Indus Water Treaty

[Pranav]

So John Briscoe is basically arguing that by making the gates below the Dead storage level manipulatable, even for specific uses like flushing - India cant be using them as dead storage level, instead they would be counted as actual storage.

That is clearly wrong. The treaty explicitly mentions gates below dead storage level for sediment flushing. The controversy is only whether the reservoir can be emptied.

[Theo_Fidel]

Yes, Mr. Briscoe is consistently wrong for an engineer.
The ICA clearly allowed gates below dead level for sediment flushing, even draw down is allowed but the only draw down allowed is to the dead-level however, unless in case of unforeseen circumstances. see this extract per Chankya's post. Someone with good legalese should write to the hindu. This is how demented opinions get propagated on that side.

I repeat draw down flushing IS allowed but only to the dead level.

(3) Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant to an extent that would entail depletion of the reservoir below Dead Storage Level.

[SSridhar]

The interim order is inconsequential. India will have to fight out in the CoA during the remaining few months on sedimentation and the quantum of flow downstream of Kishenganga. Sedimentation issue is very important because it affects the viability of all our projects. There is abso;utely no way a CoA can do these two things: take away a provision that exists in the IWT (of low-level gates for sediment control), and moreover, take it away once and for all for all future projects.

[chaanakya]

First o0f all Briscoe's point is non technical and outside the scope of the treaty. The real point which he mentions is

For projects either existing or under construction (about 3,000 MW) the manipulable storage would be able to hold about eight days of average flow and 40 days of low flow. It is this grave threat which makes this issue an existential one for a reasonably nervous Pakistan.

Whether India would use low level gates for manipulating the storage below DSL except for sediment control is a matter of mis-perception. India has not done so far and show no intent to use DSL as manipulative live Storage. BTW Live storage means water that is used for the purposes for which dam is built i.e. power generation and irrigation. Power intake well above DSL would make water below DSL unusable for such purposes.

The mistrust among Pakistanis are of their own doing and India can do little to remove except for some CBMs. There are adequate provisions under IWT to glean as much information as they want .If they want even more RT data they can foot the bill for that and India can provide for such data/information. But nervousness and existential threat exists because of Pakistan's own doings and not because of India. They feel that sometime their misdeeds would break the patient of India and India would retaliate by With holding water through large number of dams and release it at one go to flood them. This is clearly nonsense.

IWT permits gates below Dead Storage level for sediment control . COA has restricted only for draw down flushing which may result in depletion below DSL. There are no other changes for the designs. SO Low levele gates stays and live storage could be used at the start of flooding season to flush the dam using LLG.

Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the
Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant to an extent that would entail depletion of the
reservoir below Dead Storage Level.

From the partial award it is clear that we may use DDF using live storage. That should suffice since position of gates are not being changed.


That issue is not as material as the most important issue of how much water India is required to allow to flow downstream KHEP and how much would be diverted. On that depends the viability of KHEP. In this respect the following decision is important.

India is however under an obligation to construct and operate the Kishenganga Hydro-
Electric Plant in such a way as to maintain a minimum flow of water in the
Kishenganga/Neelum River, at a rate to be determined by the Court in a Final Award.

Diversion is permitted. COA observed regarding Minimum flows

There is thus no disagreement between the Parties that the maintenance of a minimum flow
downstream of the KHEP is required in response to considerations of environmental protection.
The Parties differ, however, as to the quantity of water that would constitute an appropriate
minimum; thus, the precise amount of flow to be preserved remains to be determined by the
Court. The evidence presented by the Parties does not provide an adequate basis for such a
determination, lacking sufficient data with respect to the relationship between flows and
(1) power generation, (2) agricultural uses, and (3) environmental factors downstream of the
KHEP below the Line of Control. Accordingly, the Court finds itself unable, on the basis of
the information presently at its disposal, to make an informed judgment as to whether a
minimum flow of 3.94 m3/s (said to correspond to the lowest recorded flow over a 30-year
period), which India committed to maintain in its operation of the KHEP, is sufficient to
accommodate Pakistan’s right under the Treaty and customary international law to the
avoidance or mitigation of environmental harm.

456. The Court therefore defers its determination of the appropriate minimum flow downstream of
the KHEP to a further, Final Award, to be issued after it has had the benefit of considering
further written submissions on the matter from the Parties.

This is where India has to be on guard.

The other benefit of proceeding with KHEP is that Tulbul Navigation project would bet a breather by additional water being released by diversion from KHEP . India planned a Barrage and Pakis are objecting to it.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/428198/wate ... dia-talks/

Pakistan maintains the barrage is in violation of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). “India has the Wullar Lake and does not need additional water storage,” said an official.

Under the treaty, Pakistan is entitled to water from the three Western rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. Pakistan maintains the construction of Wullar Barrage will convert the natural lake into a man-made storage with a capacity of 0.324 million acre feet (MAF) and adversely affect the flow of water into the country.

India, on the other hand, maintains certain amendments in the design and structure of the barrage can address Pakistan’s reservations. In the earlier rounds of talks, India has said it has the right to build the barrage under the IWT and that the navigation project will only be used to transport water and not as a storage facility.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 794689.cms

According to the original Indian plan, the barrage was expected to be of 439-feet long and 40-feet wide, and would have a maximum storage capacity of 0.30 million acres feet of water.

Pakistan's View: With some 95 per cent of its river water originating or running through Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan can hardly ignore Wullar Barrage. It claims India is violating the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 that was signed after international negotiations.

India's View: Says it is not an effort to divert water flowing into Pakistan. The project is to make the river navigable during summer.

Progress: Pakistan took the case to Indus Waters Commission in 1986, a year later it admitted its failure to resolve the issue. Before Pakistan moved International Arbitral Court, India stopped construction.

Eight rounds of talks have been held till now. The ninth round is being held from July 29, 2004.

[manjgu]

i) @chanakya...what do u mean by "This is where India has to be on guard"?

