Safety to Kerala and Water to Tamil Nadu

Cartoon

2011-11-27T21:15:00.000-08:00

2011-11-27T05:42:00.000-08:00

Plz.. Dont Delete.. Dont Keep this.. Forward to all Malayaleees...

2011-11-27T04:48:00.000-08:00

Plz.. Dont Delete.. eDont Keep this.. Forward to all Indians...

l

കേരളത്തിലെ മൂന്നരക്കോടിക്ക് മേലെ വരുന്ന ജനങ്ങളില്‍ എത്രപേര്‍ തങ്ങളില്‍ പലരുടേയും അന്തകനാകാന്‍ സാദ്ധ്യതയുള്ള മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ ഡാമിനെപ്പറ്റിയും അതിന്റെ ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ അവസ്ഥയെപ്പറ്റിയും ബോധവാന്മാരാണ്? ബഹുഭൂരിപക്ഷത്തിനും കാര്യമായൊന്നും അറിയില്ല എന്ന് തന്നെ വേണം കരുതാന്‍ .

ലക്ഷക്കണക്കിന് മലയാളികളുടെ തലയ്ക്ക് മുകളില്‍ ഡെമോക്ലസ്സിന്റെ വാള് പോലെ മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ തൂങ്ങിയാടാന്‍ തുടങ്ങിയിട്ട് കാലം കുറേയാകുന്നു. നിര്‍മ്മാണ കാലത്ത് ലോകത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ അണക്കെട്ട് ഇതായിരുന്നെങ്കിലും, ചുണ്ണാമ്പും സുര്‍ക്കി മിശ്രിതവും കരിങ്കല്ലുമൊക്കെ ഉപയോഗിച്ചുണ്ടാക്കിയ 113 വര്‍ഷത്തിലധികം പഴക്കമുള്ള മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ അണക്കെട്ടാണ് ഇന്ന് ലോകത്തിലുള്ളതില്‍ ഏറ്റവും പഴക്കമുള്ള ഭൂഗുരുത്വ അണക്കെട്ട്.

1896 ല്‍ ഈ അണക്കെട്ട് നിര്‍മ്മാണം പൂര്‍ത്തിയാക്കിയ കാലത്ത്, 50 കൊല്ലത്തിലധികം ഇത്തരം അണക്കെട്ടുകള്‍ക്ക് ആയുസ്സില്ലെന്ന് അണക്കെട്ടിന്റെ ശില്‍പ്പിയായ ബെന്നി കുക്ക് എന്ന ബ്രിട്ടീഷുകാരന്‍ തന്നെ പറയുന്നുണ്ട്. അങ്ങനെ നോക്കിയാല്‍പ്പോലും സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തിന് മുന്നേ തന്നെ അണക്കെട്ടിന്റെ കാലാവധി കഴിഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നു. സായിപ്പ് ഉണ്ടാക്കിയ അണക്കെട്ടായതുകൊണ്ട് മാത്രമാണ് പിന്നെയും 63 കൊല്ലമായി അതിങ്ങനെ പൊട്ടാതെ നില്‍ക്കുന്നത്. നമ്മുടെ നാട്ടുകാര്‍ ആരെങ്കിലുമാണ് ഡാമുണ്ടാക്കിയതെങ്കില്‍ ഇതിനോടകം മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ അണക്കെട്ട് ദുരന്തത്തിന്റെ പ്ലാറ്റിനം ജ്യൂബിലി മലയാളികള്‍ ആഘോഷിച്ച് കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടാകുമായിരുന്നു.

കേരളത്തിലാണ് മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ ഡാം സ്ഥിതിചെയ്യുന്നതെങ്കിലും തമിഴ്നാടാണ് ഡാമിന്റെ ഉടമസ്ഥര്‍ . അക്കഥകളൊക്കെ പറയാന്‍ പോയാല്‍ മണ്ടത്തരങ്ങളുടെ സര്‍ദാര്‍ജിക്കഥ പരമ്പര പോലെ കേട്ടിരുന്ന് ചിരിക്കാനുള്ള വകയുണ്ട്.

ബ്രിട്ടീഷ് ഭരണകാലത്ത് തേനി, മദുര, ദിണ്ടിക്കല്‍ ‍, രാമനാഥപുരം എന്നീ തമിഴ് പ്രവിശ്യകള്‍ ജലക്ഷാമം അനുഭവിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ പശ്ചിമഘട്ടത്തിനിപ്പുറമുള്ള കേരളത്തിലെ പെരിയാര്‍ തീരങ്ങളില്‍ പലപ്പോഴും വെള്ളപ്പൊക്കമായിരുന്നു. ഇതിന് സായിപ്പ് കണ്ടുപിടിച്ച പ്രതിവിധിയാണ് മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ അണക്കെട്ട്. പെരിയാര്‍ നദിയിലെ വെള്ളം അണകെട്ടി പശ്ചിമഘട്ടം തുരന്ന് മദുരയിലൂടെ ഒഴുകുന്ന വൈഗൈ നദിയിലെത്തിക്കാനിട്ട പദ്ധതിയാണ് ഇന്നിപ്പോള്‍ മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ ഡാം എന്ന തലവേദനയായി മലയാളിയുടെ ഉറക്കം കെടുത്തുന്നത്.

