User:Arunjith pk

Mullaperiyar Dam Controversy The Mullaperiyar Dam has been a bone of contention between the TN and Kerala Governments. We trace the history of this controversy. Read the report to understand this issue.

Mullaperiyar Dam is constructed over the source of the Periyar River in Kerala, India. During the rule of the British in India a 999-year lease was made and accordingly, the Government of Tamil Nadu has been operating the dam. The Periyar National Park is located around the backwaters of this dam. The dam was built by British under the supervision of Benny Cook. The dam’s purpose was to divert the waters of the west-flowing Periyar River eastwards, since it caused widespread floods in the Travancore region, by constructing a masonry dam and diverting the water from the reservoir by way of a tunnel across the watershed and the Western Ghats to the rain shadow region of the Theni Sivaganga District and Ramanathapuram districts of Tamil Nadu. The lease provided the British the rights over “all the waters” of the Mullaperiyar and its catchments, for an annual rent of Rs. 40,000. About 60,000 ha in Theni, Madurai, Sivaganga, Ramanathapuram, and Dindigul districts in present day Tamil Nadu were intended as beneficiaries of irrigation waters from Mullaperiyar. Water is brought through a 1.6 km long tunnel till the Tamil Nadu-Kerala border and then flows through open canals to Churuliyar river which feeds the Vaigai dam in Tamil Nadu. From there a network of canals take the water to the fields.

The dam’s reservoir level is the bone of contention between the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments. Since 1970, Kerala has argued that the dam having outlived its life of 50 years is unsafe to maintain water at 46.3 metres—the full reservoir level—and it should be restricted to 41.45 metres. In 1979, the Central Water Commission (cwc)— the premier government agency dealing with dam safety—was asked to look into the matter; it suggested reduction of water level to 41.45 metres as an emergency measure along with other measures to strengthen the dam. Tamil Nadu agreed to this limit. Another committee headed by the then cwc chairperson B K Mittal was appointed in 2001 to look into the matter. It stated that the reservoir level be raised to 43.28 metres, after the strengthening measures were implemented. This was to be on an interim basis, and later reservoir levels could go up to the original level of 46.3 metres.

The government of Tamil Nadu has proposed an increase in the storage level of the dam from the currently maintained 136 feet to 142 feet. The Kerala government has opposed this move, citing safety concerns for the more than hundred year old bridge and especially for the thickly populated districts downstream.

Kerala claims that the agreement was forced on the then princely State of Travancore presently, part of Kerala, but the pact was validated yet again in 1970 by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been arguing about the Mullaperiyar dam built under a co-signed agreement in 1886 between the Maharaja of Travancore and the British authorities. The dam, which is located in the Idukki district of Kerala, serves the districts of Tamil Nadu which in recent years, has  made demands  that the storage capacity of the dam be increased from 136 feet (41.5 m) to 142 feet (43 m) to meet the rising demand of water needed for irrigation. However, Kerala is asking for the construction of a new dam saying that the existing structure had outlived its safety and longevity. Tamil Nadu, insists that raising water levels in Mullaperiyar’s reservoir is necessary to irrigate large tracts in the state.

In 1998, all Mullaperiyar-related cases were transferred to the Supreme Court which, in its order of February 2006, observed that the dispute is not a ‘water dispute’. It allowed raising the reservoir level to 43.28 metres and directed Tamil Nadu to carry out the strengthening measures suggested by cwc, and restrained Kerala from causing any obstruction.

In March 2006 Kerala’s Legislative Assembly passed the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Amendment Act, 2006. The amendment empowered Kerala’s Dam Safety Authority (kdsa)— a body mandated in 2003 by the original Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act—to evaluate safety of all dams in the state. It also has the power to advise the government to suspend the functioning or to decommission a dam if public safety demanded. Twenty two dams constructed during 1895-1963 including the Mullaperiyar dam were brought under kdsa’s jurisdiction. 41.45 metres was fixed as safe height for Mullaperiyar’s reservoir. Tamil Nadu took the matter back to the Supreme Court. It filed a petition on March 31, 2006 to declare the Kerala act as unconstitutional.

In July 2009, the Kerala government  has claimed  that with the  building  of a new dam, 1,300 feet downstream of the present Mullaperiyar reservoir,  the safety of  the people  of Kerala can be a assured  from the existing high-risk structure, which can fail at  any time, endangering lives, according to news sources.