The way I have understood the award is that both india and Pakis will provide data about what flow constitutes minimum flow required to maintain environmental protection downstream of KHEP. and then COA will determine the flow figure.

ii) about DDF.. ( as a lay person trying to understand the complexities of sediment control).. i have understood that using DDF with live storage ( meaning a higher water level in the reservoir) makes the flushing less effective. Flushing requires a low level of water in the reservoir so that the water current agitates the sediment and forces the sediment on the other side of the reservoir. With water at a higher level in the reservoir, the water current is kind of reduced due to inertia of the large mass of water. ( pl correct me if this understanding is wrong?).

[manjgu]

@chanakya... Also i have been reading up on a tutorial frm IIT KGP on reservoir design and it gives the following definitions. From this the defn of DSL indicates that there are no gates below DSL ( how does this add up to LLG which will deplete reservoir below DSL??). Can i send this document to ur email id?

Full Reservoir Level (FRL): It is the level corresponding to the storage which includes both inactive and active storages and also the flood storage, if provided for. In fact, this is the highest reservoir level that can be maintained without spillway discharge or without passing water downstream through sluice ways.

Minimum Drawdown Level (MDDL): It is the level below which the reservoir will not be drawn down so as to maintain a minimum head required in power projects.

Dead Storage Level (DSL): Below the level, there are no outlets to drain the water in the reservoir by gravity.

Maximum Water Level (MWL): This id the water level that is ever likely to be attained during the passage of the design flood. It depends upon the specified initial reservoir level and the spillway gate operation rule. This level is also called sometimes as the Highest Reservoir Level or the Highest Flood Level.

Live storage: This is the storage available for the intended purpose between Full Supply Level and the Invert Level of the lowest discharge outlet.

The Full Supply Level is normally that level above which over spill to waste would take place. The minimum operating level must be sufficiently above the lowest discharge outlet to avoid vortex formation and air entrainment. This may also be termed as the volume of water actually available at any time between the Dead Storage Level and the lower of the actual water level and Full Reservoir Level.

Dead storage: It is the total storage below the invert level of the lowest discharge outlet from the reservoir. It may be available to contain sedimentation, provided the sediment does not adversely affect the lowest discharge.

Outlet Surcharge or Flood storage: This is required as a reserve between Full Reservoir Level and the Maximum Water level to contain the peaks of floods that might occur when there is insufficient storage capacity for them below Full Reservoir Level.

Some other terms related to reservoirs are defined as follows:

Buffer Storage: This is the space located just above the Dead Storage Level up to Minimum Drawdown Level. As the name implies, this zone is a buffer between the active and dead storage zones and releases from this zone are made in dry situations to cater for essential requirements only. Dead Storage and Buffer Storage together is called Interactive Storage.

Within-the-Year Storage: This term is used to denote the storage of a reservoir meant for meeting the demands of a specific hydrologic year used for planning the project.

Carry-Over Storage: When the entire water stored in a reservoir is not used up in a year, the unused water is stored as carry-over storage for use in subsequent years.

Silt / Sedimentation zones: The space occupied by the sediment in the reservoir can be divided into separate zones. A schematic diagram showing these zones is illustrated

[manjgu]

nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/.../pdf/m4l05.pdf

[chaanakya]

BY being cautious I meant the following:

The assurance given by India during the argument stage.

As per the NESPAK figures which we’ve analysed, the average flow between the KHEP and [the Line of Control] is 4.1 cumecs. So even if I said 3.9 for the minimum, and I add this 4.1, at the [Line of Control] you would have sufficient flow. There would not be a dry period or any time when there is no water in the river. I assure the honourable court that we can’t leave our territory dry; and since we can’t do that, by consequence we can’t leave any of Pakistani territory, which comes later on, dry.

Now any Power Plant including ROR depends on water flow and head obtained. The KHEP is a water diversion flow as India is under obligation to allow sepecific flows below the Plant/Dam

Paragraph 15 of Ann D

Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 17 [excluding periods of filling], the works connected with a Plant shall be so operated that (a) the volume of water received in the river upstream of the Plant during any period of seven consecutive days, shall be delivered into the river below the Plant during the same seven-day period, and (b) in any one period of 24 hours within that seven-day period, the volume delivered into the river below the Plant shall not be less than 30%, and not more than 130%, of the volume received in the river above the Plant during the same 24-hour period. in the river above the Plant during the same 24-hour period [. . .]

But

where a Plant is located on a Tributary of The Jhelum on which Pakistan has any Agricultural use or hydro-electric use, the water released below the Plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another Tributary but only to the extent that the then existing Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use by Pakistan on the former Tributary would not be adversely affected.

Since entire water is proposed to be diverted to another trubutary the stipulation of 30% and 130% may not apply to KHEP but the only restriction would be minimum flow needed for environmental purpose and without adversely affecting the existing use ( not considering NJEP) This minimum flow would determine how much water could be diverted. If it is too high , less water for KHEP and less power generation. As far as NJEP is concerned 14-11 % reduction it would suffer at the least. But not being an existing use, it was not to be factored into determination of Minimum flow.

Now India has assured 3.9CUMSEC flow based on low flow data. Anything over and above might impact plant operation. That is why India needs to be on guard.

The evidence presented by the Parties does not provide an adequate basis for such a determination, lacking sufficient data with respect to the relationship between flows and (1) power generation, (2) agricultural uses, and (3) environmental factors downstream of the KHEP below the Line of Control.

456. The Court therefore defers its determination of the appropriate minimum flow downstream of the KHEP to a further, Final Award, to be issued after it has had the benefit of considering further written submissions on the matter from the Parties. Accordingly, the Court finds itself unable, on the basis of the information presently at its disposal, to make an informed judgment as to whether a minimum flow of 3.94 m3/s (said to correspond to the lowest recorded flow over a 30-year period), which India committed to maintain in its operation of the KHEP, is sufficient to
accommodate Pakistan’s right under the Treaty and customary international law to the avoidance or mitigation of environmental harm.

Regarding LLG below DSL., As applicable in the Treaty, DSl means storage which would not be used for power Generation and is below Live Storage and operating pool. LLG has no relevace here. One can have LLG and yet not operate it except in unforseen conditions and for sediment control COA acknowledges that DDF and LLG are operationally simple and economic design but contends that it is not demonstrated that it is the only design in the context of KHEP and that sluicing would not be effective. As for sluicing, we have to allow the water to pass through during flood season when water is most silt laden. That means we cant store water and utilise plant to the most.