1886 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 29ന് പെരിയാര്‍ പാട്ടക്കരാര്‍ പ്രകാരം പെരിയാര്‍ നദിയുടെ 155 അടി ഉയരത്തില്‍ സ്ഥിതിചെയ്യുന്ന 8000 ഏക്കര്‍ സ്ഥലത്തിന് പുറമെ അണക്കെട്ട് നിര്‍മ്മാണത്തിനായി 100 ഏക്കര്‍ സ്ഥലവും തിരുവിതാംകൂര്‍ രാജാവായിരുന്ന വിശാഖം തിരുനാള്‍ രാമവര്‍മ്മ അന്നത്തെ മദിരാശി സര്‍ക്കാറിന് പാട്ടമായി നല്‍കുകയാണുണ്ടായത്. കരാറുപ്രകാരം പാട്ടത്തുകയായി ഏക്കറിനു 5 രൂപയെന്ന കണക്കില്‍ 40,000 രൂപ വര്‍ഷം തോറും കേരളത്തിന് ലഭിക്കും . 50 വര്‍ഷം മാത്രം ആയുസ്സ് കണക്കാക്കിയിരുന്ന ‍ഡാമിന്റെ കരാര്‍ കാലയളവ് 999 വര്‍ഷമാണെന്നുള്ളതാണ് വിരോധാഭാസം. ആദ്യകരാര്‍ കഴിയുമ്പോള്‍ വേണമെങ്കില്‍ വീണ്ടുമൊരു 999 വര്‍ഷത്തേക്ക് കരാര്‍ പുതുക്കുന്നതിന് വിരോധമൊന്നും ഇല്ലെന്നുള്ള മറ്റൊരു മണ്ടത്തരവും കൂടെ കരാറിലുണ്ട്.

അണക്കെട്ടില്‍ ചോര്‍ച്ചയും മറ്റും വരാന്‍ തുടങ്ങിയതോടെയായിരിക്കണം അണക്കെട്ട് ദുര്‍ബ്ബലമാണെന്നും ജലനിരപ്പ് 136 അടിക്ക് മുകളില്‍ ഉയര്‍ത്താന്‍ പറ്റില്ലെന്നും പറഞ്ഞ് കേരളവും തമിഴ്നാടും തമ്മിലുള്ള നിയമ യുദ്ധങ്ങള്‍ ആരംഭിക്കുന്നത്. (ഇതിന് പിന്നില്‍ മറ്റെന്തെങ്കിലും രാഷ്ട്രീയം ഉണ്ടോയെന്നറിയില്ല.) ഡാം പൊട്ടിയാലും തമിഴ്നാട്ടിലേക്ക് വെള്ളമൊഴുകി അവര്‍ക്ക് അപകടം ഒന്നുമുണ്ടാകില്ല എന്നതുകൊണ്ട് കിട്ടുന്നിടത്തോളം കാലം വെള്ളം ഊറ്റാനാണ് തമിഴ്നാടിന്റെ പദ്ധതി. ഡാം പൊട്ടിയാല്‍ 35 കിലോമീറ്റര്‍ താഴെയുള്ള ഇടുക്കി ഡാം ആ വെള്ളം മുഴുവന്‍ താങ്ങിക്കോളും എന്നുള്ള മുടന്തന്‍ ന്യായങ്ങളും തമിഴ്നാട് സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ നിരത്തുന്നുണ്ട്. ഇടുക്കി ഡാം അല്ലാതെ തന്നെ നിറഞ്ഞുകവിയാറുണ്ടെന്നും മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാറിലെ വെള്ളം കൂടെ താങ്ങാന്‍ ഇടുക്കി ഡാമിന് ആകില്ലെന്നുമുള്ളത് പകല്‍ പോലെ വ്യക്തമായ കാര്യമാണ്. ഇനി അഥവാ ഇടുക്കി ഡാം ഈ വെള്ളം മുഴുവന്‍ താങ്ങിയാലും മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാറിനും ഇടുക്കി ഡാമിനും ഇടയില്‍ പെരിയാര്‍ തീരത്ത് താമസിക്കുന്ന പതിനായിരക്കണക്കിന് ജനങ്ങളുടെ ജീവന് ഒരു വിലയുമില്ലേ ?

