Supreme Court accepts idea of new Mullaperiyar tunnel

In 2012, C.P. Roy, who was ousted from the chairmanship of Mullaperiyar Samara Samithi, because he did not favour the idea of a new dam, met Justice K. T. Thomas, Kerala’s representative on the Empowered Committee appointed by the Supreme Court, and submitted a memorandum outlining his proposal for a new tunnel at 50 feet as a solution to the dispute with Tamil Nadu.

Today, when the Kerala Assembly took up the Mullaperiyar issue for discussion in the light of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the State government’s plea, Roy staged a demonstration outside the Legislature Complex with a few friends to draw attention to the Supreme Court’s endorsement of his proposal, which meets Kerala’s twin slogan “Water for Tamil Nadu, Safety for Kerala”.

Roy distributed an extract from Page 151 of the Supreme Court judgment, which reads as follows:

3.  In the existing MPD (Mullaperiyar Dam) project, as noted in Chapter II(b) (supra), a tunnel had been designed with a D-Section 12 feet wide and 7.5 feet high with provision of the sluice head gate having sill at El 106.5 ft for diversion of water from Periyar reservoir to Vaigai basin in the SoTN (State of Tamil Nadu). This tunnel was modernized by widening and lining in the year in the year 1958. The tunnel can allow reservoir draw-down to 106.5 ft as per criteria laid down in (i). Storage lower than El 106.5 ft to an identified elevation based on assessment of likely distress cannot be drawn-down through the present arrangement of drawal of water for the SoTN through the existing tunnel.

4. Further, digging of a New Tunnel at say at El 50 ft, of course, after conducting surveys, designs, and techno-economic feasibility studies, with requisite sluice gates for evacuation of reservoir water from El 106.5 ft to say 50 ft. These studies will have to be undertaken within a specified time frame. It goes without saying that the water flow from the New Tunnel can be used for power generation or for any other purpose by making changes in its existing infrastructure. Depending upon a decision about the elevation of the New Tunnel outlet, evacuation of the MPD reservoir will be possible in corresponding time period.

a) The new tunnel will need to be constructed by the SoTN since the ownership of the existing dam vests in it. The total expenditure for construction of the new tunnel should be borne by the SiTN. The costs may be small as compared to the cost of the replacement of the new dam. The SoTN should accomplish surveys and feasibility studies for the proposal of having a new tunnel within a year.

b) The New Runnel say at El 50 ft will enable the SoTN to use additional water available in storage between El 106.5 ft to 50 ft. At present these waters are remaining unused.

c) More importantly, if this alternative is implemented in an agreed period of time, the fear perception in the minds of people of the SoK (State of Kerala) will be set at rest. They can then appreciate that the New Tunnel is going to help evacuation of storage faster and better, in case the dam develops any distress. As a gravity dam seldom gives in suddenly, such evacuation will reduce Dam Break flood (DBF) magnitude significantly.

d) Though the demand of the SoK for 1.1 TMC of water for Environmental Flow is not substantiated, yet a legitimate need which is yet to be assessed can be met with after the FRL is raised to 142 ft. A small pipe outlet of a suitable diameter through right bank hillock can be dug to release….  

The government and the opposition, who are being led by some vested interests, have paid no attention to the Roy proposal which offers a cheaper alternative to the Kerala proposal for a new dam. Instead of wasting more time on litigation, the government should seek talks with Tamil Nadu to give effect to the idea of new tunnel, which has already met with the court’s approval.

People’s tribunal must go into Jayalalithaa’s allegation of land grab

The full-page advertisement under Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa’s signature, appearing in the national dailies today, makes a reference to the interests of land grabbers in Kerala in the Mullaperiyar dam controversy.

Following the concerns voiced by Kerala over the safety of the dam, the reservoir level has been kept at 136 feet for the last few years although the optimum level envisaged was 156 feet. After the Tamil Nadu government carried out certain repairs, which were recommended by the Central Water Commission, the Supreme Court had allowed it in 2006 to raise the level to 142 feet. The court said the level could be raised further after further works were carried out.

The Kerala government immediately got the Assembly to amend the Irrigation and Water Conservation Act to fix the maximum water level at 136 feet. The Tamil Nadu government questioned the validity of the law before the Supreme Court. Its petition is still pending before the court.

