Kashmir when Indus Water Commissioners of the two countries meet here on May 31.

“Pakistan has objections to construction of the Uri-II and Chutak hydel power projects and they will raise the issue during regular meeting of the Indus Water Commission,” a source told PTI today.

Pakistan alleges that these two projects violate the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that governs rights of the two countries on six common rivers.

India maintains that there is no violation of the treaty and is expected to demonstrate this at the upcoming meeting.

The 240 MW Uri-II hydel power project is being constructed on Jhelum river in Kashmir valley.

The 44 MW Chutak project is being constructed in Kargil district of Jammu and Kashmir’s Ladakh provice and would harness the hydropower potential of Suru river.

The barrage of the project is located near village Sarzhe and the power house is proposed on right bank of river Suru near village Chutak.

Pakistan claims that the construction of the Chutak project would block 35,000-feet per acre water.

According to Pakistan, India had given it certain time to respond to designs of these two projects but started construction work before the deadline for Pakistan’s response.

Annexure D, Part 3 of IWT states the following:

9. To enable Pakistan to satisfy itself that the design of a Plant conforms to the criteria mentioned in Paragraph 8, India shall, at least six months in advance of the beginning of construction of river works connected with the Plant, communicate to Pakistan, in writing, the information specified in Appendix II to this Annexure. If any such information is not available or is not pertinent to the design of the Plant or to conditions at the site, it will be so stated.
10. Within three months of the receipt by Pakistan of the information specified Paragraph 9, Pakistan shall communicate to India, in writing, any objection that it may have with regard to the proposed design on the ground that it does not conform to the criteria mentioned in Paragraph 8. If no objection is received by India from Pakistan within the specified period of three months, then Pakistan shall be deemed to have objection.

We know that Pakistan does not understand design calculations easily and they go over their head (as Jamaat Ali Shah, PPIC, himself admitted to at Roorkee during the Baglihar deliberations). So, they were probably still groping their way around the Indian design documents when suddenly the three month period elapsed and India started the work. This was most probably the scenario. Applying the Ayub Khan ratio of 1:10, Pakistan might demand 30 months to understand the design.

[SSridhar]

Looks like you were in CWC. . .

Chanaakya, all open source information only.

[neeraj]

In other news

Punjab ‘pulls out’ of Irsa

The government of Punjab has stopped its representative from attending meetings of the Indus River System Authority and has accused Irsa of having turned “blatantly pro-Sindh” and harming the federation.

Steep rise in water losses

As a controversy rages among provinces over their share of water, losses in the irrigation system have increased to 50-60 per cent because of rising temperatures and theft......water losses between Taunsa and Sukkur barrages that stood at about 12,000 cusecs on Saturday suddenly increased to over 35,000 cusecs on Monday.

[neeraj]

PIC Commissioners to meet

According to Pakistan, India had given it certain time to respond to designs of these two projects but started construction work before the deadline for Pakistan’s response.

Me thinks that even if Paki allegations were true, Pakis have missed the deadline so their protests are meaningless now.
Good job GOI.

[chaanakya]

Looks like you were in CWC. . .

Chanaakya, all open source information only.

Well , reasoning may be in public domain, the way of presentation is not.It comes by deep study, few could master.

[chaanakya]

Today's Review of NHPC

Chutak H.E. Project (44MW), Jammu & Kashmir

· Barrage & Power House excavation completed and concreting is in progress.

· HRT excavation completed and lining is in progress.

· Power house excavation completed & 29% concreting completed.

· Other Design, Engineering & Fabrication works are in progress.

· The project is expected to be completed by February, 2011.

.......

6. Uri H.E. Project Stage-II (240 MW), Jammu & Kashmir

· Dam excavation & concreting completed. HRT and Power House excavation completed and concreting under progress.

· TRT excavation almost completed and overt lining in progress.

· Erection of EOT Crane in Service Bay and in Unit-1, 2 & 3 has been completed.

