Supreme Court Judgment May 7, 2014 in Mullaperiyar Dam Dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala

Supreme Court Judgment May 7, 2014 in Mullaperiyar Dam Dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala:
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/41511.pdf

The judgment portion is reproduced below:
"221. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that Tamil Nadu is
entitled to the reliefs as prayed in para 40 (i) and (ii) of the suit. Consequently,
it is declared that the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment)
Act, 2006 passed by the Kerala legislature is unconstitutional in its application
to and effect on the Mullaperiyar dam. The 1st defendant – State of Kerala – is
restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from applying and enforcing
the impugned legislation or in any manner interfering with or obstructing the
State of Tamil Nadu from increasing the water level to 142 ft. and from
carrying out the repair works as per the judgment of this Court dated
27.2.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 386/2001 with connected matters.
222. However, to allay the apprehensions of Kerala- though none
exists - about the safety of the Mullaperiyar dam on restoration of the FRL to
142 ft., a 3-Member Supervisory Committee is constituted. The Commmittee
shall have one representative from the Central Water Commission and one
representative each from the two States – Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The
representative of the Central Water Commission shall be the Chairman of the
Committee. The Committee will select the place for its office, which shall be
provided by Kerala. Tamil Nadu shall bear the entire expenditure of the
Committee.
223. The powers and functions of the Supervisory Committee shall be
as follows:
(i) The Committee shall supervise the restoration of FRL in the
Mullaperiyar dam to the elevation of 142 ft.
(ii) The Committee shall inspect the dam periodically, more
particularly, immediately before the monsoon and during the
monsoon and keep close watch on its safety and recommend
measures which are necessary. Such measures shall be carried
out by Tamil Nadu.
(iii) The Committee shall be free to take appropriate steps and issue
necessary directions to the two States - Tamil Nadu and Kerala –
or any of them if so required for the safety of the Mullaperiyar
dam in an emergent situation. Such directions shall be obeyed by
all concerned.
(iv) The Committee shall permit Tamil Nadu to carry out further
precautionary measures that may become necessary upon its
periodic inspection of the dam in accordance with the guidelines
of the Central Water Commission and Dam Safety Organisation. "

Talking Sense on Mullaperiyar Dam Issues

Ramaswamy R Iyer is Research Professor at the Center for Policy Research, New Delhi. He was formerly Secretary, Water Resources in Government of India. He is an authority on water resources management. He authored the book 'Water: Perspectives, Issues, Concerns (2003)' published by Sage Publications. His detailed profile can be seen at:
http://www.cprindia.org/users/ramaswamy-r-iyer

His article titled 'Towards Good Sense on Mullapperiyar' published by Economic and Political Weekly (Vo. 42, No. 1, January 6-12, 2007) analyzed the Mullapperiyar dam issues as obtaining then between Tamilnadu and Kerala in an objective and non-partisan manner. He also proposed possible solutions.

1. Safety Issues:
As regards safety issues, he wrote: 'With due respect for experts and subject to correction, we cannot be as confident about a 111-year old dam as we might be about a 20-year old or even a 40-year old dam.... A dam that is over a 100 years old must be presumed to be nearing the end of its useful life. Perhaps it can be strengthened and made to work for a further 10 or 20 years, but we must now begin to consider the phasing out of the project over a period of time. This needs careful planning but the process must begin now'.  He does not feel that dam safety is a matter for judicial determination.

He does not support building a new dam. According to him, we must 'rectify a historic blunder and restore the river to its original natural form and flow.'

As regards raising of the water-level to 142', he asks why not let the status quo remain and let Tamil Nadu examine her water needs and water utilization efficiency.

He also feels that Tamil Nadu must try to reassure Kerala on the safety of the dam and that safety must be accepted by Kerala. He suggested a joint committee with experts acceptable to both sides to examine the matter.

2.  Kerala's Main Grievance:
He feels that Kerala's main grievance is 'a sense of historic injustice' and that Tamilnadu must remove or reduce that grievance by giving a fair share of the benefits to Kerala.

3. Action Plan
His further suggestions and action plan:
1) People of either State must stop demonising the people of the other State
2) Civil society initiatives as in the Cavery case must be tried
3) The two State Governments must talk and refrain from going to Courts. They must come to an amicable settlement of the issues.
4) Reassess the earlier agreements and arrive at settlements that are 'manifestly fair and acceptable to both sides'.
5) Tamilnadu should promote better water management, to get more out of available water, assuming the water level will be 136 ft. At the same time, concerns of Tamil Nadu for getting water for its genuine needs must be addressed.
6) Experts must determine risks and impact of raising the water level
7) The two governments must begin the process of examining the eventual phasing out of the Mullaperiyar dam and exploring alternatives.

Mr Iyer has reiterated the same ideas in his recent article published by 'the Hindu'
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2755370.ece?homepage=true

Sensible suggestions. Will both sides put aside emotions and political rhetoric and listen to Prof Ramaswamy R Iyer? First, the current tense situation must be defused and both sides must respect democratic norms and start talking for mutual benefit.