Drawdown means we store water and raise height and then deplete the reservoir to the level of gates and then fill in. This filling is in accordance with treaty. Pakistan is afraid that it would result in flood and more silt release affecting it downstream plant.

In the Court’s view, however, Paragraph 8(d) is neither. This In the Court’s view, however, Paragraph 8(d) is neither. This Paragraph does not prohibit flushing, even in a roundabout fashion, by prohibiting the necessary outlets. Outlets below Dead Storage Level are permitted if “necessary for sediment control.” Nor does Paragraph 8(d) evidence the Parties’ intention to permit drawdown flushing. Outlets below Dead Storage Level can be used to control sediment accumulation through sluicing, without significantly reducing the level of water in the reservoir. Thus, no rule either permitting or proscribing drawdown flushing follows from the terms of Paragraph 8(d)

.....


If a prohibition on drawdown flushing would render any sustainable hydro-electric development impossible, the Court would consider this relevant in approaching any Treaty provision seeming to suggest such a prohibition. In light, however, of the variety of approaches available to manage sediment—not all of which would require the depletion of reservoirs below Dead Storage Level—the Court considers this a matter for further examination in its discussion of the necessity of drawdown flushing.
....

In Dr Morris’s opinion—which the Court also accepts—no significant difference follows from the fact that the KHEP is a Run-of-River Plant located on top of the reservoir created by a high dam, rather than at a low barrage. Where a high dam is being used to raise the elevation of the intake and the corresponding generating capacity—and not to create usable storage behind the dam—the Dead Storage can fill with sediment without consequence. Once the Dead Storage is filled with sediment, the upper reaches of the reservoir would operate identically to a low barrage and could be cleared of sediment through sluicing, without a need to draw down the reservoir.

According to Dr Morris, it is the KHEP’s current intake design—rather than anything inherent in the height of the dam or the size of the reservoir—that prevents the KHEP from simply sluicing sediment like a barrage.

The essence of Dr Morris’s opinion on the feasibility of sluicing at the KHEP site has not been contradicted by India’s experts. Despite Dr Rangaraju’s view that drawdown flushing is “essential,” the Court considers his testimony to establish that drawdown flushing is an appropriate (and perhaps preferable) technique, but not the only possible one.

With reference to drawdown flushing, Dr Rangaraju stated that “nobody can claim that this is the only
technique possible”
and further acknowledged that he had not examined whether sluicing would suffice to control sediment at the KHEP.

520. Similarly, the Court understands the report of Dr Schleiss to state that drawdown flushing is essential for the sustained operation of the KHEP as currently designed, but not to exclude other possible designs that could operate on a different basis. Dr Schleiss’s principal concern involves the encroachment of coarse sediment from the delta at the upper end of the reservoir on the KHEP’s submerged power intake; other sediments would be controlled through “normal spillway operation” (i.e., operation not requiring drawdown) and by venting turbidity currents containing a “high amount of suspended fine sediment.”

In the Court’s view, this is not in fact fundamentally inconsistent with the testimony of Dr Morris, who asserts sluicing is feasible on the basis of alternative intake designs. Ultimately, the Court considers that Dr Schleiss has not established to its satisfaction that another intake design that could operate without drawdown flushing would be technically unworkable

That clearly shows that experst Mr rangarajan and Schleiss could not convince CoA about the essentiality of DDF to the exclusion of other methods of sediment control The Treaty itself provides for LLG and sediment control yet it could not be demonstrated that DDF is the best method.

In fact CoA itself argued about the relative merit of each operations

Although both sluicing and flushing operations may involve reservoir drawdown and will operate more efficiently at lower water levels, the extent of the required drawdown is typically greater for flushing operations; the velocity through the reservoir required to scour accumulated sediment is greater than that required to maintain the suspension of sediment in the incoming flow. Although flushing may be attempted with only partial depletion of a reservoir, this technique is not as efficient as flushing after a complete drawdown and—in light of the need for frequent repetition—is not commonly used. The effects of flushing without any drawdown of the reservoir are generally limited to a narrow cone in the immediate vicinity of the outlet and such an approach is typically used only to clear the area surrounding the intake of a hydro-electric plant.

(b) The context of the Treaty with respect to drawdown flushing Considering the heavy concentrations of sediment released in flushing, it may have significant environmental impacts on the water quality and other aspects of the downstream reaches of the river, particularly in the area immediately below the dam.

Anyway, I hope India challenges this construction of CoA regarding DDF and sediment control and also makes it amply clear that it would not construe it as applicable to future projects as envisaged by CoA. It should also endeavour to minimise the minimum flow needed to be let of downstream KHEP. In any case NJEP would have reduced power generation and high cost of power.

[chaanakya]

Briscoe as usual, indulges in obfuscation . the issue at hand was KHEP and he was talking about BHEP which was a done deal. Initially claimed by Pakistan as victory. Only later it downed upon them that it was a defeat. Same is the case with KHEP> Though here they realise that they have lost. CoA has not stipulated anything on design aspect including LLG . LLG could be operated in unforeseen emergencies such as War??

Dr Morris observation of filling DSl with sediment would make upper level of dam operate as Barrage and sluicing would be effective needs to be contended with as in that case LLG would be inoperative. I am not sure why such nonsensical view was accepted by CoA and not opposed by our experts. In fact CoA also observed that Indian expert was consistently silent when asked in LLG/DDF would fall in domain of NE or not. I am not sure why?

[Theo_Fidel]

Thanx Chanakya, that is a brilliant exposition of the present situation. The hindu should print it in toto.

One additional note. Again I keep coming back to Salal. The COA is wrong in saying that quote '...the dead storage can fill without consequence...'.

There very much are consequences as has been demonstrated at Salal. The dead storage is used to trap the suspended silt and solid in the water column before it is run through the galleries. Himalayan rivers typically show frequent spikes which show 15,000 PPM of sediment. Extreme limits can get to 80,000+ ppm. At that level there is 0.8 kg of soil in 10 kg of water!

