Mullaperiyar Dam: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
The dam's purpose was to divert the waters of the west-flowing Periyar River eastward, taking the water from the reservoir through a tunnel cut across the [[Water divide|watershed]] and [[Western Ghats]] to the arid rain shadow regions of [[Theni]], [[Madurai District]], [[Sivaganga District]] and [[Ramanathapuram]] districts of [[Tamil Nadu]].<ref>Which were under British rule as part of Madras Province.</ref> Although Kerala claims that the agreement was forced on the then princely State of [[Travancore]], presently part of Kerala, the pact was re-validated in 1970 by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.<ref> R. Krishnakumar, ''Frontline'', Volume 23 – Issue 05, Mar. 11 – 24, 2006.</ref> The lease provided the British the rights over "all the waters" of the Mullaperiyar and its [[Drainage basin|catchment basin]], for an annual rent of Rs. 40,000. |
The dam's purpose was to divert the waters of the west-flowing Periyar River eastward, taking the water from the reservoir through a tunnel cut across the [[Water divide|watershed]] and [[Western Ghats]] to the arid rain shadow regions of [[Theni]], [[Madurai District]], [[Sivaganga District]] and [[Ramanathapuram]] districts of [[Tamil Nadu]].<ref>Which were under British rule as part of Madras Province.</ref> Although Kerala claims that the agreement was forced on the then princely State of [[Travancore]], presently part of Kerala, the pact was re-validated in 1970 by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.<ref> R. Krishnakumar, ''Frontline'', Volume 23 – Issue 05, Mar. 11 – 24, 2006.</ref> The lease provided the British the rights over "all the waters" of the Mullaperiyar and its [[Drainage basin|catchment basin]], for an annual rent of Rs. 40,000. |
||
==Bio-Diversity== |
|||
According to the scientific research & study report of kerala forest research institute says that, the place surrounding the dam is considered as a bio-diversity hot spot<ref name="R1">{{cite web | url=http://www.kfri.org/main/library/publi/links/RR024.pdf | title=R1 | accessdate=November 27, 2011}}</ref> |
|||
==Disputes== |
==Disputes== |
||
Line 64: | Line 62: | ||
A lease deed was signed between the Travancore Princely State and British Presidency of Madras in 1886 which gave the British the right to divert "all the waters" of the Mullaperiyar and its catchment to British territory (the Madras Presidency, now Tamil Nadu) for 999 years.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2305/stories/20060324004210600.htm | location=Chennai, India | work=The Hindu | title=Verdict on Mullaperiyar}}</ref> After Independence, both the entities became non-existent. Further, according to [[Indian Independence Act 1947]], all the treaties between British Government and Indian Princeley States have lapsed. Moreover, Article 131 of the [[Constitution of India]] denies Supreme Court of jurisdiction on pre-constitutional agreements.<ref>[http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc The Constitution of India]. (.doc file).lawmin.nic.in</ref> Kerala argued that the agreement is not an equal one, but imposed on the local King by the British Empire. |
A lease deed was signed between the Travancore Princely State and British Presidency of Madras in 1886 which gave the British the right to divert "all the waters" of the Mullaperiyar and its catchment to British territory (the Madras Presidency, now Tamil Nadu) for 999 years.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2305/stories/20060324004210600.htm | location=Chennai, India | work=The Hindu | title=Verdict on Mullaperiyar}}</ref> After Independence, both the entities became non-existent. Further, according to [[Indian Independence Act 1947]], all the treaties between British Government and Indian Princeley States have lapsed. Moreover, Article 131 of the [[Constitution of India]] denies Supreme Court of jurisdiction on pre-constitutional agreements.<ref>[http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc The Constitution of India]. (.doc file).lawmin.nic.in</ref> Kerala argued that the agreement is not an equal one, but imposed on the local King by the British Empire. |
||
In 1970 the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments signed a formal agreement to renew the 1886 treaty almost completely. The [[Idukki Dam|Idukki Hydroelectric project]], located 30 km downstream was completed in 1976 by the Kerala government <ref>[http://expert-eyes.org/power.html Power development in Kerala: electricity projects and generation]. Expert-eyes.org. Retrieved on 2011-11-25.</ref> After Independence the areas downstream of the Mullaperiyar become heavily inhabited, as Kerala has a very high population density. |
