Good morning viewers,
Today iam telling you about the unknown truths about the MULLAPERIYAR DAM
MULLAPERIYAR
Mullaperiyar Dam 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). The Periyar National Park, Thekkady is located around the Periyar reservoir formed by the backwaters of this dam. 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 eastward flows through a tunnel from the dam, joins River Vaigai in Tamilnadu, and is used for irrigation and power generation in Tamilnadu. The Periyar Power Station in Lower Periyar, Tamilnadu generates hydro-electricity from the diverted waters. 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 of the 116 year old reservoir that is built using lime and surkhi mortar. Earthquakes in the area have further highlighted safety issues and concerns. Various issues are still being adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India
The construction work on a small dam began in 1850 but was abandoned. This was because of fever among workers and demand for higher wages. In May 1882, the work on the dam resumed and was entrusted to Major John Pennycuick. It's total estimated cost was Rs. 84.71 lakhs. The reservoir was to have a height of 152 feet and a capacity of 10.56 thousand million cubic feet.
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. 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. 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.
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 [13] After Independence the areas downstream of the Mullaperiyar become heavily inhabited, as Kerala has a very high population density.
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).
An article written in a 2000 Frontline magazine 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 acknowledge 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".
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 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 for the final report.
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. 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. Together with safety concerns, now the Kerala government argues that if the water level is increased to 142 feet, wide forest areas that are inhabited by conserved flora and fauna will be inundated. Tamil Nadu insists that the non-implementation of Supreme Court Order to increase water level by Kerala is the first issues tobe tackled. 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 pointed out 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.
The probability of failure of a dam depends on factors like seismicity of the area, spillway capacity, nature of foundations, seismic design quality of construction, feasibility of disaster management, bombing by terrorists or enemy countries. About 10% of the dams failed in India and abroad and about 2% of them are reported to have collapsed. The Vaiont dam in Italy failed in 1963 due to the collapse of the mountain slopes around the reservoir basin due to a series of medium earthquakes. Some dams in the western ghats of Maharashtra and Karnataka have also collapsed. About 2000 dams have been identified by the US experts as unsafe and it is estimated to cost $1000 million to rehabilitate them. Under the dam Safety Acts in USA and Canada, the risk analyses and dam-break scenarios are used as tools to assess the hazard potential of a dam as it provides firstly the data required for scientific estimation of spill way capacity and secondly to predict the flood wave depth and flood wave arrival times for identifying the villages and towns that could be drowned by the flash floods due to the collapse of the dam. Thus flood management in preventive terms means dam safety and in protective terms flood plains management. According to the International Standards (ICOLD –57, Bulletin46) seismic safety of the dam ensures that firstly the dam does not suffer significant damage due to an anticipated earthquake and secondly the damage to the dam is limited and no catastrophic failure occurs leading to uncontrolled release of water due to a maximum credible earthquake.
While studying the Environmental safety of Mulaperiyar dam, two expert committees, one appointed by the Kerala state and another by the union Government presented contradictory recommendations on safety aspects of the dam. A perusal of Newspaper reports on the findings of Expert Committee of the Central Government indicates that the report gives a false impression about the safety of Mulaperiyar dam and naturally the farmers of Tamil Nadu have become suspicious about the genuine grave concerns of Kerala on the colossal environmental damaging impacts consequent to the proposed increase in the height from 136ft to 152 ft of the century-old Mulaperiyar dam. Safety and Environmental hazards of Mulaperiyar and other dams like Iddukki are questions of life and death to Kerala and such issues are too serious to be blindly left in the hands of Experts since they involve not only the technical but also the major social problems. Since most Keralites are intellectual giants, it is necessary to create proper environmental awareness on this controversial problem so that the people can safeguard their right to life and the environment as envisaged under section 51(A) of the constitution of India.
WHO IS AN EXPERT? HOW SHOULD AN EXPERT OPINION BE EVALUATED?
According to law, an expert opinion becomes relevant for right decision, if only it conforms to certain fundamental norms. According to sec.45 of the Evidence Act, a person specially skilled, is considered as an expert. When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of science, art or engineering, the opinions upon that point of such persons who are specially skilled in such science, art or engineering are relevant facts. But an expert in order to become a competent witness need not acquire special knowledge or skill professionally because it is enough if he made a special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein.
Before the testimony of a person becomes acceptable his competency as an expert must be proved, may be by showing that he possesses the required qualification or that he has acquired skill therein by experience. An expert should be subjected to cross examination because like any other witness, the expert is fallible and the real value of his evidence consists in the rightful inferences which he draws from what he himself has observed and not from what he merely surmises. Facts which are not otherwise relevant become relevant, if they support or overthrow the opinion of experts when such opinions are relevant.
Where the opinion of an expert is to be acceptable, the grounds or reasoning upon which such opinion is based may also be inquired into. Opinion is no evidence, without assigning the reason for such opinion. The correctness of the opinion can better be estimated in many instances when the reason upon which is it is based are known. If the reasons are frivolous or inconclusive, the opinion is worth nothing. While the value of non-expert witness depends upon the credibility of the witness (i.e. his inclination and capacity of telling the truth), the value of opinion of an expert depends largely on the cogency of the reasons on which it is based, and the competency of the expert to form a reliable opinion. An expert opinion cannot be the basis for decision-making, unless the expert opinion is also corroborated by other evidence.
BY CLOUD SEEDING ON EITHER SIDES OF THE WESTERN GHATS:
While the farmers of Tamil Nadu are demanded for increased water supply by raising the height of Mulla Periyar dam, the Kerala people in the down-stream valley are demanding that their right to life and environment should be protected as per the constitution. Both the demands of Tamil Nadu and Kerala can be met by using the latest technologies for cloud seeding followed in several countries like USA, Canada, Australia, Israel, France, China, Indonesia, South Africa and Russian states. Artificial rain making is a proven technology in India and abroad as it increases annual rainfall by 15 to 30 percent.