ആയുസ്സെത്തിയ അണക്കെട്ടെങ്ങാനും പൊട്ടിയാലുള്ള അവസ്ഥയെപ്പറ്റി ചിന്തിക്കാന്‍ തുടങ്ങിയാല്‍ അഞ്ചാറ് ജില്ലകളിലെ ജനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് മനസ്സമാധാനത്തോടെ റോഡിലിറങ്ങാനും പറ്റില്ല, വീട്ടിലിരിക്കാനും പറ്റില്ല. ഇടുക്കിയിലുള്ള ഒരു ബ്ലോഗ് സുഹൃത്ത് ഈയിടയ്ക്ക് എന്നോട് പറഞ്ഞു അദ്ദേഹം തെങ്ങ് കയറ്റം പഠിക്കാന്‍ പോകുകയാണെന്ന്. തെങ്ങ് കയറ്റം പഠിക്കുന്നത് നല്ലതാണ്. തെങ്ങുകയറ്റത്തൊഴിലാളി ക്ഷാമം നേരിടുന്ന ഇക്കാലത്ത് കുറച്ച് കാലം തേങ്ങയിടാന്‍ മറ്റാരേയും ആശ്രയിക്കേണ്ടി വരില്ല എന്നല്ലാതെ, ഡാം പൊട്ടുന്ന സമയത്ത് തെങ്ങില്‍ക്കയറി രക്ഷപ്പെടാമെന്നൊന്നും ആരും കരുതേണ്ട. എറണാകുളത്ത് ഹൈക്കോര്‍ട്ട് കെട്ടിടത്തിന്റെ നാലാം നിലയില്‍ വരെ വെള്ളം കയറുമെന്നാണ് കണക്കാക്കപ്പെടുന്നത്. അപ്പോള്‍പ്പിന്നെ ഇടുക്കിയിലുള്ള തെങ്ങിന്റെ മണ്ടയില്‍ക്കയറി രക്ഷപെടാമെന്നുള്ളത് വ്യാമോഹം മാത്രമല്ലേ ?

അപകടം എന്തെങ്കിലും പിണഞ്ഞാല്‍ , കണക്കുകള്‍ സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നതു്‌ ശരിയാണെങ്കില്‍ ഇടുക്കി, കോട്ടയം, പത്തനംതിട്ട, എറണാകുളം, തൃശൂര്‍ ‍, ആലപ്പുഴ എന്നീ ജില്ലകളിലായി കുറഞ്ഞത് 40 ലക്ഷം ജനങ്ങളെങ്കിലും ചത്തൊടുങ്ങും. പണ്ഢിതനും, പാമരനും, പണമുള്ളവനും, പണമില്ലാത്തവനും, സിനിമാക്കാരനും, രാഷ്ട്രീയക്കാരനും, കേന്ദ്രത്തില്‍പ്പിടിയുള്ളവനും, പിടില്ലാത്തവനും, കുട്ടികളും, വലിയവരുമെല്ലാമടക്കമുള്ള ലക്ഷക്കണക്കിന് മനുഷ്യാത്മാക്കള്‍ വീട്ടിലും, റോട്ടിലും, പാടത്തും, പറമ്പിലുമൊക്കെയായി ചത്തുമലക്കും. കുറേയധികം പേര്‍ ആര്‍ക്കും ബുദ്ധിമൊട്ടൊന്നും ഉണ്ടാക്കാതെ അറബിക്കടലിന്റെ അഗാധതയില്‍ സമാധിയാകും. കന്നുകാലികള്‍ അടക്കമുള്ള മിണ്ടാപ്രാണികളുടെ കണക്കൊന്നും മുകളില്‍പ്പറഞ്ഞ 40 ലക്ഷത്തില്‍ പെടുന്നില്ല.

കെട്ടിടങ്ങള്‍ക്കുള്ളിലും വാഹനങ്ങളിലുമൊക്കെയായി കുടുങ്ങിക്കിടക്കുന്ന ഇത്രയുമധികം ശവശരീരങ്ങള്‍ 24 മണിക്കൂറിനകം കണ്ടെടുത്ത് ശരിയാംവണ്ണം മറവുചെയ്തില്ലെങ്കില്‍ ‍, ജീവനോടെ അവശേഷിക്കുന്ന ബാക്കിയുള്ള മനുഷ്യജന്മങ്ങള്‍ പകര്‍ച്ചവ്യാധികളും, മറ്റ് രോഗങ്ങളും പിടിച്ചു്‌ നരകിച്ചു്‌ ചാകും. ഇക്കൂട്ടത്തില്‍ മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാറിന്റെ പേരില്‍ പടനയിക്കുന്ന തമിഴനും, ലക്ഷക്കണക്കിനുണ്ടാകും. നദീജലം നഷ്ടമായതുകൊണ്ട് തേനി, മദുര, ദിണ്ടിക്കല്‍ ‍, രാമനാഥപുരം എന്നിങ്ങനെ കൃഷിയെ മാത്രം ആശ്രയിച്ച് കഴിയുന്ന പതിനായിരക്കണക്കിന് തമിഴ് മക്കള്‍ വരള്‍ച്ചയും പട്ടിണിയും കൊണ്ട് വലയും. ഇന്ദിരാഗാന്ധി കൊല്ലപ്പെട്ട സമയത്ത് സര്‍ദാര്‍ജിമാര്‍ക്ക് നേരെ പൊതുജനം ആക്രമണം അഴിച്ചുവിട്ടതുപൊലെ കണ്‍‌മുന്നില്‍ വന്നുപെടുന്ന തമിഴന്മാരോട് മലയാളികള്‍ വികാരപ്രകടനം വല്ലതും നടത്തുകയും അതേ നാണയത്തില്‍ തമിഴ് മക്കള്‍ പ്രതികരിക്കുകയും ചെയ്താല്‍ ഒരു വംശീയകലാപംതന്നെ രാജ്യത്ത് പൊട്ടിപ്പുറപ്പെട്ടെന്ന് വരും.