In 1970 the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments signed a formal agreement to renew the 1886 treaty almost completely. The [[Idukki Dam|Idukki Hydroelectric project]], located 30 km downstream was completed in 1976 by the Kerala government <ref>[http://expert-eyes.org/power.html Power development in Kerala: electricity projects and generation]. Expert-eyes.org. Retrieved on 2011-11-25.</ref> After Independence the areas downstream of the Mullaperiyar become heavily inhabited, as Kerala has a very high population density. |
||
==== Safety Concerns ==== |
==== Safety Concerns ==== |
||
In 1979, safety concerns were raised by Kerala Government after a minor earthquake, after which a few leaks were detected in the dam. A state agency<ref>CESS, Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram</ref> had reported that the structure would not withstand an earthquake above magnitude 6 on the [[Richter scale]]. The then Tamil Nadu government lowered the storage level to the current 136 feet (from 142.2 feet) at the request of the Kerala Government to carry out safety repairs, after which it was suggested that the storage level could be raised to the full reservoir level of {{convert|152|ft|m}}. Security concerns regarding the downstream inhabitants prompted Kerala to backtrack on the 1970 Agreement in 2000.{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}} Another argument put forward by Kerala on the basis of a report on a study conducted state agencies<ref> |
In 1979, safety concerns were raised by Kerala Government after a minor earthquake, after which a few leaks were detected in the dam. A state agency<ref>CESS, Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram</ref> had reported that the structure would not withstand an earthquake above magnitude 6 on the [[Richter scale]]. The then Tamil Nadu government lowered the storage level to the current 136 feet (from 142.2 feet) at the request of the Kerala Government to carry out safety repairs, after which it was suggested that the storage level could be raised to the full reservoir level of {{convert|152|ft|m}}. Security concerns regarding the downstream inhabitants prompted Kerala to backtrack on the 1970 Agreement in 2000.{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}} Another argument put forward by Kerala on the basis of a report on a study conducted state agencies<ref> |
||
==== Tamilnadu's stand ==== |
==== Tamilnadu's stand ==== |
Revision as of 13:19, 27 November 2011
Mullaperiyar Dam | |
---|---|
Coordinates | 9°31′43″N 77°8′39″E / 9.52861°N 77.14417°E |
Dam and spillways | |
Spillway type | None |
Mullaperiyar Dam (Malayalam: മുല്ലപെരിയാര് അണകെട്ട്), is a masonry gravity dam over River Periyar, with a height of 155 feet and length 1200 feet and is located 3900 feet above m.s.l. on the High Ranges (Cardamom Hills) of Western Ghats in Thekkadi, Idukki District of Kerala, India. It was constructed in 1895 by the British Government, over the headwaters of the west-flowing Periyar River and its tributary Mullaiyar, to divert water eastwards to Madras Presidency area (the present-day Tamilnadu). It is a masonry gravity dam. Gravity dams were made of stone masonry, ex: Nagarjuna Sagar Dam is a good example of largest masonry dam built across Krishna River in Andhra Pradesh, India, between 1955 and 1967 which is 490 ft (150 m). tall and 1.6 km long. The dam is operated by the Government of Tamil Nadu based on a 999-year lease agreement made during erstwhile British colonial rule, between the British Government (Madras Presidency) and the Travancore Maharajah. The catchment areas and river basin of River Periyar downstream include five Districts of Central Kerala, namely Idukki, Kottayam, Ernakulam, Alappuzha and Trissur with a total population of around 3.5 million. Water diverted eastwards through a tunnel from the dam joints River Vaigai in Tamilnadu and irrigates Theni, Sivaganga, Madurai and Ramanathapuram Districts of Tamilnadu. The Periyar Power Station in Tamilnadu also generates hydro-electricity from the diverted waters and distributes electricity to Tamilnadu. The dam has been a bone of contention between the State Governments of Kerala and Tamilnadu, with Tamilnadu demanding raising of water level in the reservoir to increase flow of water to Tamilnadu, and Kerala objecting to this on the grounds of safety. Minor earthquakes in the area have raised concerns.[1][2][3].