-Joseph Ponnoly

The Problem and the Solution: Kerala vs. Tamilnadu

The Deccan Chronicle  report of December 12, 2011 'Why Tamilnadu says no and Kerala yes'  deals with the Mullaperiyar problem and the solution, giving opposing perspectives.  Mr M.K.Parameswaran nair, head of Kerala Special Cell on Mullaperiyar presents the Kerala view point while the opposing view supporting Tamilnadu is presented by Dr. KC Thomas, fomer Chairman of Central Water Commission, Government of India.  Further details at:
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/south/mullaperiyar-why-tamil-nadu-says-no-and-kerala-yes-323

The opposing viewpoints are reorganized below:

Arguments by Mr M.K. Parameswaran Nair, head of Kerala Special Cell on Mullaperiyar 
The Problem:
Constructed in 1895-97 when dam technology was in its infancy, (Mullaperiyar) dam suffers from design and construction aspects. Its hearting is lime surkhi concrete with 3.125 parts stone and 1 part mortar. It’s a composite gravity dam, which cannot be classified as a homogenous gravity dam, liable to theoretical analysis using current standards.

Morvi dam disaster in 1979 created serious concern among engineers and people about inadequacies of spillways of dams’ in India. People are very much apprehensive about the possible occurrence of a cascading disaster like Morvi.

Continuous leaching may have washed out quantities of cementing material leaving hollows in the structure which may eventually weaken the dam. Dam has become heterogeneous.

Pre-1986 dam safety analysis values were arbitrarily supplied by TN and unreliable. The inner core density could be much lower than the value of 135 lb/ cft assumed by CWC. Seepages and opened cavities must be naturally more in lower depths below 104 ft, the silt level of the tunnel. No effective curative work had been carried out as the water level in the reservoir cannot go below 104 ft.

For lowering the spillway crest level from +142 ft to + 136 ft, blasting was done near the already existing dam. Vibrations of such blasts might have adversely affected the strength of the dam.

Mullaperiyar cannot be analyzed by the standard gravity dam method analysis as it is not a homogenous structure.

A study by Dr Bhaba and Prof R N Iyengar had indicated that dam is unsafe. Prof Iyengar adopted a value of 0.16 g (considering the Uttarkashi earthquake) and 0.4738 g (considering Koyna earthquake) for values of seismic acceleration considering the possibility of similar earthquakes to happen in Mullaperiyar region.
Dr D.K. Paul of earthquake engineering department IIT Roorkee identified 22 major faults in a radius of 300 km around Mullaperiyar site. Thekkady-Kodaivannalur fault line potentially the most devastating.
The fault is capable of producing an earthquake of 6.5 magnitude on Richter scale within a close distance of 16 km of the dam site.

Solution
The only permanent solution to the long pending vexing problem is construction of a new dam to replace the old unsafe Mullaperiyar dam. Government of Kerala has already put forward this suggestion during the meetings held at New Delhi chaired by the Union Minister for water resources and the Chief Ministers of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Also the solution of constructing a new dam has been put forth for the first time before the Supreme Court by the Kerala Government while defending the case filed by Tamil Nadu.

As early as in 1979, the team of engineers headed by the then Chairman CWC had made specific recommendation for constructing a new dam as a permanent solution to the problem.


Dr K.C. Thomas, former chairman of the Central Water Commission:
The Problem
The fact the dam, constructed in 1895 (infancy technology), is still (2011) standing safely is proof enough that the design technology as also the construction technique then adopted were good and sound. The strengthening done in 1980-81 has made it conform to modern standards. It’s safe against all envisaged eventualities.

Morvi was manmade. The people in charge failed to open the spillway gate as the inflow of flood kept on raising the reservoir level till it over-topped the dam and breached the earth and abutment. Mullaperiyar is not an earth dam and cannot fail abruptly to cause any downstream damage.

No cement grouting of surkhi core was done in Mullaperiyar dam and there were no hollows in the dam when CWC chairman visited the dam in 1979.

How much lower than 135 lb/cb ft and on what authority? Weep-holes and foundation drainage gallery were techniques introduced by US in 1940-60. No dam in India constructed prior to 1930 has a drainage gallery. Seepage if any is measured in catch-water drains downstream of the toe of the dam. Such drains did exist at the toe of Mullaperiyar dam and the seepage was being measured by V-notch gauge when the CWC chairman visited the dam in June 1979

No massive blasting was done. Even most recent inspection by the chief engineering Kerala PWD (irrigation) has reported no cracks? The 10-m concrete backing has been made integral with old masonry dam with shear keys and concrete grouting; no separation or slippage along the contact phase has been detected. Thickened dam is stronger.

No dam in the world constructed prior to 1940 had a drainage gallery. Old dams without any drainage provisions are functioning satisfactorily even today.

What is the justification for Prof Iyengar to apply such abnormal values as 0.16 g and 0.4738 g for stability analysis of the dam when it is not in an earthquake zone? CWC never made any reference to Dr Bhabha or Prof Iyengar to analyze the stability of the dam.