ഇതെല്ലാം കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടും അവശേഷിക്കുന്ന മലയാളിയും, തമിഴനും, ഈ ദാരുണസംഭവത്തിന്റെ പഴി അങ്ങോട്ടും ഇങ്ങോട്ടും, ചാരി, വീണ്ടും കാലം കഴിക്കും. ഒരു രാജാവിന് പറ്റിയ അബദ്ധം നാളിത്ര കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടും തിരുത്താനാകാതെ പ്രജകളെ പരിപാലിക്കുന്നെന്ന പേരില്‍ നികുതിപ്പണം തിന്നുകുടിച്ച് സുഖിച്ച് കഴിഞ്ഞുപോകുന്ന മന്ത്രിമാരേയും അവരുടെ പിണിയാളുകളേയും നാമൊക്കെ പിന്നെയും പിന്നെയും വന്‍ ഭൂരിപക്ഷത്തിന് തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്ത് തലസ്ഥാനത്തേക്കും കേന്ദ്രത്തിലേക്കും അയച്ചുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കും. ആ രാഷ്ടീയവിഷജീവികളൊക്കെയും ഇടതും, വലതും, കളിച്ചു്‌, വീണ്ടും വീണ്ടും, മാറി മാറി മലയാളസമൂഹത്തെയൊന്നാകെ കൊള്ളയടിക്കും.

1979 ആഗസ്റ്റ് 11ന് കനത്ത മഴയില്‍ ഗുജറാത്തിലെ മോര്‍വി ഡാം തകര്‍ന്നപ്പോള്‍ ഉണ്ടായതാണ് സ്വതന്ത്ര ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ ഡാം ദുരന്തം. 20 മിനിറ്റിനകം 15,000ത്തോളം ജനങ്ങളാണ് അന്ന് മോര്‍വി പട്ടണത്തില്‍ മണ്ണോട് ചേര്‍ന്നത്.

രണ്ടാഴ്ച്ച മുന്‍പ് അതിശക്തമായ മഴകാരണം തമിഴ്നാട്ടിലെ ആളിയാര്‍ ഡാം തുറന്ന് വിട്ടപ്പോള്‍ പാലക്കാട്ടെ മൂലത്തറ റെഗുലേറ്റര്‍ തകര്‍ന്ന് വിലപ്പെട്ട മനുഷ്യജീവനൊപ്പം 50 കോടിയില്‍പ്പരം രൂപയുടെ നാശന‍ഷ്ടങ്ങളാണുണ്ടായത്.

2006 ആഗസ്റ്റില്‍ കനത്തമഴകാരണം രാജസ്ഥാനിലെ ബജാജ് സാഗര്‍ ഡാമിലെ അധിക ജലം തുറന്ന് വിട്ടപ്പോള്‍ ഉണ്ടായ ദുരന്തത്തിന്റെ ബാക്കിപത്രങ്ങള്‍ കുറേനാളുകള്‍ക്ക് ശേഷമാണെങ്കിലും നേരില്‍ കാണാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടുള്ള ഒരാളാണ് ഞാന്‍. അവിടെ പലയിടത്തും വെള്ളം ഇരച്ചുകയറിയതു്‌ രാത്രിയായതുകൊണ്ടു്‌ ഗ്രാമവാസികളില്‍ പലരും ഉറക്കത്തില്‍ത്തന്നെ മുങ്ങിമരിച്ചു. നൂറുകണക്കിനു്‌ കന്നുകാലികളും, മിണ്ടാപ്രാണികളും ചത്തൊടുങ്ങി. ഭൂപ്രകൃതിയിലുള്ള പ്രത്യേകത കാരണം മാസങ്ങളോളം ഈ വെള്ളം താഴ്ന്ന പ്രദേശങ്ങളില്‍ കെട്ടിക്കിടന്നു്‌ ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുണ്ടാക്കി.തൊട്ടടുത്ത സംസ്ഥാനമായ ഗുജറാത്തിലും ഈ ഡാമില്‍ നിന്നൊഴുകിയ വെള്ളം ഒരുപാടു്‌ നാശങ്ങള്‍ വിതച്ചു. ഗുജറാത്തിലെ രക്ഷാപ്രവര്‍ത്തനങ്ങളില്‍ പങ്കെടുത്ത മുന്‍സൈനികനും ഹെലിക്കോപ്റ്റര്‍ പൈലറ്റുമായ എന്റെ അമ്മാവന്‍ ക്യാപ്റ്റന്‍ മോഹന്റെ അടുക്കല്‍ നിന്ന് ആ ദുരന്തത്തിന്റെ മറ്റൊരു ഭീകരമുഖം മനസ്സിലാക്കാനും എനിക്ക് കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്.