Name
The name is derived from a portmanteau of Mullaiyar and Periyar. As the dam is located at the confluence of the Mullayar and Periyar Rivers, the river and the dam came to be called Mullaperiyar.[4][5]
Periyar river originates in the Sivagiri Hills of the Western Ghats in Kerala, flows northwards and at Thekkady joins the west-flowing Mullaiyar, also originating in the Western Ghats in Kerala. The Mullaperiyar dam is constructed at the confluence of both the rivers Periyar and Mullaiyar to create the Periyar reservoir. From Periyar Thekkady reservoir, water is diverted eastwards to Tamilnadu via a tunnel enabling the water to join the Vaigai River. From Periyar Thekkady Reservoir, the Periyar river flows northwestward into the Idukki reservoir formed by the Idukki, Cheruthoni and Kulamavu dams. From Idukki reservoir, Periyar river flows northwestwards and then westward to join the Arabian sea at Munambam near Kodungallur and the Vembanad lake at Kochi.
History
On 29 October 1886, a lease indenture for 999 years was made between Maharaja of Travancore, Vishakham Thirunal and Secretary of State for India for Periyar irrigation works. The lease agreement was signed by Dewan of Travancore V Ram Iyengar and State Secretary of Madras State (under British rule) J C Hannington. This lease was made after constant pressure on Travancore King by the British for 24 years. The lease indenture inter alia granted full right, power and liberty to construct, make and carry out on the leased land and to use exclusively when constructed, made and carried out all such irrigation works and other works ancillary thereto to Secretary of State for India (now Tamil Nadu). The agreement was to give 8000 acres of land for the reservoir and another 100 acres to construct the dam. And the tax for each acre was 5 RS per year. When India became independent, the lease got expired. After several failed attempts to renew the agreement in 1958, 1960, and 1969, the agreement was renewed in 1970 when C Achutha Menon was Kerala Chief Minister. According to the renewed agreement, the tax per acre was 30 RS, and for the electricity generated in Lower Camp using Mullaperiyar water, the charge was 12 RS per kiloWatt per hour. This was without the consent of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala. This agreement expired in 2000. However, Tamil Nadu still uses the water and the land, and the Tamil Nadu government has been paying to the Kerala government for the past 50 years 2.5 lakhs Rs as tax per year for the whole land and 7.5 lakhs RS per year as surcharge for the total amount of electricity generated.
The first dam was built by the British Corps of Royal Engineers. After the first dam was washed away by floods, a second dam was built in 1895. it is built with stone and Surki ( A mixture of sugar and Calcium oxide).
The dam's purpose was to divert the waters of the west-flowing Periyar River eastward, taking the water from the reservoir through a tunnel cut across the watershed and Western Ghats to the arid rain shadow regions of Theni, Madurai District, Sivaganga District and Ramanathapuram districts of Tamil Nadu.[7] Although Kerala claims that the agreement was forced on the then princely State of Travancore, presently part of Kerala, the pact was re-validated in 1970 by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.[8] The lease provided the British the rights over "all the waters" of the Mullaperiyar and its catchment basin, for an annual rent of Rs. 40,000.