CHINA IS WORLD LEADER IN EXTRACTING ADDITIONAL 1400 TMC PER YEAR BY CLOUD SEEDING OPERATIONS
In China almost all the municipalities, districts and states are regularly conducting cloud seeding experiments on both warm clouds and cold clouds not only to augment annual rainfall but also to suppress the hailstorms to avoid enormous economic damage to crops and properties. China is employing about 30,000 technicians every year to increase the annual rainfall by about 30% amounting to about 1400 TMC (about 40 billions cubic meters) at the cheapest cost .http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=281&objectid=10385522
Thus the annual additional rainfall produced by China with the whole hearted cooperation of the Communist Party workers, patriotic scientists and Ministers is more than twice the annual water flow in the mighty Cauvery rivers whose annual flow is a serious bone of contention among the basin states of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry whose elected legislators and Members of Parliament are not seriously bothered to promote public health and welfare by making available more water by copying the example of China which has taken up cloud seeding as the last and most potent weapon to fight the recurring droughts and thereby eleminate poverty and suffering among the millions of poor people who elected them to promote their prosperity and quality of life.
Even the King of Thailand is also so highly patriotic and loves to this all the sufferings of the farmers and farm workers consequent to recurring droughts. He is keenly interested in personally handling cloud seeding operations to squeeze additional rain fall every year from the sky water contained in the atmospheric clouds in an abundant extent amounting more than 10 times the freshwater contained in all the rivers on earth. Many patriotic leaders of other countries are requesting Thailand and China to help them to implement cloud seeding operations to harness not only the surface and ground waters but also the abundant water resources of the sky as contained in the seedable clouds as can be seen from the following website:
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=qw1113583861177B213
Further by over seeding the clouds that precipitate over the Arabian sea,they can be transported by the winds over to the Western Ghats in enlarged sizes and numbers and when they are re-seeded at suitable places they naturally give additional rainfall on both the Eastern and Western sides of the Western Ghats many times during the South West monsoons and periods of depressions and cyclones. Thus the annual rainfall can be increased by artificial rain making as suggested by the famous Irrigation Engineer Dr.K.L.Rao in his book on Indias Water Wealth. This will eliminate the need to raise the height of Mulla Periyar dam. Alternatively a new concrete or arch dam can be constructed in close proximity of the existing dam so that more water obtained by cloud seeidng operations can also be stored for utilisation by the Kerala state to produce additional hydro-electricity at a cost benefit ratio of 1:30 for promoting industrial development. This additional rain water that can be obtained by cloud seeding every year can also be used by Tamil Nadu state Government by diverting the water through another additional tunnel and store it in one or two reservoirs to be consturcted in the upper catchment areas of Vaigai river so that even the farmers of Ramanathpuram district can improve their own agriculture. For this purpose the Chief Minister of both Kerala and Tamil Nadu should come to an understanding in choosing appropriate alternate methods of providing more water to their sttes by not only conserving their own conventional surface and ground water resources but also by taping the new water resources in the atmospheric clouds. The Government of India and the Planning Commission may be requested to help the states to conduct cloud seeidng operations just like the Chinese Government is helping all the other provinces to augment their water resources for improving the quality of life of the people.
ROLE OF INTELLECTUALS :
The Kerala intellectuals and educational institutions must organise public debates on these environmental and safety aspects of the proposed project and its alternatives to create adequate awareness about the problems so that the people can exert pressure on the state and Central Governments to take scientific decisions in resolving this sensitive problem for ensuring sustainable development of both Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
Further Reading:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/360/A789843
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/360/A784794 (Alamatti Dam)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/360/A776531
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/360/A775965
http://www.unb.ca//courses/geol1001a/lec-13.htm
http://www.msu.edu/~fujita/earthquake/intensity.html
http://www.gitam.org/science/envstud/tehri/tehridam.html
EXTRACT FROM HINDUSTHAN TIMES DT.9-1-2001:
Kerala, TN quakes widen cracks in Mullaperiyar dam
HT Correspondent
(Thiruvananthapuram, January 8)
THE MULLAPERIYAR dam developed major cracks following Sunday's moderate tremors. Certain areas of south Kerala experienced mild after-shocks on Monday.
This is the seventh tremor to rock Kottayam and Idukki districts since December 12. Sources in the Mullaperiyar dam office said the cracks that had developed during the December 12 quake had widened after yesterday's jolts. The seepage had intensified and removed plasters at many points.
The dam is a subject of disagreement between the two neighbouring states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Tamil Nadu wants to raise the height of the dam from the existing 136 feet to 156 feet. However, Kerala has opposed the proposal saying that the 100-year-old dam was situated in an earthquake-prone area and quake-proof measures were not adhered to while constructing the dam.
Recently, a central expert team had recommended that there was no harm in raising the dam height to 142 feet.
Fresh tremors: Mild tremors, measuring up to 3.1 on the Richter Scale, were reported from parts of Kottayam and Idukki districts of Kerala in the early hours today, official sources said here.
According to sources, the tremors occurred four times between 1.10 am and 4.10 am in parts of Meenachil and Kanjirappally taluks accompanied by a booming sound.
Panic spreads: According to reports from Kottayam and Idukki, panic-stricken people had started taking precautionary measures. Many people stayed in tents throughout last night. Besides, contradicting views by seismologists and geologists have added to their confusion. Scientists have differences of opinion about the epicentre and magnitude of yesterday's quake. In Pala, the tremors had brought gushing streams from an abandoned bore-well.
"It is said that 95 per cent of the dam's water is now given to Tamil Nadu and it wants the balance of five per cent which amounts 1.2 tmc. But this is a very dangerous demand, according to him. Tamil Nadu maintains that strengthening measures have been carried out in the dam and therefore it is safe to raise its height further. It also stated that drilling was conducted upto 30 ft on the foundation rock of the dam and cable anchoring was held at 94 places."