ഇതൊക്കെക്കൊണ്ടാകാം 2 കൊല്ലത്തിലധികമായി, എന്നും മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാറിനെപ്പറ്റിയുള്ള വാര്‍ത്തകള്‍ക്ക് ഞാന്‍ കാതോര്‍ക്കുന്നത് ഒരു ഉള്‍ക്കിടിലത്തോടെ മാത്രമാണ്.

മനുഷ്യത്ത്വം എന്നത് അധികാ‍രക്കസേരകളില്‍ ഇരിക്കുന്ന മഹാന്മാര്‍ക്കൊക്കെ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടുകഴിഞ്ഞോ ? അണക്കെട്ടിന്റെ ആയുസ്സിന്റെ 20 ഇരട്ടിയേക്കാളധികം കാലത്തേക്ക് അതില്‍ നിന്ന് അയല്‍ സംസ്ഥാനത്തിന് വെള്ളം കൊടുക്കാമെന്നുള്ള കരാറിന് കൂട്ടുനിന്ന രാജാവിനും, (രാജാവിനെ സായിപ്പ് നിര്‍ബന്ധിപ്പിച്ച് സമ്മതിപ്പിച്ചതാണെന്നുള്ളത് വിസ്മരിക്കുന്നില്ല.) ആ കരാര്‍പ്രകാരം ഇനിയും മുന്നോട്ട് പോയാല്‍ ലക്ഷക്കണക്കിന് പ്രജകള്‍ ചത്തടിയുമെന്ന് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിട്ടും രാഷ്ട്രീയം കളിക്കുന്ന മന്ത്രിമാര്‍ക്കും, മനുഷ്യത്ത്വം തൊട്ട് തീണ്ടിയിട്ടില്ലേ ?

സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളുടെ രണ്ടിന്റേയും കേസ് കോടതിയിലിട്ട് തട്ടിക്കളിക്കുന്ന സുപ്രീം കോടതി എന്ന് പറയുന്ന പരമോന്നത നീതിന്യായ വ്യവസ്ഥയ്ക്ക് പിന്നിലുള്ളത് മനുഷ്യന്മാര്‍ തന്നെയല്ല എന്നുണ്ടോ ? ഇതെന്താ പിടികിട്ടാപ്പുള്ളിയോ, തെളിവില്ലാതെ കിടക്കുന്ന കേസോ മറ്റോ ആണോ ഇങ്ങനെ നീട്ടിനീട്ടിക്കൊണ്ടുപോകാന്‍ ? അടുത്ത ഹിയറിങ്ങ് ഇനി ജനുവരിയിലാണ് പോലും. രണ്ട് കൂട്ടര്‍ക്കും 9 ദിവസം വീ‍തം വേണമത്രേ കേസ് വാദിച്ച് തീര്‍ക്കാന്‍!

ഈ കേസ് തീര്‍പ്പാക്കാന്‍ എന്താണിത്ര കാലതാമസം ? ഇതിനേക്കാള്‍ വലിയ ഏത് കേസാണ് സുപ്രീം കോടതിയില്‍ അടിയന്തിരമായി തീരുമാനം കാത്തുകിടക്കുന്നത് ? എന്തോന്നാണ് ഇത്ര വാദിക്കാന്‍ ? ഡാമിലെ വെള്ളം കുറച്ച് ദിവസമെടുത്തിട്ടായാലും, ആളപായമില്ലാത്ത രീതിയില്‍ ഒന്ന് തുറന്ന് വിട്ട് ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ അതിന്റെ ശോചനീയാവസ്ഥ മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ സുപ്രീം കോടതിക്ക് ഒരു ശ്രമം നടത്തി നോക്കിക്കൂടെ ? ലക്ഷക്കണക്കിന് ജനങ്ങളുടെ ജീവന്‍ അപകടത്തിലാകുന്ന തരത്തിലുള്ള ഒരു കേസാകുമ്പോള്‍ കോടതി നേരിട്ടിടപെട്ട് അങ്ങനെ ചെയ്യുന്നതില്‍ എന്താണ് തെറ്റ് എന്ന് മാത്രമേ നിയമമറിയാത്ത സാധാരണക്കാരനായ എനിക്ക് ചിന്തിക്കാനാകുന്നുള്ളൂ.