Disputes
The Lease Agreement
A lease deed was signed between the Travancore Princely State and British Presidency of Madras in 1886 which gave the British the right to divert "all the waters" of the Mullaperiyar and its catchment to British territory (the Madras Presidency, now Tamil Nadu) for 999 years.[9] After Independence, both the entities became non-existent. Further, according to Indian Independence Act 1947, all the treaties between British Government and Indian Princeley States have lapsed. Moreover, Article 131 of the Constitution of India denies Supreme Court of jurisdiction on pre-constitutional agreements.[10] Kerala argued that the agreement is not an equal one, but imposed on the local King by the British Empire.
In 1970 the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments signed a formal agreement to renew the 1886 treaty almost completely. The Idukki Hydroelectric project, located 30 km downstream was completed in 1976 by the Kerala government [11] After Independence the areas downstream of the Mullaperiyar become heavily inhabited, as Kerala has a very high population density.
Safety Concerns
In 1979, safety concerns were raised by Kerala Government after a minor earthquake, after which a few leaks were detected in the dam. A state agency[12] had reported that the structure would not withstand an earthquake above magnitude 6 on the Richter scale. The then Tamil Nadu government lowered the storage level to the current 136 feet (from 142.2 feet) at the request of the Kerala Government to carry out safety repairs, after which it was suggested that the storage level could be raised to the full reservoir level of 152 feet (46 m). Security concerns regarding the downstream inhabitants prompted Kerala to backtrack on the 1970 Agreement in 2000.[citation needed] Another argument put forward by Kerala on the basis of a report on a study conducted state agencies</ref>
Tamilnadu's stand
Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu government had increased its withdrawal from the reservoir, with additional facilities to cater to the increased demand from newly irrigated areas.[citation needed] One article[13] estimates that "the crop losses to Tamil Nadu, because of the reduction in the height of the dam, between 1980 and 2005 is a whopping Rs. 40,000 crores. In the process the farmers of the erstwhile rain shadow areas in Tamil Nadu who had started a thrice yearly cropping pattern had to go back to the bi-annual cropping."
However, the Kerala Government maintains that this is not true. During the year 1979–80 the gross area cultivated in Periyar command area was 171,307 acres (693.25 km2). After the lowering of the level to 136 ft (41 m), the gross irrigated area increased and in 1994–95 it reached 229,718 acres (929.64 km2).[14]
An article written in 2000 in Frontline stated: "For every argument raised by Tamil Nadu in support of its claims, there is counter-argument in Kerala that appears equally plausible. Yet, each time the controversy gets embroiled in extraneous issues, two things stand out: One is Kerala's refusal to ack nowledge the genuine need of the farmers in the otherwise drought-prone regions of Tamil Nadu for the waters of the Mullaperiyar; the other is Tamil Nadu's refusal to see that it cannot rely on or continue to expect more and more from the resources of an other State to satisfy its own requirements to the detriment of the other State. A solution perhaps lies in acknowledging the two truths, but neither government can afford the political repercussions of such a confession".[15]
Current status
Tamil Nadu is the custodian of the dam and its surrounding areas. In 2006, the Supreme Court of India has allowed for the storage level to be raised to 142 feet (43 m).[16] However, the Kerala Government promulgated a new "Dam Safety Act" against increasing the storage level of the dam, which has not been objected by the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu challenged it on various grounds. The Supreme Court issued notice to Kerala to respond; however, did not stay the operation of the Act even as an interim measure. The Court then advised the States to settle the matter amicably, and adjourned hearing in order to enable them to do so. The Supreme Court[17] of India termed it as not unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution bench to hear the case considering its wide ramifications. The case involves pre-constitutional agreement between two entities which does not exist now.
Kerala's Stance: Kerala did not object giving water to Tamil Nadu. Their main cause of objection is the dams safety as it is as old as 110 years. Increasing the level would add more pressure to be handled by already leaking dam. No masonry dam may survive for 999 years so a new dam may replace the existing one in near future.
Tamil Nadu's Stance: The State wants that the 2006 order of Supreme court be implemented so as to increase the water level to 142 feet (43 m).