After 1979, when the water level was maintained below 136 feet, as much as 11.219 sq km of land was exposed. New settlements and activities were developed in such areas in the adjoining Kumily during the last 21 years. Increasing the reservoir level now will affect seven sites where there are over a thousand households with a population of between 3,500 and 4,000 people. Both tribals and non-tribals will be affected when their houses and agriculture lands are submerged, the study says. [From The HINDU,11-11-2000]
Today iam telling you about the unknown truths about the MULLAPERIYAR DAM
MULLAPERIYAR
Mullaperiyar Dam 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). The Periyar National Park, Thekkady is located around the Periyar reservoir formed by the backwaters of this dam. 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 eastward flows through a tunnel from the dam, joins River Vaigai in Tamilnadu, and is used for irrigation and power generation in Tamilnadu. The Periyar Power Station in Lower Periyar, Tamilnadu generates hydro-electricity from the diverted waters. 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 of the 116 year old reservoir that is built using lime and surkhi mortar. Earthquakes in the area have further highlighted safety issues and concerns. Various issues are still being adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India
Mullai Periyar Dam and River
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 MullaperiyarPeriyar 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
Lease
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[citation needed]. This agreement expired in 2000[citation needed]. 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.[6]Dam construction
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 construction work on a small dam began in 1850 but was abandoned. This was because of fever among workers and demand for higher wages. In May 1882, the work on the dam resumed and was entrusted to Major John Pennycuick. It's total estimated cost was Rs. 84.71 lakhs. The reservoir was to have a height of 152 feet and a capacity of 10.56 thousand million cubic feet.
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. 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. 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.
Bio-Diversity
According to a report by the Kerala Forest Research Institute, the reserve surrounding the dam is considered as a bio-diversity hot spot.Disputes
The government of Tamil Nadu has proposed an increase in the storage level of the dam from the currently maintained 136 feet (41 m) to 142 feet (43 m)[citation needed]. The Kerala government has opposed this move, citing safety concerns for the more than hundred year old dam and especially for the thickly populated 4 districts downstream. Twenty six tremors have occur ed near the premises of the dam in the last nine months. IIT Roorkee report states that dam cant withstand earth quakes of magnitude 6 and above. It is a serious matter affecting lives and assets of millions of people. Kerala is willing to construct new dam and It is willing to provide water for Tamil Nadu. But still TN is opposing the move fearing that they will lose control over the functionality of Dam. The dispute is going to affect lives of millions staying in the three districts near the dam.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. 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 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 [13] 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 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] Water level in the 116-year-old Mullaperiyar dam rose to 135.8 feet.Tamilnadu's stand
The Tamil Nadu government had increased its withdrawal from the reservoir, with additional facilities to cater to the increased demand from newly irrigated areas.] One news article 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."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).
An article written in a 2000 Frontline magazine 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 acknowledge 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".
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). 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 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 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 for the final report.
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. 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. Together with safety concerns, now the Kerala government argues that if the water level is increased to 142 feet, wide forest areas that are inhabited by conserved flora and fauna will be inundated. Tamil Nadu insists that the non-implementation of Supreme Court Order to increase water level by Kerala is the first issues tobe tackled. 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 pointed out 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.
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. 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. 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. However, Leader of Opposition J. Jayalalithaa objected to the TN Government move. She said that this would give advantage to Kerala in the issue. 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. 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. 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.
ENSURING SAFETY OF THE DAM WITHOUT JEOPARDISING INTERESTS OF BOTH STATES
In order to resolve the controversey between Tamilnadu and karnataka,a scientific assessment of the problem must be made from several aspects
The earthquakes of magnitude 4.5 at Nedumkandam(1988), 4.3 at Wadakkanchery (1994) and the latest earthquake of magnitudes 5 that occurred in Periyar basin (12-12- 2000) clearly justify the views of seismologists that the seismic activity has recently increased and hence the tectonic behaviour of region must be assessed to know the seismic safety of Mulla Periyar, Iddukki and other dams in the region. In USA the geological survey uses aircraft with magneto-meters for studying the magnetic anomalies and detect the hidden faults to assess the seismic hazard potential in the selected zones. The continuing work of the dedicated and intelligent earth scientists is helping to protect the lives and properties of citizens in different regions from the earthquakes that are inevitable in the near future. But unfortunately the Indian experts without undertaking such investigations on seismic potential of Mulla Periyar dam are jumping to make unscientific pronouncements on the safety of the dam although such expert opinions are likely to present risks to the life of lakhs of people in Kerala. The probability of failure of a dam depends on factors like seismicity of the area, spillway capacity, nature of foundations, seismic design quality of construction, feasibility of disaster management, bombing by terrorists or enemy countries. About 10% of the dams failed in India and abroad and about 2% of them are reported to have collapsed. The Vaiont dam in Italy failed in 1963 due to the collapse of the mountain slopes around the reservoir basin due to a series of medium earthquakes. Some dams in the western ghats of Maharashtra and Karnataka have also collapsed. About 2000 dams have been identified by the US experts as unsafe and it is estimated to cost $1000 million to rehabilitate them. Under the dam Safety Acts in USA and Canada, the risk analyses and dam-break scenarios are used as tools to assess the hazard potential of a dam as it provides firstly the data required for scientific estimation of spill way capacity and secondly to predict the flood wave depth and flood wave arrival times for identifying the villages and towns that could be drowned by the flash floods due to the collapse of the dam. Thus flood management in preventive terms means dam safety and in protective terms flood plains management. According to the International Standards (ICOLD –57, Bulletin46) seismic safety of the dam ensures that firstly the dam does not suffer significant damage due to an anticipated earthquake and secondly the damage to the dam is limited and no catastrophic failure occurs leading to uncontrolled release of water due to a maximum credible earthquake.
While studying the Environmental safety of Mulaperiyar dam, two expert committees, one appointed by the Kerala state and another by the union Government presented contradictory recommendations on safety aspects of the dam. A perusal of Newspaper reports on the findings of Expert Committee of the Central Government indicates that the report gives a false impression about the safety of Mulaperiyar dam and naturally the farmers of Tamil Nadu have become suspicious about the genuine grave concerns of Kerala on the colossal environmental damaging impacts consequent to the proposed increase in the height from 136ft to 152 ft of the century-old Mulaperiyar dam. Safety and Environmental hazards of Mulaperiyar and other dams like Iddukki are questions of life and death to Kerala and such issues are too serious to be blindly left in the hands of Experts since they involve not only the technical but also the major social problems. Since most Keralites are intellectual giants, it is necessary to create proper environmental awareness on this controversial problem so that the people can safeguard their right to life and the environment as envisaged under section 51(A) of the constitution of India.