In the advertisement, Jayalalithaa states, “It is …reported that when the water level at Mullaperiyar Dam is 136 feet, the water spread area is 4678 acres and that if the water is stored to 155 feet, the water spread area will be 8591 acres. Since water has not been stored above 136 feet for a long time, the water spread area has been encroached upon by land grabbers in Kerala who have built resorts and other buildings on the lands leased to Tamil Nadu. If the water level is increased from 136 feet, these resorts will get submerged in water. This is also cited by some as the possible reason for the plea to decommission the Mullaperiyar Dam.”

We who know well about the activities of land grabbers and their political links cannot dismiss her statement as mere grist to Tamil Nadu’s propaganda mill.

Revenue Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan told the Kerala Assembly on Friday that rough estimates of the likely damage in the event of a dam break showed that 21,540 people would be directly in the danger zone where the time would be too short for rescue operations and 1,28,460 people more would be affected in the evacuation zone.

Quite obviously the figure of loss of three million to four million lives bandied about by he and his colleagues during the past few days was a gross exaggeration. Those who made such irresponsible statements must not only be kicked out of the government but also prosecuted for spreading rumours.

The ministers who have been most actively building up a scare by painting a doomsday scenario belong to a party which has always vehemently championed the cause of forest encroachers. As the aborted Munnar eviction campaign of the last few years has shown, land grabbers and their patrons are there in all the major parties.

In these circumstances, Jayalalithaa’s allegation needs to be examined. Considering the influence of land grabbers across the political spectrum there is no point in asking the government of Kerala to conduct an investigation and place the facts before the public. Civil society must set up an independent people’s tribunal to ascertain the facts.

One question that legitimately arises is why did Tamil Nadu allow the leased land in its possession to be grabbed by resort builders. The short answers is that those who bribe politicians and officials of Kerala can bribe those of Tamil Nadu as well.

Mullaperiyar: wasted opportunities

Kerala’s current agony stems from the fact that there is on its territory a dam which is under the control of the government of another state.

In 40 years the government of Kerala has not been able to convince the government of Tamil Nadu that the 116-year-old Mullaperiyar dam has outlived its life and that if it collapses the lives and livelihood of millions of people will be in jeopardy.

The Indian government has been in the picture all through. Tamil Nadu’s intransigence has frustrated its efforts to help resolve the issue through talks so far. Maybe it has also found Tamil Nadu’s argument that there is no threat to the dam more convincing than Kerala’s stand that it poses a threat.

For several years now, the Supreme Court too has been in the picture. Tamil Nadu has met with a measure of success in that forum. The apex court allowed TN to raise the water level of the reservoir, which had been lowered to 136 feet at Kerala’s request to reduce the risk of dam burst, after it had carried out some maintenance works proposed by the Central Water Commission. It also said TN could raise it further to the optimum level of 156 feet after taking further steps to strengthen the structure.

A series of earth tremors which rocked the Idukki district, where the dam is located, in the past few months has aggravated Kerala’s concerns about the safety of the dam. Responsible leaders and the media have played up the issue and spread fear. This has resulted in an emotional upsurge, which is very uncharacteristic of Kerala.

Whether the fear of dam burst is real, as the Kerala government insists, or it is artificially created, as the Tamil Nadu government maintains, there are some questions that need to be addressed squarely. Must the people of Kerala remain perpetually at the mercy of the government of another state? Must the government of Kerala, which has a constitutional obligation to protect the lives of its people, wait upon the goodwill of another state government to discharge its duty?

The Mullaperiyar dam stands on land leased by the Maharaja of the erstwhile Travancore state to the British government under an agreement signed in 1886. The Dewan of Travancore signed the agreement for the Maharaja and an official of the Madras Presidency for the Secretary of State for India, who was the British minister in charge of Indian affairs.

The agreement uses the term ‘lease indenture’. That term conclusively establishes its colonial character. Indenture makes it clear that the agreement was not between equals. The Maharaja of Travancore was a vassal of Britain, which had taken over the administration of India from the English East India Company in 1858.

The agreement set the period of the lease indenture at 999 years. The British presumably imagined India would be at their heels for all time. The Maharaja of Travancore certainly was reconciled to remaining a vassal for 1,000 years.

Under the lease agreement, Travancore made available 100 acres of land for the dam and 8,000 acres for the reservoir. The dam was built by British military engineers and it remained under the control of the Madras government.

The legal position is that the indenture ended when India became independent in 1947. Thereafter the government of Travancore and those of Travancore-Cochin and Kerala, made several unsuccessful attempts to sign a new agreement. The government of Madras and that of Tamil Nadu were determined to keep the advantage the colonial-era agreement gave them. Since the Travancore government and its successors scrupulously adhered to all terms of the lapsed agreement the authorities in Madras were in no hurry to go in for a new one.