In September 2009, the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Government of India granted[18] environmental clearance to Kerala for conducting survey for new dam downstream. Tamil Nadu approached Supreme court for a stay order against the clearance; however, the plea was rejected. Consequently, the survey was started in October, 2009. The survey team looked at three spots and the final report is expected to be ready by March 2010 for submission to the government.
The arguments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu are continuing in the Constitution bench of Supreme Court. Adv. Harish Salve appeared for Kerala and Adv. Parasaran appeared for Tamil Nadu in Supreme Court.[19] Kerala argued that if Mullaperiyar is an interstate river, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to intervene in the issue and that it must be dealt with by an independent tribunal. It also argued that if Mullaperiyar is an intrastate river, then the Dam Safety Authority of Kerala is constitutional, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to intervene in a pre-constitutional agreement. Thus, the water provision is now done under the 1970 review agreement between the States. According to this agreement, only the dam area is leased to Tamil Nadu, and water is not leased. As Kerala does not gain anything from the project inside its territary, it is free to revisit/cancel the 1970 agreement. Kerala also argues that if the water level is increased to 142 feets, wide forest areas that are inhabited by conserved flora and fauna will be inundated. Moreover, as Tamil Nadu controls only the dam, Kerala has no legal restrictions for diverting water to Idukki reservoir through another route, thereby preventing water logging inside Mullaperiyar reservoir. When the Supreme Court sought to know whether a contract could be unilaterally terminated, Mr. Salve said the Legislature had the competence to put an end to the contract, which was not in Kerala’s interest. By legislation, a contract could be varied, altered or annulled.[20]
Tamil Nadu argued that the Supreme Court need to look only in to the issue of non-implementation of Supreme Court Order to increase water level of dam by Kerala. Tamil Nadu also asserted that Mullaperiyar is not an interstate river, and thus, there is no need for forming a tribunal. The Tamil Nadu counsel argued that Kerala has an ulterior motive to make a new dam and keep it under its control. Tamil Nadu fears that the water supply will be restricted if Kerala builds a new dam and controls it.
However, political controversies arose in Tamil Nadu, as Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) party and BJP accused the Tamil Nadu counsel[21] is against the interests of Tamil Nadu and demanded the state government to remove him. Vaiko, General Secretary, MDMK, has called for a road blockade on May 28 to stop transport of foodgrains, vegetables and milk to Kerala to protest its proposal to construct a new dam in place of the Mullaperiyar dam.[22]
Meanwhile, Kerala proposed that a mechanism may be thought about to supply water to Tamil Nadu similar to the one employed for its supply of drinking water to Coimbatore under the Siruvani water supply scheme.[23]
Justice A.S. Anand Committee
On 18 February 2010, the Supreme Court decided to constitute a five-member empowered committee to study all the issues of Mullaiperiyar Dam and seek a report from it within six months.[24] The Bench in its draft order said Tamil Nadu and Kerala would have the option to nominate a member each, who could be either a retired judge or a technical expert. The five-member committee will be headed by former Chief Justice of India A. S. Anand to go into all issues relating to the dam's safety and the storage level. However, the ruling party of Tamil Nadu, DMK, passed a resolution that it not only oppose the apex court's decision to form the five-member committee, but also said that the state government will not nominate any member to it.[25] Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said that immediately after the Supreme Court announced its decision to set up a committee, he had written to Congress president asking the Centre to mediate between Kerala and Tamil Nadu on Mullaperiyar issue.[26] However, Leader of Opposition J. Jayalalithaa objected to the TN Government move. She said that this would give advantage to Kerala in the issue.[27] Meanwhile, Kerala Water Resources Minister N. K. Premachandran told the state Assembly that the State should have the right of construction, ownership, operation and maintenance of the new dam, while giving water to Tamil Nadu on the basis of a clear cut agreement. He also informed the media that Former Supreme Court Judge Mr. K. T. Thomas will represent Kerala on the expert panel constituted by Supreme Court.[28] On 8 March 2010, in a fresh twist to the Mullaperiyar Dam row, Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that it was not interested in adjudicating the dispute with Kerala before the special “empowered” committee appointed by the apex court for settling the inter-State issue.[29] However, Supreme Court refused to accept Tamil Nadu's request to scrap the decision to form the empowered committee. SC also criticized the Union Government on its reluctance in funding the empowered committee.[30]
Notes
- ^ 'Mullaperiyar: Centre expresses willingness to act as “facilitator”, the Hindu, November 23, 2011
- ^ "Mullaperiyar: Ministers to visit Delhi", the Hindu, November 25, 2011
- ^ "Advice Kerala not to build the dam", the Hindu, November 24, 2011
- ^ which now does not exist as a river as it is part of the backwater/reservoir.