Without the dead storage to trap the silt which is then flushed away during draw down flushing all that sediment has been sent through the turbines with catastrophic results. Initially in the early years when India to was learning this the hard way, the hardened steel of the turbine and seal plates would often wear out in 1-2 months! In one sad year one of the turbines wore out in 48 hours flat! Replacement is an expensive many weeks long process.

After long years of experiment India is now able to get the turbines to last a full year and often run the equipment at 5,000 ppm and above occasionally. Ideally the ppm should be 2,000 and below. This is the level Nathpa Jakhri is run at. Without a large dead storage acting as a stilling pool the times the power plant can be run have reduced drastically at Salal with disastrous consequences for India..

[manjgu]

@chankaya... is it possible that LLG/DDF was not allowed in KHEP as the silt load in the river is low? and it was felt that alternate means can accomplish sediment control??

[chaanakya]

@chankaya... is it possible that LLG/DDF was not allowed in KHEP as the silt load in the river is low? and it was felt that alternate means can accomplish sediment control??

No, LLG has not been disallowed. In fact the final design as it is conveyed to Pakistan PPIC remains unchanged. DDF has not been fully allowed ironically as CoA argues that there are other methods for sediment control which could be used even though DDF is the efficient method. Here also as explained, DDF as such is not disallowed. CoA says it should not be operated to an extent that would entail depletion of the reservoir below Dead Storage Level which is expressly prohibited under the treaty except for unforeseen emergency. CoA considers that sedimentation is a known phenomenon and can not constitute unforeseen emergency.

I have some idea that silt load is less at KHEP perhaps 0.1% of what it is at BHEP. KHEP has only 13% of water contributed to K/NJR from the catchment areas above KHEP. Length of the river is less above KHEP and gradient is not much. We would be trapping entire water and only allow minimum flow below KHEP . That is why NJEP would have to suffer reduction in generation no matter what. That project is utterly unviable and Pakistan and donors would be digging its grave after CoA gave go ahead to KHEP. Their only chance was not to allow KHEP.

For silt management some ideas could be as follows. One can construct another ROR dam upstream just for silt management with a bypass channel and depletion channel for silt management. That would be costly. Another idea could be to have a siphon pipes to Wullar lake through the same tunnel through which power intake pipes would run. But one has to see how much silt could be taken by Wullar lake. Our Idea is to trap water and send silt to Pakistan.

[chaanakya]

Thanx Chanakya, that is a brilliant exposition of the present situation. The hindu should print it in toto.

One additional note. Again I keep coming back to Salal. The COA is wrong in saying that quote '...the dead storage can fill without consequence...'.

There very much are consequences as has been demonstrated at Salal. The dead storage is used to trap the suspended silt and solid in the water column before it is run through the galleries. Himalayan rivers typically show frequent spikes which show 15,000 PPM of sediment. Extreme limits can get to 80,000+ ppm. At that level there is 0.8 kg of soil in 10 kg of water!

Without the dead storage to trap the silt which is then flushed away during draw down flushing all that sediment has been sent through the turbines with catastrophic results. Initially in the early years when India to was learning this the hard way, the hardened steel of the turbine and seal plates would often wear out in 1-2 months! In one sad year one of the turbines wore out in 48 hours flat! Replacement is an expensive many weeks long process.

After long years of experiment India is now able to get the turbines to last a full year and often run the equipment at 5,000 ppm and above occasionally. Ideally the ppm should be 2,000 and below. This is the level Nathpa Jakhri is run at. Without a large dead storage acting as a stilling pool the times the power plant can be run have reduced drastically at Salal with disastrous consequences for India..

Of course CoA is totally wrong.

They have gone by Dr Morris idea though not disputing Dr Schleiss Idea on DDF. It is with consequence and often devastating. The issue is KHEP has been conceived as ROR though initially it was a Storage works. They say that for ROR sluicing with partial flushing is enough though not efficient. It is foolish to allow reservoir to be filled by silt upto DSL. But I am not sure why our experts kept quite on one or two crucial issues as revealed in the partial award. My worry is the minimum flow below KHEP should not be more than what is assured by India.


India has not yet used its permitted storage on western rivers. Pakistan would be dying to know where we are actually planning Storage works. Well they would know only when they start construction of their next big ticket dam

[Pranav]

In Dr Morris’s opinion ... the Dead Storage can fill with sediment without consequence. Once the Dead Storage is filled with sediment, the upper reaches of the reservoir would operate identically to a low barrage and could be cleared of sediment through sluicing, without a need to draw down the reservoir.

Does this part of the award make any sense at all?

How would the upper reaches of the reservoir "operate identically to a low barrage" once dead storage is filled with sediment?

Furthermore, would not sluices in the dam wall only affect a small cone around the sluices? How would they have any impact have any impact on the sediment deposited away from the sluices?

I think this Morris chap should be asked to explain himself.

[chaanakya]

You are quite right.

No sense at all.

Bottom is filled with sediment so it would operate as barrage and sluicing could be done.

Very limited impact on sediments deposited away. They think sediment control is not important for ROR dams.

I only wonder about our experts.

[Pranav]

Bottom is filled with sediment so it would operate as barrage and sluicing could be done.

Deposited sediments cannot act as a barrage as far as I can tell ... water would only flow over already deposited sediments.

I only wonder about our experts.

Yep. I think that the whole set up is dominated by non-specialist IAS types whereas what was needed was domain expertise.

[chaanakya]

Bottom is filled with sediment so it would operate as barrage and sluicing could be done.

Deposited sediments cannot act as a barrage as far as I can tell ... water would only flow over already deposited sediments.

See, once the bottom is filled with sediments upper level of dam with gates etc would operate only as barrage and not as Dam. Sluicing is allowing the sediment laden water to pass undisturbed at the dam bed level by opening gates. Newly arriving Sediments dont get a chance to settle down. This would have one more effect. Since sediments dont get a chance to settle down, during flood season Weir intake for KHEP would get sediment laden water for its power plant causing damage to blades and other equipments.

[manjgu]

@chanakya...what is this 'ambulatory' thingy in the award? something to do with KHEP and NHEP ?? could u demystify it?

Are u based in delhi??