The situation changed somewhat in 1970. Tamil Nadu wanted a new agreement as it wanted to use the waters of the Periyar for power generation also. The original agreement only provided for their use for irrigation.

The government of Kerala failed to use the opportunity to end the anomalous situation of another government controlling the dam located in its territory. The responsibility for the lapse lies at the door of the political parties which wielded power in the state at the relevant time. They fell in line with the wishes of their national leadership, which backed Tamil Nadu's demand. Ironically, the leaders of these very parties are now vying with one another to be recognized as the most vocal champions of the state’s interests.

Life beneath an aged dam

BRP BHASKAR
Gulf Today

Long-running agitations are part of Kerala's everyday experience. Some agitations succeed, some fail and some linger on with no end in sight.

Among the success stories are the closure of the Birlas' rayon factory at Mavoor, near Kozhikode, and Coca Cola's plant at Plachimada, near Palakkad, which had by polluted air and water and sown death and destruction. These stories remain sources of inspiration for small and vulnerable groups fighting polluting businesses.

On Friday, villagers living under the shadow of the aged Mullaperiyar dam in the Idukki district marked the third anniversary of their agitation demanding decommissioning of the dam. It was on Christmas Day 2006 that the Mullaperiyar Samara Samithi, led by Fr Joy Nirappel and CP Roy, launched the agitation.

The Mullaperiyar dam, commissioned in 1895, was built in pursuance of an agreement of 1886 between the British-ruled Madras Presidency and the princely state of Travancore, for diversion of an agreed quantity of water from the Periyar to irrigate arid regions in Madurai and adjoining districts.

The dam was constructed by Madras on land given on long lease by Travancore. As successor governments, Tamil Nadu now controls the dam and Kerala has ownership of the land.

The estimated life-span of the lime-and-mortar dam was only 50 years. Since 1970 Kerala has maintained that in view of the age of the dam it is unsafe to store water in the reservoir up to a height of 46.3 metres, as originally envisaged, and that the level should not exceed 41.45 metres. It is pointed out that a dam burst could endanger up to four million lives in Kerala.

In 1979, the Central Water Commission (CWC), after inspecting the dam, directed Tamil Nadu to lower the water level to 41.45 metres as a cautionary measure and take steps to strengthen the structure. Tamil Nadu accepted the directive.

In the 1990s, there was a spate of petitions in the Tamil Nadu and Kerala high courts on the Mullaperiyar issue. While Tamil Nadu petitioners asked for a higher water level, Kerala petitioners opposed it. In 1998 all the petitions were transferred to the Supreme Court.

At the court's instance, the Centre initiated talks with the Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments but no solution emerged.

In 2001, a committee headed by the CWC chairman proposed that after taking steps to strengthen the dam the reservoir level might be raised first to 43.28 metres and then to the originally envisaged 46.6 metres.

The Kerala government opposed the proposal. It pointed out that the suggestion was based on a stress analysis study which covered only the baby dam, and not the main dam.

However, in February 2006, the Supreme Court directed Tamil Nadu to carry out the strengthening measures suggested by the CWC and asked Kerala not to obstruct the work.

These developments caused considerable anxiety in Kerala, especially in the context of a 2003 study by the Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore, which warned that an earthquake could cause tensile cracks in the main dam.

People also entered the battleground. In Kerala, those living under the shadow of a possible catastrophe demanded that their safety to ensured. In Tamil Nadu, workers of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam stopped trucks carrying goods to Kerala, which depends on outside sources for most of its requirements.

The Kerala government responded by enlarging the scope of a law it had enacted in 2003 to create an authority charged with the task of ensuring the safety of all dams in the state. It vested in the authority the power to advise the government to suspend the function of a dam or even decommission it.

The amending measure statutorily determined 41.45 metres as the safe height of the Mullaperiyar dam.

The state also commissioned a survey as the first step towards the construction of a new dam.

The Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court once again. The court constituted a constitution bench to decide the matter. Hearing is set to begin early in 2010.

To the court, the issue is one of dispensing justice. To the state governments, it is a power game.

But to large sections of people in the two states -- to Keralites living under the shadow of the aged dam and to Tamils who depend upon Mullaperiyar waters for agriculture -- the issue is one of life and death, which needs to be resolved in a spirit of goodwill. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, December 28, 2009.