- ^ The main river is called the Periyar River.
- ^ Ministry of Water Resources. Wrmin.nic.in. Retrieved on 2011-11-25.
- ^ Which were under British rule as part of Madras Province.
- ^ R. Krishnakumar, Frontline, Volume 23 – Issue 05, Mar. 11 – 24, 2006.
- ^ "Verdict on Mullaperiyar". The Hindu. Chennai, India.
- ^ The Constitution of India. (.doc file).lawmin.nic.in
- ^ Power development in Kerala: electricity projects and generation. Expert-eyes.org. Retrieved on 2011-11-25.
- ^ CESS, Centre for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram
- ^ The Mullaperiyar imbroglio. Hard News. April 2006
- ^ Kerala Government's arguments. Expert-eyes.org. Retrieved on 2011-11-25.
- ^ R. Krishnakumar (Nov. 25 – Dec. 08, 2000). "Over to the Supreme Court". The Hindu. Chennai, India.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Mullaperiyar water level can be raised. Deccan Herald. February 28, 2006
- ^ Mullaperiyar: apex court issues notice to Government . The Hindu. September 9, 2006. Retrieved on 2011-11-25.
- ^ "The New Indian Express", 17 September 2009[dead link]
- ^ "Constitution Bench to hear dam case afresh". The Hindu. Chennai, India. November 24, 2009.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
hindu1
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Tamil Nadu CM defends counsel on Mullaperiyar. Newkerala.com. February 5, 2010. Retrieved on 2011-11-25.
- ^ "MDMK to block transport of goods to Kerala". The Hindu. Chennai, India. February 19, 2010.
- ^ "Kerala suggests Siruvani-type mechanism". The Hindu. Chennai, India. February 17, 2010.
- ^ "Supreme Court constitutes empowered committee to go into Mullaperiyar issues". The Hindu. Chennai, India. February 17, 2010.
- ^ "DMK for keeping away from panel on Mullaperiyar". The Hindu. Chennai, India. February 20, 2010.
- ^ "DMK against SC panel on dam". The Times Of India. February 21, 2010.
- ^ "Jayalalithaa criticises Karunanidhi over Mullaperiyar issue". The Hindu. Chennai, India. February 22, 2010.
- ^ "K.T. Thomas to be on Mullaperiyar panel". The Hindu. Chennai, India. March 4, 2010.
- ^ "Tamil Nadu not interested in adjudicating Mullaperiyar before panel". The Hindu. Chennai, India. March 8, 2010.
- ^ "Tamil Nadu plea dismissed, empowered panel on Mullaperiyar will stay". The Hindu. Chennai, India. March 30, 2010.
Further reading
- Ministry of Water Resources
- PM steps into TN-Kerala dam row
- R Kishnakumar, Frontline, Volume 17, Issue 24, November 25 – December 8, 2000
- Roy Mathew, The Hindu, Tuesday, February 28, 2006
- E R Gopinath
- P. Venugopal, The Hindu, Saturday, July 30, 2005
- G.K. Nair, Business line, Tuesday, August 2, 2005
- Parapet of Mullaperiyar dam damaged, The Hindu, January 7, 2007
- Arguments by Tamil Nadu and Counter Arguments
- Write-Up about "If dam collapsed"
- Surkhi Mortar