WHO IS AN EXPERT? HOW SHOULD AN EXPERT OPINION BE EVALUATED?
According to law, an expert opinion becomes relevant for right decision, if only it conforms to certain fundamental norms. According to sec.45 of the Evidence Act, a person specially skilled, is considered as an expert. When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of science, art or engineering, the opinions upon that point of such persons who are specially skilled in such science, art or engineering are relevant facts. But an expert in order to become a competent witness need not acquire special knowledge or skill professionally because it is enough if he made a special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein.
Before the testimony of a person becomes acceptable his competency as an expert must be proved, may be by showing that he possesses the required qualification or that he has acquired skill therein by experience. An expert should be subjected to cross examination because like any other witness, the expert is fallible and the real value of his evidence consists in the rightful inferences which he draws from what he himself has observed and not from what he merely surmises. Facts which are not otherwise relevant become relevant, if they support or overthrow the opinion of experts when such opinions are relevant.
Where the opinion of an expert is to be acceptable, the grounds or reasoning upon which such opinion is based may also be inquired into. Opinion is no evidence, without assigning the reason for such opinion. The correctness of the opinion can better be estimated in many instances when the reason upon which is it is based are known. If the reasons are frivolous or inconclusive, the opinion is worth nothing. While the value of non-expert witness depends upon the credibility of the witness (i.e. his inclination and capacity of telling the truth), the value of opinion of an expert depends largely on the cogency of the reasons on which it is based, and the competency of the expert to form a reliable opinion. An expert opinion cannot be the basis for decision-making, unless the expert opinion is also corroborated by other evidence.
GUIDELINES ON SAFETY OF DAMS(ICOLD, IFC, USA, CANADA etc):
a) International Commission on Large Dams(ICOLD):
According to ICOLD publication of dam safety (1996) , it is the extreme events that are of interest for dam safety, that is accidents and it involves the specification of the magnitude of the design flood and the design earthquake at the design stage. According to ICOLD in practical terms, there are conditions that (although essential for producing a scientifically based design) are not readily capable of being grasped by any rigid pre-set pattern of investigation and statistical analysis alone, human judgement on where and what to look for must be brought to bare, but decisions based on judgement may involve major risks in design and consequently when performing the monitoring and maintenance work.
a) International Commission on Large Dams(ICOLD):
According to ICOLD publication of dam safety (1996) , it is the extreme events that are of interest for dam safety, that is accidents and it involves the specification of the magnitude of the design flood and the design earthquake at the design stage. According to ICOLD in practical terms, there are conditions that (although essential for producing a scientifically based design) are not readily capable of being grasped by any rigid pre-set pattern of investigation and statistical analysis alone, human judgement on where and what to look for must be brought to bare, but decisions based on judgement may involve major risks in design and consequently when performing the monitoring and maintenance work.
Examples of human behaviour which, according to ICOLD lead to serious accidents are:
1) Non-preparation for accidents and lack of emergency planning
http://www.environment.gov.bc.ca/wat/dams/reg_final.html
http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edi/faculty/lund/dams/dam_history
http://discoveringmontana.com/DMA/des/Dams.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/Hydraulic_Engineering/Dam_Engineering/Dam_Failures
http://www.essential.org/monitor/hyper/issues/1995/04/mm0495_02.html
http://www.bchil.com/risk.html
2) Risk management, subordinated to speed of work on the dam
3) Unclear responsibilities including failure to assign identified tasks to suitably specified individuals
4) Lack of feedback
5) A sense of infallibility, an over simplistic approach or a break-down in communications between disciplines within the design team.
To avoid the above mishaps the design team must be not only highly structured but also open minded so that they can avoid the traps arising from such behaviour and are capable of making allowance for the limitations and uncertainties involved in the multi-disciplinary approach.(Most of these factors hold good in the case of Mulla Periyar and other dams)
Out of 36,000 large dams in 1998, 300 reported accidents. Dam failure rate is about one percent and the annual failure risk for any dam is 10-5. The overall risk for a dam is due to uncertainties like design-flood, design-earthquake, properties of material in the dam, and poor foundations. Risk calculations for dams are made in Canada, Australia and Norway as they make it possible to adapt the level of risk to suit the potential downstream consequences. It is the duty of the project authorities and their experts to inform and educate the concerned public down stream of the dam on the risks involved so that the Government can plan for safety of the dams, the environment and the people.
b) International Funding Agencies:
The International Finance Corporation asserts (www.ifc.org) that to ensure the safety and the life of any dam the project authorities must take the full responsibility. For large dams above 15 meters in height, it requires
a) Both technical and environmental reviews by independent panel of reputed experts throughout the investigation, design, construction and operation of the dam.
b) Preparation and implementation of detailed plans for construction, instrumentation and operation including an emergency preparedness plan.(No such plans made for Tehri)
The project proponent must appoint 3 or more independent experts with expertise in the various technical fields relevant to the dam safety aspects. For high hazard dams the experts should be internationally known in the field of dam safety that not only pertains to the physical structure but should also be concerned about the risk of catastrophic or incremental harm to the safety and welfare of downstream human populations and productive systems.
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the dam would examine the effects of a catastrophic failure of the dam and its long term impact on the downstream environment. For large dams emergency preparedness plan must be prepared and submitted. This plan must specify the responsibilities of parties when the dam failure threatens downstream life and properties and it should include maps outlining the inundation levels for various emergency conditions, flood warning system and procedures for evacuating people from threatened areas. The safety of the dams require that the project authorities must inform the local people about the risks and the safety aspects of the dam and abatement actions by treating them as environmental problems.
Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential environmental risks and impacts of a dam in its area of influence and for this purpose EA examines project alternatives, identifies ways of improving the project selection, siting, planning, design and implementation by preventing and minimising adverse environmental impacts.
