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, IdukkiDistrict 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.[1][2][3]. Mullaperiyar has been a hot issue politically and legally between the two Southern States of India, namely, Tamilnadu and Kerala.[4]
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 calledMullaperiyar.[5][6]
Periyar river originates in the Sivagiri Hills of the Western Ghats in Kerala, flows northwards and at Thekkady joins the west-flowing Mullaiyar, also originating in the Western Ghats in Kerala. The Mullaperiyar dam is constructed at the confluence of both the rivers Periyar and Mullaiyar to create the Periyar reservoir. From Periyar Thekkady reservoir, water is diverted eastwards to Tamilnadu via a tunnel enabling the water to join the Vaigai River. From Periyar Thekkady Reservoir, the Periyar river flows northwestward into the Idukki reservoir formed by the Idukki, Cheruthoni and Kulamavu dams. From Idukki reservoir, Periyar river flows northwestwards and then westward to join the Arabian sea at Munambam near Kodungallur and the Vembanad lake at Kochi.
History
On 29 October 1886, a lease indenture for 999 years was made between Maharaja of Travancore, Vishakham Thirunal and Secretary of State for India for Periyar irrigation works. The lease agreement was signed by Dewan of Travancore V Ram Iyengar and State Secretary of Madras State (under British rule) J C Hannington. This lease was made after constant pressure on Travancore King by the British for 24 years. The lease indenture inter alia granted full right, power and liberty to construct, make and carry out on the leased land and to use exclusively when constructed, made and carried out all such irrigation works and other works ancillary thereto to Secretary of State for India (now Tamil Nadu). The agreement was to give 8000 acres of land for the reservoir and another 100 acres to construct the dam. And the tax for each acre was 5 RS per year. When India became independent, the lease got expired. After several failed attempts to renew the agreement in 1958, 1960, and 1969, the agreement was renewed in 1970 when C Achutha Menon was Kerala Chief Minister. According to the renewed agreement, the tax per acre was 30 RS, and for the electricity generated in Lower Camp using Mullaperiyar water, the charge was 12 RS per kiloWatt per hour. This was without the consent of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala[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.
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.[8]
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.[9] Although Kerala claims that the agreement was forced on the then princely State ofTravancore, presently part of Kerala, the pact was re-validated in 1970 by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.[10]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.
[edit]Bio-Diversity
According to the scientific research & study report of kerala forest research institute says that, the place surrounding the dam is considered as a bio-diversity hot spot[11]
[edit]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.
[edit]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.[12] 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 theConstitution of India denies Supreme Court of jurisdiction on pre-constitutional agreements.[13] 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 [14] After Independence the areas downstream of the Mullaperiyar become heavily inhabited, as Kerala has a very high population density.
[edit]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[15] 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.[16]
[edit]Tamilnadu's stand
Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu government had increased its withdrawal from the reservoir, with additional facilities to cater to the increased demand from newly irrigated areas.[citation needed] One article[17]estimates that "the crop losses to Tamil Nadu, because of the reduction in the height of the dam, between 1980 and 2005 is a whopping Rs. 40,000 crores. In the process the farmers of the erstwhile rain shadow areas in Tamil Nadu who had started a thrice yearly cropping pattern had to go back to the bi-annual cropping."
However, the Kerala Government maintains that this is not true. During the year 1979–80 the gross area cultivated in Periyar command area was 171,307 acres (693.25 km2). After the lowering of the level to 136 ft (41 m), the gross irrigated area increased and in 1994–95 it reached 229,718 acres (929.64 km2).[18]
An article written in 2000 in Frontline stated: "For every argument raised by Tamil Nadu in support of its claims, there is counter-argument in Kerala that appears equally plausible. Yet, each time the controversy gets embroiled in extraneous issues, two things stand out: One is Kerala's refusal to 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".[19]
[edit]Current status
Tamil Nadu is the custodian of the dam and its surrounding areas. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Indiahas allowed for the storage level to be raised to 142 feet (43 m).[20] However, the Kerala Governmentpromulgated 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[21] 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[22]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.[23] 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. Now 2011 Kerala Govt. take this issue a serious concern and wild protests are taking place across Kerala, a new Dam is the only solution.On the basis of expert studies,Kerala Water resource Minister P J Joseph stated that "It is a question of the lives of 30 lakh people living downstream of Mullaperiyar. As a public servant of the state, I am not able to sleep well now. I am even ready to do away with my ministership as I cannot play any games with the lives of lakhs of people".The dam has been classified as unsafe after the Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) test recently, which detected huge cracks and the heavy drain of the limestone compound with which the dam has been built.The expert team of the Roorkee IIT had predicted that the seismic zone covering Mullaperiyar is prone to quakes up to 6.5 magnitude. After July 20/2011, 20 tremors have been recorded. On November 18/2011, the Richter scale magnitude of the tremor which hit the area was 3.5. When a stretch of Kerala would be ravaged and lakhs of lives will be lost if the dam failed, Tamil Nadu will also become a big loser as agriculture in Theni, Madurai, Dindigul, Sivaganga and Ramanathapuram would be hit in the absence of a dam in Mullaperiyar. Moreover, in Vandiperiyar, which is going to be washed out at first, 30,000 people among the 70,000 population are Tamils. There is a huge Tamil population in other areas of Idukki.
[edit]Justice A.S. Anand Committee
On 18 February 2010, the Supreme Court decided to constitute a five-member empowered committee to study all the issues of Mullaiperiyar Dam and seek a report from it within six months.[24] The Bench in its draft order said Tamil Nadu and Kerala would have the option to nominate a member each, who could be either a retired judge or a technical expert. The five-member committee will be headed by former Chief Justice of India A. S. Anand to go into all issues relating to the dam's safety and the storage level. However, the ruling party of Tamil Nadu, DMK, passed a resolution that it not only oppose the apex court's decision to form the five-member committee, but also said that the state government will not nominate any member to it.[25] Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said that immediately after the Supreme Court announced its decision to set up a committee, he had written to Congress president asking the Centre to mediate between Kerala and Tamil Nadu on Mullaperiyar issue.[26] However, Leader of Opposition J. Jayalalithaa objected to the TN Government move. She said that this would give advantage to Kerala in the issue.[27] Meanwhile, Kerala Water Resources Minister N. K. Premachandran told the state Assembly that the State should have the right of construction, ownership, operation and maintenance of the new dam, while giving water to Tamil Nadu on the basis of a clear cut agreement. He also informed the media that Former Supreme Court Judge Mr. K. T. Thomas will represent Kerala on the expert panel constituted by Supreme Court.[28] On 8 March 2010, in a fresh twist to the Mullaperiyar Dam row, Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that it was not interested in adjudicating the dispute with Kerala before the special “empowered” committee appointed by the apex court for settling the inter-State issue.[29] However, Supreme Court refused to accept Tamil Nadu's request to scrap the decision to form the empowered committee. SC also criticized the Union Government on its reluctance in funding the empowered committee.[30]
No comments:
Post a Comment