A detailed report of this issue had been presented to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking sanction for decommissioning of the existing dam and building a new one in its place.

In October 2009, the Chief Minister of Kerala V.S. Achuthanandan requested Tamil Nadu to be in agreement with its demand for a new dam at Mullaperiyar as the present one had become obsolete. According to news sources, he supported his stand by claiming that a recent study by IIT, Roorkee had discovered that the dam would collapse if at any time an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale happened and that  nearly forty lakh people who were fearfully anticipating this  have to be reassured by allowing the new dam to be built.

But the beginning of 2010 saw Tamil Nadu once again rejecting the idea of constructing the new dam over the Periyar River. Kerala though seemed sure that it has every reason to be successful in its demand for a new dam because in 1979 the proposal had been cleared for approval by the Centre. This, according to them was agreed upon by Tamil Nadu which they claim took a step back later.

In Feb 2010, the Chief Minister of Kerala applauded the Supreme Court ruling demanding a review of the safety aspect of the Mullaperiyar. The apex court appointed a senior committee to study the safety of the dam, discuss increasing its water level above 136 feet and evaluate Kerala’s demand for a new dam. The Supreme Court appointed former chief justice of India A.S. Anand as the chairperson of a techno-legal panel formed to examine the strength and capacity of the more than a century old Mullaperiyar dam in Kerala.

In March 2010, according to news sources, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said that Tamil Nadu would never give up its rights over the Mullaperiyar dam  since that would  create problems for farmers in that  area.

People in Kerala feel that the 1886 deed should not be continued since it was forced upon the Travancore ruler. In 1970, Kerala did revise the original deed and got fishing rights. It also increased the rent to Rs 30 an acre (0.4 ha) from Rs 5, but water remained free for Tamil Nadu.

People in Tamil Nadu argue that Kerala is eyeing extra water from the Mullaperiyar reservoir to generate electricity. Power generation at the Idukki reservoir, downstream of the Mullaperiyar dam will come to a halt if the reservoir level is increased from 41.45 metres to 46.3 metres, Sadasivan points out. The Kerala government, however, maintains that the Idukki project was designed after discounting the 46.3 metres water storage in the Mullaperiyar dam.

Farmers in Tamil Nadu maintain that water rights have already been established during the past century and cannot be reverted. The Kerala government, however, argues that the gross area irrigated by the Mullaperiyar reservoir actually increased from 24,280 ha in 1896 to 69,200 ha in 1970-71 (when the water level was 46.3 metres) to 92,670 ha in 1994-95 (when water level was reduced to 41.45 metres). But Tamil Nadu claims that this is due to the modernisation of Periyar-Vaigai project, which reduced seepage losses by 6.7 thousand million cubic feet.

In April 2010, according to news sources, Chief Minister of Kerala V.S. Achuthanandan has urged the Centre to look into the Mullaperiyar dam issue as directed by the Supreme Court immediately. News sources said he had concerns about the delay in constituting the committee for looking into the Mullaperiyar dam issue in an official letter to the Prime minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh. He said that the Centre’s delay in the committee constitution would undermine the essence of the Supreme Court’s directive.

A.R. Lakshmanan on Mullaperiyar Panel 21.04.2010

Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, former Judge of the Supreme Court, will represent Tamil Nadu on the Empowered Committee to go into all issues, including the safety aspects, of the Mullaperiyar dam, Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi told the Assembly on 21.04.2010.

Making a suo motu statement in the House, the Chief Minister said the State government had now decided to have its nominee on the panel since the outcome of the case in the Supreme Court was crucial for Tamil Nadu.

The committee, headed by Justice A.S. Anand, former Chief Justice of India, was appointed by a five-member bench of the Supreme Court.

The DMK took a stand against the panel and the general council meeting of the party on February 20 passed a resolution declaring that there was no need for Tamil Nadu to nominate its representative for the panel.

The Chief Minister said on March 8 Tamil Nadu filed a recall petition against the Empowered Committee in the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no need to appoint a new committee, since the court had already taken a decision on all aspects of the case. But on April 5, the Centre wrote to the State government, urging immediate nomination of a representative for the panel, in the wake of the dismissal of recall petition against the appointment of the Empowered Committee. On March 3, the Centre wrote to Tamil Nadu for appointment of a member for the panel.

Mr. Karunanidhi said the State government had also consulted the Advocate General before taking the decision on having its nominee on the panel.

Dream Dare Win

www.jeywin.com