The project authorities shall also engage an advisory panel of independent, internationally recognised environmental specialists to advise on all aspects of the project relevant to environmental assessment. The project authorities must consult the people likely to be affected about the environmental impacts and take their views into account during and after preparation of EA.
A hazard assessment is an instrument for identifying, analysing and controlling hazards associated with presence of dangerous substances and conditions in a locality and dams which store water in high seismic zones are hazards for people likely to be affected in case of a manor accident. But risk assessment is an instrument for estimating the probability of harm occurring from the presence of hazardous situations and risk assessments are essential for dams planned in locations vulnerable to seismic activity or other natural or manmade hazards. Thus risk assessment is treated as part of the environmental assessment documentation.
EA reports cover analysis of alternatives and they make comparison of feasible alternatives to the proposed project site, technology, design and operation including the option of a “no project situation”. Environmental Action Plans cover mitigation measures, monitoring and institutional strengthening to eliminate or minimise environmental or social impacts.
c) Dam Safety in USA :
Dam safety regulations are implemented by several states in USA. For example the dam safety in Alaska is covered by Alaska statute 46.17 and 11 AAC 93, article 3 and dam safety became effective in May 1987.
http://www.usbr.gov/dsis
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/dfguide.html
http://bossintl.com/html/dambrk_details.html
http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/resreg/htdocs/almofim.html
http://www.eas.purdue.edu/physproc/images/taiwan/DamAir.BMP.JPG
http://www.wes.army.mil/ITL/damsafe/WU-dam.html
http://genepi.louis-jean.com/cigb/safety.htm
http://simscience.org/cracks/advanced/malpasset_problem.html
According to old English common law the capture of water in itself is a hazardous activity. Therefore whoever captures the water is generally held responsible for any damage caused by the capture or release of the water and so the dam proponent is ultimately responsible for the safety of the dam. According to the regulations in Alaska State, USA. A high dam must have an emergency action plan which details the actions to be taken in the event of a dam failure, potential dam failure or other emergency involving the dam. The plan must have an inundation map and describe the warning and evacuation procedures for affected persons. The plan must describe the procedures for co-ordination with the local emergency management agency and the dam safety and construction wing that regulates construction and operation of the dams.
UNSAFE MULLA PERIYAR DAM?
The experts group of Central Water commission according to Mr.K.Paramesaran Nair alone representative of Kerala Government had floughted the fundamental rules of dam safety. Mr.Nair says that 95% of the water from the Mulaperiyar reservoir is now given to Tamil Nadu which wants the balance of 5% which amounts to 1.2TMC and for this purpose Tamil Nadu demands to raise the height of the dam from the present level of 136ft to 152ft. or even 145ft. and this demand poses threat to the public interests of Kerala. Keralites warn that if the height of dam is increased and if an accident occurs to the dam the flash floods will destroy Kumili town and thousands of people will perish in four districts downstream of the dam in Kerala state. Besides 10,000 acres of forest land would be submerged and 10,000 tribal families will be deprived of their food and shelter. The attempt to increase the height of the dam and the move to construct another dam is not based on scientific grounds. The claim of Tamil Nadu that the dam has enough strength to hold more water is not based on scientific grounds.
The annual leaching from the dam is 30 tons of water per year and cement grouting was done. The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) used in the design of Mulaperiyar dam was 2495 cumecs and it was revised to 6000 cumecs as suggested by Central Water Commission. Idukki has a PMF of 8000 cumecs and Idukki would not be able to handle a major inflow of 6000 cumecs, if Idukki itself has water upto FRL or near to it. If both the projects are subject to flooding at the same time is pose a threat to the dams that means even if Mulaperiyar does not fail. Since several small rivers while diverted into Idukki subsequent to its completion. The failure of Mulaperiyar dam could be catastrophic for Idukki project. Idukki dam that was built to hold 2000million cubic meters of water (70 TMC) will have to absorb flash floods of 443 million cubic meters (15 TMC) from 50 kms away and if it fails hundreds of towns and villages of Periyar basin in Kerala will be wiped out if the dams of Idukki failed. Idukki w as designed for PGAh of 0.05g and PGAv of 0.025g. It means that the dams cannot withstand earthquakes of higher intensity expected in the area in the near future. Lower Periyar dam downstream is designed for PGAh of 0.1g. However landslides in the catchment due to recurring earthquake tremors and intense rains can cause failure of the dams as had happened in the case of Vaiont dam in Italy in 1963. The scientific studies indicating unstable hill slopes and heavy siltation of the reservoirs indicate the hazards waiting in the wings.
Medium earthquakes like the once that occurred in Periyar basin have produced very high Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) in several Geo-tectonic environs. For instance the Ancona earthquake of 4.6 magnitude in Italy (1972) produced PGA of 0.61 and the Oroville quake in USA (1975) of magnitude 4.6 produced PGA of 0.63 and the Salvador earthquake (1986) of 5.4 magnitude produced a PGA of 0.70 and the Cerro earthquake of USA (1987) of magnitude 5.5 produced a PGA (horizontal) of 1.12g and a vertical PGA of 0.61 and hence the Mulaperiyar dam which was not designed to withstand any earthquake can never be expected to be safe particularly when it is century-old and located in a highly earthquake prone zone.
If the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the project works placed in the hands of Tamil Nadu and the beneficiaries are Tamil farmers of Madurai and the potential victims of the catastrophic failure of the dam are in hundreds of villages and towns of Kerala, it is impossible to preface the risk analysis and Disaster management reports for emergency evacuation of people likely to be killed due to a maximum credible accident to one or more dams on Periyar river. In the absence of these basic reports, the recommendations of the Expert committees appointed by the Central Government to study safety aspects of Mulaperiyar dam become null and void.
Failure of dam also occur due to the following causes:
1.Liquefaction of the materials used in the dam.