പാച്ചു എന്ന ബ്ലോഗര്‍ മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാറിലേക്ക് നടത്തിയിട്ടുള്ള യാത്രയുടെ വിവരണങ്ങളും പടങ്ങളുമൊക്കെ ഓരോ മലയാളിയും ഈ അവസരത്തില്‍ കണ്ടിരിക്കേണ്ട ഒന്നാണ്. ഒറ്റയാള്‍പ്പട്ടാളമായി ഇംഗ്ലണ്ടിലെ തന്റെ സ്വത്ത് മുഴുവന്‍ വിറ്റ് പെറുക്കി മുല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ ഡാമുണ്ടാക്കിയ ബെന്നി കുക്ക് എന്ന സായിപ്പിന്റെ കഥയൊക്കെ പാച്ചുവിന്റെ തന്നെ വാക്കുകളിലൂടെ അവിടെവായിക്കാം. 115 അടിക്ക് താഴെ അണക്കെട്ടിലെ വെള്ളം താഴ്ന്നാല്‍ മാത്രമേ പൊട്ടിപ്പൊളിഞ്ഞ അണക്കെട്ടിന്റെ ശരിയായ രൂപം വെളിയില്‍ വരൂ. അതാരും കാണാതിരിക്കാന്‍ തമിഴ്നാട് പരമാവധി ശ്രമിക്കുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കിലും പല ഞെട്ടിപ്പിക്കുന്ന ദൃശ്യങ്ങളും പാച്ചു ക്യാമറയില്‍ പകര്‍ത്തിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. കൂട്ടത്തില്‍ ഷേര്‍ഷയുടെ ഈ പോസ്റ്റും വായിക്കൂ.

ഡാം പരിസരത്തെങ്ങാനും റിക്‍ടര്‍ സ്കെയില്‍ സൂചിക 6 ലേക്ക് എത്തുന്ന രീതിയിലുള്ള ഒരു ഭൂചലനമോ മറ്റോ ഉണ്ടായാല്‍ എല്ലാം അതോടെ തീരും. കേന്ദ്രജലകമ്മീഷന്റെ ചട്ടപ്രകാരം, ഡാമില്‍ ഉണ്ടാകുന്ന ചോര്‍ച്ചകളും മാറ്റങ്ങളും നിരീക്ഷിക്കുകയും അപകട സാദ്ധ്യത കണ്ടാല്‍ കേരള സര്‍ക്കാരിനേയും ജനങ്ങളേയും വിവരമറിയിക്കേണ്ടതും തമിഴ്നാട് സര്‍ക്കാരാണ്. കേസും കൂട്ടവുമായി കേരളത്തിനെതിരെ ശത്രുതാമനോഭാവത്തോടെ നില്‍ക്കുന്ന അവര്‍ അക്കാര്യത്തില്‍ എത്രത്തോളം ശുഷ്ക്കാന്തി കാണിക്കുമെന്ന് കണ്ടുതന്നെ അറിയണം.

എമര്‍ജന്‍സി ആക്‍ഷന്‍ പ്ലാന്‍ (E.A.P.)എന്ന അറ്റ കൈയ്യെക്കുറിച്ച് ചര്‍ച്ചകള്‍ നടക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. അണക്കെട്ട് പൊട്ടിയാല്‍ പ്രധാനമായും ചെയ്യാനുള്ള രക്ഷാപ്രവര്‍ത്തനങ്ങളാണ് ഇപ്പറഞ്ഞ ആക്‍ഷന്‍ പ്ലാന്‍. എന്തൊക്കെ പ്ലാന്‍ ചെയ്താലും എത്രയൊക്കെ നടപ്പിലാക്കാന്‍ പറ്റും ഈ മലവെള്ളപ്പാച്ചിലിനിടയില്‍ ?! എത്രപേരുടെ ജീവനും സ്വത്തും രക്ഷിക്കാനാകും പ്രളയജലം പൊങ്ങിപ്പൊങ്ങി വരുന്നതിനിടയ്ക്ക് ? തിക്കിനും തിരക്കിനുമിടയില്‍ എല്ലാം വെള്ളത്തില്‍ വരച്ച വര മാത്രമേ ആകൂ.

കാര്യങ്ങളുടെ പോക്ക് കണ്ടിട്ട് ദൈവത്തിനല്ലാതെ മറ്റാര്‍ക്കും കേരളത്തെ രക്ഷിക്കാന്‍ കഴിയുമെന്ന് തോന്നുന്നില്ല. അങ്ങേര്‍ക്ക് വേണമെങ്കില്‍ രക്ഷിക്കട്ടെ. അങ്ങേരുടെ സ്വന്തം നാടല്ലേ എന്നതാണ് അവസ്ഥ !

ഒരപകടവും സംഭവിക്കരുതേ എന്ന് പ്രാര്‍ത്ഥിക്കുന്ന സമയത്തും, അഥവാ അങ്ങനെയെന്തെങ്കിലും സംഭവിച്ചാല്‍ത്തന്നെ ഞാന്‍ എന്റെ കുടുംബത്തിന്റെ കൂടെ നാട്ടിലുള്ളപ്പോള്‍ മാത്രം അത് സംഭവിച്ചാല്‍ മതിയെന്നും ഞാന്‍ പ്രാര്‍ത്ഥിക്കുന്നു. എന്തുവന്നാലും ഒരുമിച്ച് നേരിടാമല്ലോ ? അതല്‍പ്പം സ്വാര്‍ത്ഥതയാകാം, പക്ഷെ എനിക്കങ്ങനെ ചിന്തിക്കാനും പ്രാര്‍ത്ഥിക്കാനുമേ ഈയവസരത്തില്‍ ആകുന്നുള്ളൂ. ക്ഷമിക്കുക.