[Pranav]

See, once the bottom is filled with sediments upper level of dam with gates etc would operate only as barrage and not as Dam. Sluicing is allowing the sediment laden water to pass undisturbed at the dam bed level by opening gates. Newly arriving Sediments dont get a chance to settle down. This would have one more effect. Since sediments dont get a chance to settle down, during flood season Weir intake for KHEP would get sediment laden water for its power plant causing damage to blades and other equipments.

Does it really work that way? If you open the sluice gates, is it not true that water in most of the reservoir would be still, and only the water in the vicinity of the sluice gates would have significant velocity. So it should be possible for the sediment to settle everywhere except near the sluice gates. Which means a small cone near each sluice gate would be clear, and everywhere else sediment would be deposited.

[chaanakya]

See, once the bottom is filled with sediments upper level of dam with gates etc would operate only as barrage and not as Dam. Sluicing is allowing the sediment laden water to pass undisturbed at the dam bed level by opening gates. Newly arriving Sediments dont get a chance to settle down. This would have one more effect. Since sediments dont get a chance to settle down, during flood season Weir intake for KHEP would get sediment laden water for its power plant causing damage to blades and other equipments.

Does it really work that way? If you open the sluice gates, is it not true that water in most of the reservoir would be still, and only the water in the vicinity of the sluice gates would have significant velocity. So it should be possible for the sediment to settle everywhere except near the sluice gates. Which means a small cone near each sluice gate would be clear, and everywhere else sediment would be deposited.

You can empty the barrage /Dam upto dead storage level but not below that. Once DSL is filled up with sediment you cant empty it without opening LLG. But depletion below DSL is not allowed even though gates are allowed below DSL for sediment control. That means you can operate upper level gates and dam would get filled slowly with sediments and reservoir bed level would rise upto DSL mark. From that time onward it would be only sluicing and flushing operation using Live storage and Operating pool storage. Elsewhere sediment would desposit due to inefficiency of the operation. CoA knew this but not our experts. It reduces Dam efficiency as Sediments would have to be cleared from Live storage area but experts did not talk about it. CoA non-nonchalantly talks about filling up of DSl with sediments and then operate it as Barrage agreeing with Dr Schleiss opinion. You are right in that Sluicing would not remove sediments and and that there would be narrow cone near the gates and that there is a chance that dam life would be reduced. But CoA was not overly impressed by this. Our experts stated that

to drawdown flushing, Dr Rangaraju stated that “nobody can claim that this is the only technique possible” and further acknowledged that he had not examined whether sluicing would suffice to control sediment at the KHEP

What one can say when you have example of Salal dam and NE opinion.

[vic]

Perhaps GOI could not give away Siachin so they sent an idiot to testify on behalf of India to give away our rights to power generation

[chaanakya]

Ambulatory approach is a legalistic interpretation of any provision of treaty in which conditions satisfying the provisions are treated as dynamic or changing as against the Static approach where a condition is satisfied or not satisfied during the cutoff period. India calls this approach as Critical period approach in the context of IWT.

This was used for interpretation of the concept of the then existing use of Agricultural or Hydro-electric uses of Pakistan which would determine the quantum of water to be released so as not to affect them.

Pakistan favoured Dynamic interpretation of the then existing use. Under this their intention to develop NJHEP and other future agricultural use thought of would also get covered and water released by India must take into account those uses which would otherwise come into existence during the construction and operation of plants. I am sure one can see the illogicality of such an interpretation.

On the other hand India advocated critical period approach. When firmed up design is communicated to Pakistan in accordance with provisions of treaty ( six months prior to start of the construction) giving design and operational details and Pakistan has three months to respond , the existing use at the end of such a period would alone be considered.

CoA adopted a middle approach. There were several design changes by India from the date of first communication. Meanwhile Pakistan also announced its intention to construct NJHEP. Indian design, award of contract etc got firmed up sometime in 2004-06 and Pakistan got its act together in 2007-08 which indicated its commitment to NJHEP. Hence NJEHP was not the existing use as far as KHEP is concerned.

CoA rejected two critical period which can indicate firm intention of Parties.
1. Completion of construction
2. Designs of plant are communicated.

Pakistan did not contradict Indian observation that there are no significant existing agricultural use. The important point was Hydro-electric use (NJHEP). CoA found that Indian firm intention crystallised prior to Pakistan intention for NJHEP.
For Pakistan firm commitment was in 1988 and for India it was 1971. But taking a mixed approach CoA found that during 2004-06 India demonstrated serious intent to construct KHEP while by 2007 Pakistan had not received cabinet clerance which it got by Jan 2008. Hence it is not an existing use.

CoA took ambulatory approach to decide the period during which india started working on concept of KHEP and then went into critical period approach to determine whose intention was firmed up as per treaty requirement.

This may have some lessons for us in firming up plant construction and communicating designs and initiating works on plants such as getting statutory clearances, Govt approvals, financing and tendering etc.

[manjgu]

so what u r saying can be stated as : since india demonstrated intention of KHEP prior to pakis we need not cater to requirements of NHEP and only ensure that environmental flows + exisiting usage water is passed on to pakis.

Had the pakis demonstrated intention earlier to KHEP what would have been the change? ( then we would have to cater to NHEP+environment+existing usage)?

Q) How has NHEP been impacted by this decision? though we dont know the final award still. ( quantum of flow).

[manjgu]

the design of KHEP must have been made with a certain flow in mind say 100 units. if the award gives a flow of say 80 ( meaning more water to pakis then as per design) , would that not constitute a loss? ( and how can india minimise the loss??)

[chaanakya]

so what u r saying can be stated as : since india demonstrated intention of KHEP prior to pakis we need not cater to requirements of NHEP and only ensure that environmental flows + exisiting usage water is passed on to pakis.

Had the pakis demonstrated intention earlier to KHEP what would have been the change? ( then we would have to cater to NHEP+environment+existing usage)?

Q) How has NHEP been impacted by this decision? though we dont know the final award still. ( quantum of flow).

No I am not saying that. It is CoA is saying. I would have taken the first confirmation letter to Pakistan and the six month period as sufficient.