2.Liquefaction in the foundation soil
3.Wrong estimation of the peak ground acceleration due to wrong assumptions on seismic potential of the area in terms of magnitude, intensity and methods followed for estimating effective Peak Ground Acceleration
4.Prediction of deformations and stresses from earthquake loading
5.Inability to make necessary modifications in the size of the dam that will provide an acceptable response in case the predicted deformations or stresses are intolerable due to revised increases in seismicity of the area during project construction.
6.Inability to estimate performance of the dam and foundation characteristics by comparison with case histories of dam failures
Other modes of dam failures include:
7.Slope failures induced by ground motions
8.Sliding of the dam on weak foundation materials
9.Disruption of dam by major fault movement in the foundation
10.Loss of freeboard due o differential tectonic movements
11.Loss of freeboard due to slope failures or soil compaction
12.Piping failure through cracks induced by the ground motions
13.Overtopping of dam due to seiche in the reservoir
14.Overtopping of dam due to slides into the reservoir
15.Overtopping of dam due to failure of spillway or failure of dams upstream.
1) Non-preparation for accidents and lack of emergency planning
http://www.environment.gov.bc.ca/wat/dams/reg_final.html
http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edi/faculty/lund/dams/dam_history
http://discoveringmontana.com/DMA/des/Dams.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/Hydraulic_Engineering/Dam_Engineering/Dam_Failures
http://www.essential.org/monitor/hyper/issues/1995/04/mm0495_02.html
http://www.bchil.com/risk.html
2) Risk management, subordinated to speed of work on the dam
3) Unclear responsibilities including failure to assign identified tasks to suitably specified individuals
4) Lack of feedback
5) A sense of infallibility, an over simplistic approach or a break-down in communications between disciplines within the design team.
To avoid the above mishaps the design team must be not only highly structured but also open minded so that they can avoid the traps arising from such behaviour and are capable of making allowance for the limitations and uncertainties involved in the multi-disciplinary approach.(Most of these factors hold good in the case of Mulla Periyar and other dams)
Out of 36,000 large dams in 1998, 300 reported accidents. Dam failure rate is about one percent and the annual failure risk for any dam is 10-5. The overall risk for a dam is due to uncertainties like design-flood, design-earthquake, properties of material in the dam, and poor foundations. Risk calculations for dams are made in Canada, Australia and Norway as they make it possible to adapt the level of risk to suit the potential downstream consequences. It is the duty of the project authorities and their experts to inform and educate the concerned public down stream of the dam on the risks involved so that the Government can plan for safety of the dams, the environment and the people.
b) International Funding Agencies:
The International Finance Corporation asserts (www.ifc.org) that to ensure the safety and the life of any dam the project authorities must take the full responsibility. For large dams above 15 meters in height, it requires
a) Both technical and environmental reviews by independent panel of reputed experts throughout the investigation, design, construction and operation of the dam.
b) Preparation and implementation of detailed plans for construction, instrumentation and operation including an emergency preparedness plan.(No such plans made for Tehri)
The project proponent must appoint 3 or more independent experts with expertise in the various technical fields relevant to the dam safety aspects. For high hazard dams the experts should be internationally known in the field of dam safety that not only pertains to the physical structure but should also be concerned about the risk of catastrophic or incremental harm to the safety and welfare of downstream human populations and productive systems.
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the dam would examine the effects of a catastrophic failure of the dam and its long term impact on the downstream environment. For large dams emergency preparedness plan must be prepared and submitted. This plan must specify the responsibilities of parties when the dam failure threatens downstream life and properties and it should include maps outlining the inundation levels for various emergency conditions, flood warning system and procedures for evacuating people from threatened areas. The safety of the dams require that the project authorities must inform the local people about the risks and the safety aspects of the dam and abatement actions by treating them as environmental problems.
Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential environmental risks and impacts of a dam in its area of influence and for this purpose EA examines project alternatives, identifies ways of improving the project selection, siting, planning, design and implementation by preventing and minimising adverse environmental impacts.
The project authorities shall also engage an advisory panel of independent, internationally recognised environmental specialists to advise on all aspects of the project relevant to environmental assessment. The project authorities must consult the people likely to be affected about the environmental impacts and take their views into account during and after preparation of EA.
A hazard assessment is an instrument for identifying, analysing and controlling hazards associated with presence of dangerous substances and conditions in a locality and dams which store water in high seismic zones are hazards for people likely to be affected in case of a manor accident. But risk assessment is an instrument for estimating the probability of harm occurring from the presence of hazardous situations and risk assessments are essential for dams planned in locations vulnerable to seismic activity or other natural or manmade hazards. Thus risk assessment is treated as part of the environmental assessment documentation.
EA reports cover analysis of alternatives and they make comparison of feasible alternatives to the proposed project site, technology, design and operation including the option of a “no project situation”. Environmental Action Plans cover mitigation measures, monitoring and institutional strengthening to eliminate or minimise environmental or social impacts.
c) Dam Safety in USA :
Dam safety regulations are implemented by several states in USA. For example the dam safety in Alaska is covered by Alaska statute 46.17 and 11 AAC 93, article 3 and dam safety became effective in May 1987.
http://www.usbr.gov/dsis
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/dfguide.html
http://bossintl.com/html/dambrk_details.html
http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/resreg/htdocs/almofim.html
http://www.eas.purdue.edu/physproc/images/taiwan/DamAir.BMP.JPG
http://www.wes.army.mil/ITL/damsafe/WU-dam.html
http://genepi.louis-jean.com/cigb/safety.htm
http://simscience.org/cracks/advanced/malpasset_problem.html
According to old English common law the capture of water in itself is a hazardous activity. Therefore whoever captures the water is generally held responsible for any damage caused by the capture or release of the water and so the dam proponent is ultimately responsible for the safety of the dam. According to the regulations in Alaska State, USA. A high dam must have an emergency action plan which details the actions to be taken in the event of a dam failure, potential dam failure or other emergency involving the dam. The plan must have an inundation map and describe the warning and evacuation procedures for affected persons. The plan must describe the procedures for co-ordination with the local emergency management agency and the dam safety and construction wing that regulates construction and operation of the dams.
UNSAFE MULLA PERIYAR DAM?