IIT Roorkee earthquake engineering dept does not have the equipment to determine quake resistance of any proposed cross-section of the dam.

US geological survey had conducted extensive studies to see whether they can predict in advance when an earthquake will occur of what magnitude and what advance action can be taken to mitigate the damage.

One should rely on the fact that no dam in the world has failed due to earthquake.

There has never been a previous report of 22 or any similar number of fault lines on the Mullaperiyar dam. If they do actually exist, the dam should have received many shocks in the last 116 years and produced some damage, however small or superficial.

On the Solution : Constructing a New Dam
If the Kerala Government decides that the construction of a new dam is the only permanent solution to this long pending vexing problem, who is to approve this proposition and who is to execute it at whose cost etc. In fact it is a vexing problem to Kerala only. Tamil Nadu does not see any problem. They are keen to preserve the existing dam.

The Chairman CWC did not make any recommendation for constructing a new dam. In fact he refused to accommodate this demand. He said that the existing dam was safe as it was but would recommend strengthening it to modern standards to totally remove any apprehensions of its failure.

Should Mullaperiyar Dam be under Central Government control?

The Bharathiya Krishak Samaj in its meeting at Tiruchi on Dec 9, 2011, has called upon the Central Government to bring the Mullaperiyar dam and sharing of its waters, under Central Govt's control.  D Gurusamy, President of BKS has  requested a new Central law invoking Article 262 of the Constitution of India.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Tiruchirapalli/article2700973.ece

If sharing of water is considered an inter-State dispute, though the river and dam are located within Kerala State only,  why can't a Tribunal be set up under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956?

Reference:
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956
http://mowr.gov.in/index3.asp?subsublinkid=377&langid=1&sslid=385


-jp

Can Tamilnadu and Kerala publish a 'State of the Mullaperiyar Dam Report'

Tamilnadu and Kerala will have to publish a 'State of the Dam Report'.
Until then, we are left to conclude that the state of the dam is as given in the photos below:

Cable Anchoring used for strengthening the main dam

DETERIORATING CONDITION OF THE DAM

Deterioration of the dam wall exposing the rubble masonry and lime surkhi mortar

Cracks and deterioration of the wall of the main dam

Cracks and holes in the wall of the main dam

Deteriorating concrete plaster

Deteriorating dam wall

Cracks in the wall of the main dam

Deteriorating concrete plaster exposing the rubble masonry

Gallery exposing leaks and cracks in the main dam's wall

Water seepage collected in the gallery

Gallery view with leaks and cracks in the wall

Cracks in the wall and deterioration of concrete plastering

Should we solve Mullaperiyar disputes through fist-fights and street violence?

Should Tamils and Keralites resort to fist-fights and violence to solve the 30 year old or probably 116 year old dispute over Mullaperiyar, as in medieval times?

Or should they as civilized persons, and as bretheren sharing a common culture and legacy,  try to identify the various legal, technical and political issues in this dispute and try to explore options to resolve them, to the mutual satisfaction of the people on the west and east of the Western Ghats?

• There are various legal issues pending resolution before the Supreme Court and before the High Court of Kerala.  The law must take its course but legal decisions must be expedited, because disasters do not wait for anyone.
• Safety issues have been raised by Kerala with the Kerala Government demanding construction of a new dam to resolve safety issues.  Technically competent persons must identify the risks and come forward with various options to mitigate the safety concerns. Independent or mutually agreeable risk assessment, risk management options and disaster impact analysis and risk/disaster management plans, are all required in this scenario to determine whether decommissioning the existing dam and building a new dam would be the only option. Tamilnadu engineers must provide data to satisfy Kerala engineers that the dam's safety measures are in place to avert a disaster.
• All poltical protests and violence must stop.  Tamils need the Malayali shops, businessmen, cine stars and employees in Chennai and elsewhere. Malayalees need Tamilian businessmen and industrialists, Tamil cinemas and Tamil stars  and Tamil labor in Kerala. 
• There must be assurance that Tamilnadu will get water for irrigation, drinking and for power as it is getting now and there must be assurance for the people of Kerala that the aging dam is not a safety hazard for Kerala. If necessary a new agreement must be entered into scrapping the agreements in dispute.
• All right-thinking persons in both States and across India (because this is a national problem too) to come forward with suggestions to resolve this dispute amicably and in a manner that benefits everyone.

Joseph Ponnoly

Is a new dam the solution to the problem? -What the experts say

What the experts say:
Dr D.K.Paul IIT Roorkee 's 2009 report on 'Structural Study of Mullaperiyar Dam considering the Seismic effects':
The dam will not withstand earthquakes measuring 6 point or above on the Richter scale.

Dr C.P.Rajendran, Seismologist, IISc, Bangalore:
Construction of a new dam at Mullaperiyar is the solution to most of the problems related to this century old dam

Tamilnadu stand:
The dam has been well maintained and reconstructed