Impact on NJHEP

Pak estimate

---Avg Flow reduction at Nauseri ----- Avg Energy production reduction at NJHEP

Period: ---oct-Mar ----Water 33% Power: 35%
-----------Apr-Sept: -Water: 11% Power: 6%

Annual: 0000Water:14% -----Power: 13%

India estimate

---Avg Flow reduction at Nauseri ----- Avg Energy production reduction at NJHEP
Period: Oct-Mar --Water 29.88% --Power: 29.9%
---------Apr-Sept: Water: 4.59%------- Power: 4.6%

Annual: Water:11.2% ---------Power: 11.2%

If NJHEP was treated as existing use due to demonstration of firm intention earlier than India then Indian plant would have to provide for that.

[chaanakya]

the design of KHEP must have been made with a certain flow in mind say 100 units. if the award gives a flow of say 80 ( meaning more water to pakis then as per design) , would that not constitute a loss? ( and how can india minimise the loss??)

Yes that would be some loss. and that is why I asked to be on guard . India has assured 3.94 Cumsec but CoA would determine it in final award and has asked India and Pakistan to give data to determine it.

[Pranav]

Here is a company that makes low cost cutter-suction dredgers, which have the capacity to remove about 1 foot of sediment from a 1 hectare area every day - http://www.piranhapump.com/industrial_dredges.html

With such technology readily available there is really no excuse for not being able to manage sediment in the J&K projects, despite the CoA verdict.

[chaanakya]

Water row: Govt objects to Indian hydel projects on Chenab

ISLAMABAD:

Pakistan and India found themselves in another water rights row on Thursday after the former objected to the construction of three hydropower projects by the latter on the Chenab River. The development comes on the heels of a partial award on India’s Kishanganga Dam announced by the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) in Pakistan’s favour.

According to sources, Pakistan and India are set to conduct high level talks over the three projects on March 23. An Indian technical team, led by the Indian water commissioner, will reach Lahore tomorrow to meet the Pakistani team, led by the Indus Water Commissioner Asif Baig.

Baig confirmed that the two sides had agreed to discuss Pakistan’s objections against the projects.

The sources told The Express Tribune that Pakistan had raised objections over the designs of the 850MW Rattle, 120MW Miyar and 48MW Lower Karnai hydropower projects after they were shared by India.

“We have objected to the designs as they are not in line with the parameters determined by the Indus Water Treaty,” said a senior government official.

India’s proposed 850MW Rattle plant was originally designed as a 690MW plant. Its size was increased following revised water flow studies, conducted by the Indian Central Water Commission. The project has already received the approval of the apex committee of the Indian union ministry of environment.

Meanwhile, New Delhi has awarded the contract for constructing the Miyar plant. The project’s planned site is on the right bank of the Chenab river near Udaipur town.

While the rival nations are expected to try and defuse the row over the three projects, water issues are expected to worsen as India plans to construct 155 hydropower projects on the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rivers.

According to the Indus Waters Treaty, signed between Pakistan and India in 1960, Pakistan was allowed to use the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab rivers, while India was allowed to use Ravi, Sutlej and Beas.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 22nd, 2013.

Theek Hai Bhai

[chaanakya]

Asit K Biswas : Mon Mar 04 2013, 02:16 hrs
The Kishanganga dispute is the symptom of a fraying Indus Waters Treaty

On February 18, the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague gave an interim judgment on the on the Kishanganga dispute between India and Pakistan. Indian plans to divert water from the Kishanganga had been held up by Islamabad's objection that they violated the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The treaty had worked reasonably well for four decades, even when the two countries went to war. However, the increase in population in the two countries, accelerating economic activities, advances in technology and poor water management on both sides of the border have put the treaty under considerable strain over the last decade.

Take India. In 1960, when the treaty was signed, it had a population of 435 million. Now, the population is almost 1.25 billion. In addition, water demands in both the countries have exploded, as have electricity requirements. Poor water management practices have meant that both the countries are using far more water than necessary, and water bodies within and around urban centres are heavily contaminated with known and unknown pollutants. Both countries are trying to get additional water and energy to meet their burgeoning needs.

This is the second major dispute between the two countries over the IWT. The first was over the Baglihar dam, and was adjudicated by a neutral expert appointed by the World Bank. On May 17, 2010, Pakistan initiated arbitration proceedings on the Kishanganga hydroelectric project. India has plans for a 330 MW project on the Kishanganga River, a tributary of the Jhelum. Work was started in 1992 by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation. The Rs 3,600 crore project constitutes a dam on the river in the Gurez Valley, near Bandipur. The plan is to divert the winter flow of the Kishanganga to Bonar Madmati Nallah, another tributary of the Jhelum.

Pakistan has raised two legal issues. First, it claimed that the inter-tributary diversion violated the IWT, and that it would reduce its share of water by 15 per cent. Second, it questioned whether India could draw down the water level at run-of-the-river plants below the dead storage level to flush out sediments.

In June 2011, members of the court visited India and Pakistan. Both countries will find some aspects of the court's interim judgment in their favour. India can proceed with the construction required for the project, but only through a temporary bypass tunnel. It has to refrain from building a permanent structure that could inhibit the full flow of the river. The final judgment will decide on the minimum river flow that must reach Pakistan. India will not be allowed to draw the water level down below the dead storage level to flush out sediments. The court felt that this does not fall within the purview of "unforeseen emergency", as defined in the existing treaty. After all, this technique of desilting was not available when the treaty was signed in 1960.

The court further stipulated that this decision would be a precedent for future projects only and would not impact existing projects or those under implementation.It has asked both India and Pakistan to submit additional data by June 2013, so that it can decide on a minimum flow regime and diversion parameters. The final judgment will be given in December 2013.

From India's side, the interim judgment poses three challenges. First, until the final judgment decides on the quantum of water that could be diverted for hydropower, the economic costs of generating hydropower from the Kishanganga remain uncertain. If the court stipulates a high minimum flow, the project may have to be abandoned or become a white elephant.

Second, what are the implications of the Baglihar interpretation for the present judgment? The Baglihar judgment allowed India to draw down water below the dead storage level under certain conditions. However, the international court did not treat Baglihar as a precedent. The Indus system carries a large amount of sediment. Unless this can be effectively flushed out at regular intervals, generating power will not be an economic proposition.