The experts group of Central Water commission according to Mr.K.Paramesaran Nair alone representative of Kerala Government had floughted the fundamental rules of dam safety. Mr.Nair says that 95% of the water from the Mulaperiyar reservoir is now given to Tamil Nadu which wants the balance of 5% which amounts to 1.2TMC and for this purpose Tamil Nadu demands to raise the height of the dam from the present level of 136ft to 152ft. or even 145ft. and this demand poses threat to the public interests of Kerala. Keralites warn that if the height of dam is increased and if an accident occurs to the dam the flash floods will destroy Kumili town and thousands of people will perish in four districts downstream of the dam in Kerala state. Besides 10,000 acres of forest land would be submerged and 10,000 tribal families will be deprived of their food and shelter. The attempt to increase the height of the dam and the move to construct another dam is not based on scientific grounds. The claim of Tamil Nadu that the dam has enough strength to hold more water is not based on scientific grounds.
The annual leaching from the dam is 30 tons of water per year and cement grouting was done. The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) used in the design of Mulaperiyar dam was 2495 cumecs and it was revised to 6000 cumecs as suggested by Central Water Commission. Idukki has a PMF of 8000 cumecs and Idukki would not be able to handle a major inflow of 6000 cumecs, if Idukki itself has water upto FRL or near to it. If both the projects are subject to flooding at the same time is pose a threat to the dams that means even if Mulaperiyar does not fail. Since several small rivers while diverted into Idukki subsequent to its completion. The failure of Mulaperiyar dam could be catastrophic for Idukki project. Idukki dam that was built to hold 2000million cubic meters of water (70 TMC) will have to absorb flash floods of 443 million cubic meters (15 TMC) from 50 kms away and if it fails hundreds of towns and villages of Periyar basin in Kerala will be wiped out if the dams of Idukki failed. Idukki w as designed for PGAh of 0.05g and PGAv of 0.025g. It means that the dams cannot withstand earthquakes of higher intensity expected in the area in the near future. Lower Periyar dam downstream is designed for PGAh of 0.1g. However landslides in the catchment due to recurring earthquake tremors and intense rains can cause failure of the dams as had happened in the case of Vaiont dam in Italy in 1963. The scientific studies indicating unstable hill slopes and heavy siltation of the reservoirs indicate the hazards waiting in the wings.
Medium earthquakes like the once that occurred in Periyar basin have produced very high Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) in several Geo-tectonic environs. For instance the Ancona earthquake of 4.6 magnitude in Italy (1972) produced PGA of 0.61 and the Oroville quake in USA (1975) of magnitude 4.6 produced PGA of 0.63 and the Salvador earthquake (1986) of 5.4 magnitude produced a PGA of 0.70 and the Cerro earthquake of USA (1987) of magnitude 5.5 produced a PGA (horizontal) of 1.12g and a vertical PGA of 0.61 and hence the Mulaperiyar dam which was not designed to withstand any earthquake can never be expected to be safe particularly when it is century-old and located in a highly earthquake prone zone.
If the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the project works placed in the hands of Tamil Nadu and the beneficiaries are Tamil farmers of Madurai and the potential victims of the catastrophic failure of the dam are in hundreds of villages and towns of Kerala, it is impossible to preface the risk analysis and Disaster management reports for emergency evacuation of people likely to be killed due to a maximum credible accident to one or more dams on Periyar river. In the absence of these basic reports, the recommendations of the Expert committees appointed by the Central Government to study safety aspects of Mulaperiyar dam become null and void.
Failure of dam also occur due to the following causes:
1.Liquefaction of the materials used in the dam.
2.Liquefaction in the foundation soil
3.Wrong estimation of the peak ground acceleration due to wrong assumptions on seismic potential of the area in terms of magnitude, intensity and methods followed for estimating effective Peak Ground Acceleration
4.Prediction of deformations and stresses from earthquake loading
5.Inability to make necessary modifications in the size of the dam that will provide an acceptable response in case the predicted deformations or stresses are intolerable due to revised increases in seismicity of the area during project construction.
6.Inability to estimate performance of the dam and foundation characteristics by comparison with case histories of dam failures
Other modes of dam failures include:
7.Slope failures induced by ground motions
8.Sliding of the dam on weak foundation materials
9.Disruption of dam by major fault movement in the foundation
10.Loss of freeboard due o differential tectonic movements
11.Loss of freeboard due to slope failures or soil compaction
12.Piping failure through cracks induced by the ground motions
13.Overtopping of dam due to seiche in the reservoir
14.Overtopping of dam due to slides into the reservoir
15.Overtopping of dam due to failure of spillway or failure of dams upstream.
The water level in Periyar was reduced from 152ft. to 136ft. in 1979 due to doubts raised about the strength of the Century-old structure. When American experts are reviewing the safety of all their dams in the light of the latest tremors and are dismantling some old dams, strengthening some weak ones and redesigning some more by reducing their storage levels so that emergency evacuation measures become feasible for implementation during collapses of dams to minimise loss of lives and properties, how can some Indian experts who have no indepth knowledge on seismic safety of dams venture to vouchsafe for the safety of Mulla Periyar dam without making any scientific analysis pertaining to all the above relevant factors as followed in the developed countries in this regard?
SOLVING THE PROBLEMS OF KERALA AND TAMIL NADUBY CLOUD SEEDING ON EITHER SIDES OF THE WESTERN GHATS:
While the farmers of Tamil Nadu are demanded for increased water supply by raising the height of Mulla Periyar dam, the Kerala people in the down-stream valley are demanding that their right to life and environment should be protected as per the constitution. Both the demands of Tamil Nadu and Kerala can be met by using the latest technologies for cloud seeding followed in several countries like USA, Canada, Australia, Israel, France, China, Indonesia, South Africa and Russian states. Artificial rain making is a proven technology in India and abroad as it increases annual rainfall by 15 to 30 percent.