പ്രാര്‍ത്ഥിക്കാനല്ലാതെ നമ്മള്‍ ജനത്തിന് എന്താണ് ചെയ്യാനാകുക ? തമിഴനെ ആക്രമിച്ച് കീഴടക്കി ഡാം തുറന്ന് വിട്ട് ജയിലില്‍ പോകണോ ? അതോ കോടതി വിധി വരുന്നതുവരെ പ്രാണഭയത്തോടെ ജീവിക്കണോ ? അതുമല്ലെങ്കില്‍ ഇതുപോലെ വാക്കുകളിലൂടെ സ്വന്തം ദൈന്യത പ്രകടിപ്പിച്ചാല്‍ മതിയോ ?

ചിലപ്പോള്‍ തോന്നും ഇങ്ങനെ പേടിച്ച് പേടിച്ച് ജീവനും സ്വത്തിനും ഒരുറപ്പുമില്ലാതെ ജീവിക്കുന്നതിലും ഭേദം വല്ല തീവ്രവാദിയോ മറ്റോ ആയാല്‍ മതിയായിരുന്നെന്ന്. നൂറുകണക്കിന് ആളെ കൊന്നൊടുക്കിയ വിദേശ തീവ്രവാദിക്ക് 31 കോടി ചിലവില്‍ താമസവും, ഭക്ഷണവും, പാതുകാപ്പും, വക്കീലും, വിളിപ്പുറത്ത് വൈദ്യസഹായവുമെല്ലാം കൊടുക്കുന്ന രാജ്യത്ത്, ഒരക്രമവും കാണിക്കാതെ നിയമം അനുശാസിക്കുന്നതുപോലെ മാന്യമായി ജീവിക്കുന്ന ലക്ഷക്കണക്കിന് ജനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് നേരാംവണ്ണം ഭക്ഷണവും വെള്ളവും വെളിച്ചവും ജീവസുരക്ഷയും ഒന്നുമില്ല.

ഒന്ന് മാത്രം മനസ്സിലാക്കുക. രാഷ്ട്രീയവും കോടതിയുമൊക്കെ കളിച്ച് കളിച്ച് എന്തെങ്കിലും കുഴപ്പങ്ങള്‍ വരുത്തിവെക്കാനാണ് അധികാരി വര്‍ഗ്ഗത്തിന്റെ ഭാവമെങ്കില്‍ ലോകം കണ്ടതില്‍ വെച്ച് ഏറ്റവും വലിയ ഒരു ദുരന്തത്തിനവര്‍ സമാധാനം പറയേണ്ടി വരും. അവരിലൊന്നിനെപ്പോലും റോഡിലിറങ്ങി നടക്കാന്‍ ബാക്കി വരുന്ന കേരളജനത അനുവദിച്ചെന്ന് വരില്ല. പേപ്പട്ടികളെ നേരിടുന്ന ലാഘവത്തോടെ തെരുവില്‍ ജനങ്ങളവരെ കല്ലെറിഞ്ഞുവീഴ്ത്തും. ഉറ്റവനും ഉടയവനും നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട് മനസ്സിന്റെ സമനില തെറ്റി നില്‍ക്കേണ്ടി വന്നേക്കാവുന്ന ലക്ഷക്കണക്കിന് ജനങ്ങളുടെ വികാരത്തിന് മാത്രം വിലപറയരുത്.

വാല്‍ക്കഷണം:- പഴശ്ശിരാജ സിനിമയില്‍ ഇടച്ചേനി കുങ്കനെ അവതരിപ്പിച്ച് മലയാളികളുടെ കൈയ്യടി വാങ്ങിയ ശരത്കുമാര്‍ എന്ന തമിഴ് സിനിമാ നടന്‍ ഈയവസരത്തില്‍ ഒരിക്കല്‍ക്കൂടെ കൈയ്യടി അര്‍ഹിക്കുന്നു. മുല്ല്ലപ്പെരിയാര്‍ വിഷയത്തില്‍ മധ്യസ്ഥതയ്ക്ക് താന്‍ തയ്യാറാണെന്ന് അദ്ദേഹം പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് എന്തെങ്കിലും രാഷ്ടീയ ലക്ഷ്യത്തോടെ ആണെങ്കിലും അല്ലെങ്കിലും, അങ്ങനെ പറയാന്‍ ഒരു തമിഴനെങ്കിലും ഉണ്ടായെന്നുള്ളത് അല്‍പ്പം സന്തോഷത്തിന് വക നല്‍കുന്നു.

Plzzzz forword to all Indian...

Its our Nation's Issue.. not for malayalees.. or Tamils....

courtesy.skymail

Save Mullaperiyar....