Third, as an upper riparian state in the Indus river system, India has certain advantages. Nevertheless, with reference to China and Nepal, India is the lower riparian state. Thus, it is essential that India maintains good relations with both its upstream and downstream neighbours on international rivers. All these countries need to develop cordial ties, and behave responsibly and fairly, so that all development decisions are acceptable to the countries concerned. Otherwise, there will be numerous disputes that drag on for years, hampering the process of development.

The writer is distinguished visiting professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore, and founder, Third World Centre for Water Management, Mexico

[chaanakya]

India asked to change design of Kishanganga project

LAHORE: Pakistan has pressed the visiting Indian Indus commissioner to change the design of the Kishanganga Hydro Plant in accordance with a partial award issued by the International Court of Arbitration.

A 10-member Indian delegation which left for home on Tuesday said they had referred the award to their seniors and were waiting for their response. They will be able to make changes after the higher authorities agree.

According to sources in the Pakistan Indus Commissionerate, the Indians have referred the award probably to their lawyers and are waiting for their clearance.

During talks with the Indians, the Pakistani officials also raised the Wullar Barrage issue and demanded a “tour of inspection” at the earliest to ascertain whether India was carrying out any construction or not.

Apart from the two projects, both sides also held their first meeting on three projects recently launched by India — Rattle, Miyar and Kalnai water and hydro projects on the western rivers in India-held Kashmir.

Pakistan had raised objection to the projects and the Indians had responded. In the current meeting, Pakistan substantiated its objections and the Indian delegation tried to defend the designs of the projects.

Both sides stuck to their positions but decided to continue talks.

According to Pakistan’s version, 48MW Kalnai Hydro Electric Project could allow India to utilise the flows of Lower Kalnai River, a tributary of the Chenab River, in Kistwar district of Jammu and Kashmir. The project envisages construction of a 49-metre-high dam with a 4.56km water conductor system.

The Indians have also planned 850MW Rattle plant. The project has been approved by the apex committee of the Indian ministry of environment.

According to Jamaat Ali Shah, former Indus commissioner of Pakistan, the Indus Water Basin Treaty has a grey area: it does not specifically stop India from construction (over shared rivers) even if objections are raised by Pakistan.

“With construction going on the spirit of the treaty gets defeated as ground realities are changed and the changes in turn are used to justify the project at later stages. Both sides need to hammer out a mechanism to stop constructions at least during the objection period.”

Both sides should seek to address objections within a particular timeframe, he proposed: “The Indians are in habit of delaying response to Pakistani objections and use that time for construction of the projects. This has been a pattern of Indian behaviour.

And this is done at the cost of Pakistan and the treaty,” he said.

The Award has not made any recommendation in respect of design . It has withdrawn earlier interim order which restricted construction activities on river bed level. Now India can proceed with the construction with the design finalised.

Let our lawyers study the design changes suggested by Pakis and see if it is indeed an act of questioning the award it self and if Pakistan is questioning the authority of the COA and is there any avenue left to Pakis to address their legal challenges to the award. And if their requests conform to IWT at all.

If Pakis are questioning the award itself then what is the validity of award and whether India should adhere to it in respect of some aspects which seems in contradiction to IWT and should India raise the same issue with PPIC and ask Pakis to also indicate to which forum they intend to approach.

To Pakis, please read this from the Award

This Partial Award imposes no further restrictions on the construction and operation of the
Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant, which remain subject to the provisions of the Treaty as
interpreted in this Partial Award.

Done Deal Bhai. Theek Hai.

[chaanakya]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2013_pg3_6


Cant help if some Indians fall into the trap of thinking of a Joint IRS management mooted out by Pakis. At the time of negotiations the original idea was rejected and accordingly IWT was drafted. It has not yet outlived its utility.

However , if we want to solve this problem, we have to solve Pakistan Riddle. Once we understand that and solve that Riddle , our issues would become less complicated.

Aid and Assisi in Accelerated Implosion. What we need is either a merger with India or a demerged provinces of Pakistan.

Once tension over the water issue becomes public, people from both sides start justifying their position against the ‘other’. Not falling into any sort of trap and being honest to my discipline, I argue that to come out from the grip of future crisis there is the urgent need to consider the entire IRS as a single unit. This was proposed even by David Linlithel, whose visit to the region led to mediation by the World Bank and successful negotiation of the IWT between India and Pakistan. Given the immaturity of two nation-states, to outdo the partition of IRS is a difficult task but, pragmatically, it can be the only effective way to address the growing water problem in the catchment areas of the IRS. This is only possible when the two countries are determined to improve their bilateral political relations. Once this happens conflicts over water can be jointly managed; otherwise, one country will celebrate its pyrrhic victory and the other will keep training its innocent youth for a ‘water jihad’. In this entire process, the losers will be the people from both sides of the border, who are highly dependent upon water from the tributaries of the IRS.

To conclude, if judiciously used and objectively thought, water bodies can act as a source for peace and cooperation between India and Pakistan. If, not then the two immature modern nation-states can even go for war or at least a military stand-off over this issue because they like to fight no matter what the issue and consequence is.

[pankajs]

[url=http://dawn.com/2013/03/27/india-asked- ... a-project/]According to Jamaat Ali Shah, former Indus commissioner of Pakistan, the Indus Water Basin Treaty has a grey area: it does not specifically stop India from construction (over shared rivers) even if objections are raised by Pakistan.

It is not a grey area it is a black and white area and it is there by design. Otherwise all Indian projects could be stopped just by posing any objection even flimsy one.

The Award has not made any recommendation in respect of design . It has withdrawn earlier interim order which restricted construction activities on river bed level. Now India can proceed with the construction with the design finalised

IMHO, they mean the low level draw-down flushing arrangement that India must have in the design has to be removed.

To that we must wait for the final reward before incorporating any changes to the design. Even after that we must protect the low level flushing mechanism by giving an undertaking, written if required, that it will not be used except under exceptional circumstances as provided by the treaty and in consultation with Pakistan.