· Other Design & Engineering and fabrication of E&M (Electrical& Mechanical) and HM (Hydro Mechanical) works are in progress.

· The project is expected to be commissioned by February, 2011.

I hope they remain committed to the schedule.None of this is in any violation of IWT.

Projects under construction
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION



Project ---------- State --------- Capacity



Nimoo-Bazgo ---------- Jammu & Kashmir ---------- 45 MW

Chutak ---------- Jammu & Kashmir ---------- 44 MW


Nimoo Bazgo (45 MW) and Chutak (44 MW) located in Jammu & Kashmir state have been registered by CDM Executive Board of United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).


Kishanganga ---------- Jammu & Kashmir ---------- 330 MW

Sewa-II ---------- Jammu & Kashmir ---------- 120 MW

Uri-II ---------- Jammu & Kashmir ---------- 240 MW

[Vipul]

Pakistan writes to World Bank on concerns over Sutlej power project.

Ratcheting up tension with India over water, Pakistan has gone to the World Bank in an attempt to block the 775 mega watt Luhri hydroelectric project being set up in Himachal Pradesh on the Sutlej.

Pakistan has accused India of not abiding by the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and wants all its water concerns to be addressed before the Bank goes ahead with the funding of this project.

“India is benefiting from the flow of eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej). However, the obligation by India with regard to western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) — the waters of which have been allotted to Pakistan — are not being met in letter and spirit of the treaty,” said the Pakistani government in its April 19 letter to the Bank.

Even though the Sutlej is one of three eastern rivers awarded to India under the treaty, Pakistan has indicated to the Bank that Delhi should take its (Pakistan’s) views on projects coming on the eastern rivers.

Pakistan has no ‘locus standi’ on the issue, an official in India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) told HT.

“India is allowed to tap all 33 million acre feet of water from the eastern rivers,” the official said. “It still allows 3 maf to flow into Pakistan. Though the treaty even allows India to compensate for this 3 million maf with water from the western rivers, Delhi hasn’t thought in this direction”, the official said.

“Pakistan is doing all this to divert attention from many factors, including its mismanagement of water resources."

Pakistan's views come at the time when both countries are about to restart their political engagement. The foreign ministers of two countries are set to meet on July 16 in Islamabad to address the post-Mumbai trust deficit and work out the modalities for the future dialogue and to discuss "all issues of mutual concern".

In the past, Pakistan has protested over the Baglihar hydro power project on the Chenab river in Jammu and Kashmir, and has been pushing India to renegotiate the Indus Water treaty.

Pakistan also said India has raised “objections against the construction of Bhasha dam and its funding by the World Bank in Indus river,” which along with two other western rivers, Jhelum and Chenab, are awarded to Pakistan under the 1960 treaty.

[abhishek_sharma]

Indus water: India’s version

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ersion-440

[SSridhar]

Indus water: India’s version

I liked the rebuttal. The Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, H.E. Sharath Sabharwal, ripped apart the bogus Pakistani claims and accusations at the Karachi Chambers of Commerce speech. Now, this letter from the First Secretary there. India is responding to every false claim & lie from Pakistan.

From the above,

The writer states that Pakistan has “lost cases before neutral experts, whereas the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan.”

In the 50 years of the treaty, only once an issue ( Baglihar)was referred to a neutral expert. Therefore, reference to ‘lost cases’ before ‘neutral experts’ does not square up with the reality.

Besides, Baglihar was not a legal issue. It was a technical issue. India was legally allowed to build BHEP. Pakistan challenged India on technical matters.

Paragraph 4 of Part-2 of Annexure F states clearly that "A Neutral Expert shall be a highly qualified engineer . . ."

[SSridhar]

Meanwhile, NHPC continues to add to hydroelectric capacity in J&K and Pakistani woes, BTW.

NHPC is all set to add another 120 MW by next month with the commissioning of Sewa-II Project in Jammu and Kashmir.