CHINA IS WORLD LEADER IN EXTRACTING ADDITIONAL 1400 TMC PER YEAR BY CLOUD SEEDING OPERATIONS
In China almost all the municipalities, districts and states are regularly conducting cloud seeding experiments on both warm clouds and cold clouds not only to augment annual rainfall but also to suppress the hailstorms to avoid enormous economic damage to crops and properties. China is employing about 30,000 technicians every year to increase the annual rainfall by about 30% amounting to about 1400 TMC (about 40 billions cubic meters) at the cheapest cost .http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=281&objectid=10385522
Thus the annual additional rainfall produced by China with the whole hearted cooperation of the Communist Party workers, patriotic scientists and Ministers is more than twice the annual water flow in the mighty Cauvery rivers whose annual flow is a serious bone of contention among the basin states of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry whose elected legislators and Members of Parliament are not seriously bothered to promote public health and welfare by making available more water by copying the example of China which has taken up cloud seeding as the last and most potent weapon to fight the recurring droughts and thereby eleminate poverty and suffering among the millions of poor people who elected them to promote their prosperity and quality of life.
Even the King of Thailand is also so highly patriotic and loves to this all the sufferings of the farmers and farm workers consequent to recurring droughts. He is keenly interested in personally handling cloud seeding operations to squeeze additional rain fall every year from the sky water contained in the atmospheric clouds in an abundant extent amounting more than 10 times the freshwater contained in all the rivers on earth. Many patriotic leaders of other countries are requesting Thailand and China to help them to implement cloud seeding operations to harness not only the surface and ground waters but also the abundant water resources of the sky as contained in the seedable clouds as can be seen from the following website:
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=qw1113583861177B213
Further by over seeding the clouds that precipitate over the Arabian sea,they can be transported by the winds over to the Western Ghats in enlarged sizes and numbers and when they are re-seeded at suitable places they naturally give additional rainfall on both the Eastern and Western sides of the Western Ghats many times during the South West monsoons and periods of depressions and cyclones. Thus the annual rainfall can be increased by artificial rain making as suggested by the famous Irrigation Engineer Dr.K.L.Rao in his book on Indias Water Wealth. This will eliminate the need to raise the height of Mulla Periyar dam. Alternatively a new concrete or arch dam can be constructed in close proximity of the existing dam so that more water obtained by cloud seeidng operations can also be stored for utilisation by the Kerala state to produce additional hydro-electricity at a cost benefit ratio of 1:30 for promoting industrial development. This additional rain water that can be obtained by cloud seeding every year can also be used by Tamil Nadu state Government by diverting the water through another additional tunnel and store it in one or two reservoirs to be consturcted in the upper catchment areas of Vaigai river so that even the farmers of Ramanathpuram district can improve their own agriculture. For this purpose the Chief Minister of both Kerala and Tamil Nadu should come to an understanding in choosing appropriate alternate methods of providing more water to their sttes by not only conserving their own conventional surface and ground water resources but also by taping the new water resources in the atmospheric clouds. The Government of India and the Planning Commission may be requested to help the states to conduct cloud seeidng operations just like the Chinese Government is helping all the other provinces to augment their water resources for improving the quality of life of the people.
ROLE OF INTELLECTUALS :
The Kerala intellectuals and educational institutions must organise public debates on these environmental and safety aspects of the proposed project and its alternatives to create adequate awareness about the problems so that the people can exert pressure on the state and Central Governments to take scientific decisions in resolving this sensitive problem for ensuring sustainable development of both Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
Further Reading:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/360/A789843
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/360/A784794 (Alamatti Dam)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/360/A776531
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/360/360/A775965
http://www.unb.ca//courses/geol1001a/lec-13.htm
http://www.msu.edu/~fujita/earthquake/intensity.html
http://www.gitam.org/science/envstud/tehri/tehridam.html
EXTRACT FROM HINDUSTHAN TIMES DT.9-1-2001:
Kerala, TN quakes widen cracks in Mullaperiyar dam
HT Correspondent
(Thiruvananthapuram, January 8)
THE MULLAPERIYAR dam developed major cracks following Sunday's moderate tremors. Certain areas of south Kerala experienced mild after-shocks on Monday.
This is the seventh tremor to rock Kottayam and Idukki districts since December 12. Sources in the Mullaperiyar dam office said the cracks that had developed during the December 12 quake had widened after yesterday's jolts. The seepage had intensified and removed plasters at many points.
The dam is a subject of disagreement between the two neighbouring states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Tamil Nadu wants to raise the height of the dam from the existing 136 feet to 156 feet. However, Kerala has opposed the proposal saying that the 100-year-old dam was situated in an earthquake-prone area and quake-proof measures were not adhered to while constructing the dam.
Recently, a central expert team had recommended that there was no harm in raising the dam height to 142 feet.
Fresh tremors: Mild tremors, measuring up to 3.1 on the Richter Scale, were reported from parts of Kottayam and Idukki districts of Kerala in the early hours today, official sources said here.
According to sources, the tremors occurred four times between 1.10 am and 4.10 am in parts of Meenachil and Kanjirappally taluks accompanied by a booming sound.
Panic spreads: According to reports from Kottayam and Idukki, panic-stricken people had started taking precautionary measures. Many people stayed in tents throughout last night. Besides, contradicting views by seismologists and geologists have added to their confusion. Scientists have differences of opinion about the epicentre and magnitude of yesterday's quake. In Pala, the tremors had brought gushing streams from an abandoned bore-well.
"It is said that 95 per cent of the dam's water is now given to Tamil Nadu and it wants the balance of five per cent which amounts 1.2 tmc. But this is a very dangerous demand, according to him. Tamil Nadu maintains that strengthening measures have been carried out in the dam and therefore it is safe to raise its height further. It also stated that drilling was conducted upto 30 ft on the foundation rock of the dam and cable anchoring was held at 94 places."
After 1979, when the water level was maintained below 136 feet, as much as 11.219 sq km of land was exposed. New settlements and activities were developed in such areas in the adjoining Kumily during the last 21 years. Increasing the reservoir level now will affect seven sites where there are over a thousand households with a population of between 3,500 and 4,000 people. Both tribals and non-tribals will be affected when their houses and agriculture lands are submerged, the study says. [From The HINDU,11-11-2000]