If we can prevail upon this point for this project, all future projects can incorporate the same under similar stringent promise. After all this project does not seem to have much silt problem and by the time it becomes necessary to invoke the exceptional guarantee under the treaty a lot of water would have flown down the Indus and a lot of project would have been completed.

Once the facility to flush is incorporated in the design and the key to the flushing gates are in our hand anything can happen....we could invoke the clause giving safety of the dam as the reason or just plain disregard paki protestations without even giving any reasons. After all, promises are meant to be broken.

Hope our lawyers insist on FULL implementation of the treaty without any re-interpretation of its provision including our right to emergency draw-down flushing which would require such a mechanism to be built in.

[chaanakya]

IMHO, they mean the low level draw-down flushing arrangement that India must have in the design has to be removed.
.

The Award contains no such stipulation. Final Award will only determine the minimum quantity of water to be released downstream based on data yet to be submitted by either part. IWT allows Low level gates to be operated in case of unforeseen emergency. The Award says that India can not use draw down flushing to the extent of depletion of water below DSL. Other than that there is no restriction whatsoever. They can take a hike in Siachen just before Avalanche strikes.

These are the conditions

(a) The works themselves shall not be capable of raising artificially the water level in
the Operating Pool above the Full Pondage Level specified in the design.
(b) The design of the works shall take due account of the requirements of Surcharge
Storage and of Secondary Power.
(c) The maximum Pondage in the Operating Pool shall not exceed twice the Pondage
required for Firm Power.
(d) There shall be no outlets below the Dead Storage Level, unless necessary for
sediment control or any other technical purpose ; any such outlet shall be of the
minimum size, and located at the highest level, consistent with sound and
economical design and with satisfactory operation of the works.

(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.

(f) The intakes for the turbines shall be located at the highest level consistent with
satisfactory and economical construction and operation of the Plant as a Run-of-River Plant and with customary and accepted practice of design for the designated
range of the Plant’s operation.

Do they want to go to NE for design aspect????

[pankajs]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2013_pg3_6

Cant help if some Indians fall into the trap of thinking of a Joint IRS management mooted out by Pakis. At the time of negotiations the original idea was rejected and accordingly IWT was drafted. It has not yet outlived its utility.

Agree. A Joint IRS will be a disaster for India and we should not be sucked into this false co-operation. The joint IRS will in effect block all development in Indian portion of Kashmir by giving a veto to the pakis over all development in the basin. If any proof is required, all one has to do is look at the stalled hydro projects within Pakistan.

As it is the pakis are trying their level best to shutdown all development on the Indian side even when they don't have a veto. They have tried to muddy the issues at stake by blatantly claiming all guarantees given to India under the treaty as loopholes. Why would you want to hand them a veto?

[pankajs]

IMHO, they mean the low level draw-down flushing arrangement that India must have in the design has to be removed.
.

The Award contains no such stipulation. Final Award will only determine the minimum quantity of water to be released downstream based on data yet to be submitted by either part. IWT allows Low level gates to be operated in case of unforeseen emergency. The Award says that India can not use draw down flushing to the extent of depletion of water below DSL. Other than that there is no restriction whatsoever. They can take a hike in Siachen just before Avalanche strikes.

<snip>

Do they want to go to NE for design aspect????

I do not have the design of the dam and will go by what you have stated. If there exists in the design, a gate below the DSL, the pakis are using the above highlighted portion of your comments, to have that gate removed.

I have obviously assumed that such a gate below the DSL exists and further that is the target of the pakis. All conjecture on my part for I have no way of knowing what is in the design or what the pakis have in mind.

Of course, I am basing on my guess work on the fact that the Pakis are very concerned about draw-down flushing, they are asking for design changes and they point to the partial award to justify their demand.

[chaanakya]

No, here the point is that IWT does not debar low level gates for use in unforeseen emergencies. The KHEP does have low level gates. The only stipulation is that water level should not be depleted below DSL. But gates are needed for unforeseen emergencies hence can not be prohibited from building it but of course operational; restrictions will be there. As such the Award has no design stipulations. Prohibition on DDF is legal and operational not constructional. In Baglihar , it was design aspect where NE had decided intake height and level etc. That is not the issue here. That is why I asked if they intend to raise it before NE.

[chaanakya]

Design of KHEP is indicated in the Award document.

[pankajs]

No, here the point is that IWT does not debar low level gates for use in unforeseen emergencies. The KHEP does have low level gates. The only stipulation is that water level should not be depleted below DSL. But gates are needed for unforeseen emergencies hence can not be prohibited from building it but of course operational; restrictions will be there. As such the Award has no design stipulations. Prohibition on DDF is legal and operational not constructional. In Baglihar , it was design aspect where NE had decided intake height and level etc. That is not the issue here. That is why I asked if they intend to raise it before NE.

I agree with you assessment and we have to have the provision of low level gates for "unforeseen emergencies". My point is that the pakis will read the partial award especially the quote below and try to argue therefore that low level are NOT permissible AT ALL and need to be removed from the design. We will have another round of circus if the final award does not touch upon this point. From the award document

Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant to an extent that would entail depletion of the reservoir below Dead Storage Level.

[chaanakya]

My point is that the pakis will read the partial award especially the quote below and try to argue therefore that low level are NOT permissible AT ALL and need to be removed from the design. We will have another round of circus if the final award does not touch upon this point. From the award document

Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant to an extent that would entail depletion of the reservoir below Dead Storage Level.

It means that we can use DDF but only to an extent that does not entail depletion below DSL.
Award does not say anything about LLG.
Pakis will be Pakis , no matter what. Are we not ready for yet another round of Objections?

Page 96/97 of the award. It has Schematic diagram of the Dam and Spillway and shows position of LLG

[pankajs]

Thanks!

Did a little googling and this is what I found
Kishanganga award an achievement, says Pakistan - Hindu Dated: March 16, 2013

The Court of Arbitration’s clear interpretation prohibiting India from lowering the reservoir levels below the Dead Storage Level also provides Pakistan “strong grounds for challenging India’s conventional low-level orifice spillways in the design for sediment management and reservoir maintenance purposes,” he added.

As I had suspected they are going to challenge the LLO/LLG design now!