2011-11-26T23:49:00.000-08:00

പ്രിയമിത്രമേ,

താങ്കള്‍ ആരുമായികൊള്ളട്ടെ ഹിന്ദുവോ , ക്രിസ്ത്യന്‍ഓ, മുസലമാനോ, പാറശാലക്കാരനോ, കാഞ്ഞിരപ്പള്ളി അച്ചയാണോ, പാലക്കാട്ടെ പട്ടരോ ആരുമായികൊള്ളട്ടെ. കേരളം എന്നാ കൂരയ്ക് കീഴില്‍ കഴിയുന്ന സ്ഥിതിക് ഇത് ഒന്ന് SHARE ചെയ്യുക!ഇല്ലെങ്കില്‍ ചിലപ്പോ നാളെ ഇതെഴുതിയ ഞാനും, ഇത് ഷെയര്‍ ചെയ്യാന്‍ മടി കാണിച്ച താനും കടലില്‍ നീന്തി കളികുമ്പോള്‍ നമുക്ക് കണ്ടു മുട്ടാം!!! Pls Like Page - http://www.facebook.com/mullaperiyar

പ്രിയമിത്രമേ,

Any views or opinions expressed in this email and its attachments are those of the individual sender except where the sender specifically states them to be that of Lamprell.

This E-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be legally privileged. If you have received this email and any attachments in error, you are on notice of its status. Please (a) notify the sender immediately by reply email; (b) destroy this email and any attachment, and (c) do not use, copy, store and/or disclose to any person this email and any attachments: to do so could be a breach of confidence. Thank you for your co operation. Please contact the Lamprell IT Helpdesk on ithelpdesk@lamprell.com if you need any assistance.

Holding company: Lamprell plc, incorporated in the Isle of Man, registration number 117101C, registered office at Fort Anne, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 5PD

Economics of Mullaperiyar Waters

2011-11-26T02:45:00.002-08:00

Tamil Nadu diverts annually an average of 21 TMC of water from the Mullaperiyar reservoir. Using the above waters, Tamil Nadu is presently irrigating a gross ayacut of 2.5 lakh acres and getting an annual return of around Rs.325 crores. Also, Tamil Nadu is generating electricity from the above waters to the tune of 490 Million Units per annum. Considering a minimum sale price of Rs.4 per unit of electricity, the annual income from power generation is about Rs.196 crores. Thus Tamil Nadu is reaping a total benefit of around Rs.521 crores per year from the Mullaperiyar waters.

Meanwhile, Government of Kerala receives an annual lease rent of Rs.2.58 lakhs per annum for an area of 8692.97 acres leased out to Tamil Nadu. The royalty which Kerala receives from power generation comes to Rs.7.67 lakhs per annum. Thus the total financial benefit to Kerala comes to only Rs. 10.25 lakhs per annum from the loss of Kerala’s own Mullaperiyar waters.

Ageing is an irreversible process

2011-11-26T02:45:00.000-08:00

No amount of rejuvenation by any means can perpetuate the 114 year old deteriorated Mullaperiyar dam. Ageing is a nonretrievable process in the case of water retaining structures also, as is the case with living objects. Mullaperiyar dam began to age sending a series of warning signals about its diminishing strength and capacity. There is a limit to the number of years one can keep dams in service through maintenance and strengthening measures. All over the world, citizens, Governments and organizations have begun to review the safety of their dams as per modern standards and design criteria. Hundreds of dams have already been dismantled or decommissioned in an attempt to allay the fears of the people living downstream and to ensure safety to their lives and properties.

All over the world, citizens, Governments and organizations have begun to review the safety of their dams as per modern standards and design criteria and hundreds of dams have already been dismantled in an attempt to allay the fears of the people living downstream and to instill confidence in their minds. Rebuilding of a new dam below the old Victoria dam in Australia in 1981, when the old dam was found unsafe as per modern safety requirements is one of the many examples.

Site Specific Seismic Study and Dynamic Analysis done by IIT, Roorkee

2011-11-26T02:44:00.000-08:00

The Government of Kerala entrusted Dr. D.K. Paul of the Earthquake Engineering Department of IIT, Roorkee to carry out site specific seismic study for Mullaperiyar dam. The study conducted by IIT, Roorkee has concluded that the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) possible in Mullaperiyar region is of magnitude 6.5 in Richter scale and it produces a PGA of 0.21g at the site.

CWC has taken an assumed value of 0.1g and the Expert Committee a value of 0.12g as the seismic parameter of the Mullaperiyar Dam. In the light of the site specific study by the IIT, Roorkee that the seismic parameter applicable to Mullaperiyar dam is 0.21g, the conclusion of CWC and the Expert Committee that Mullaperiyar dam is seismically safe on the basis of assumed lower parameters as above is not at all dependable and is thoroughly misleading.

The Detailed Structural Stability Analysis of IIT Roorkee clearly indicate the following:

The Main Mullaperiyar Dam even under DBE condition (seismic co-efficient of 0.12g) under reservoir level of 136ft, the value of tensile stresses are found more than double the ultimate apparent seismic tensile stresses. The MCE condition makes the things much worse.
Even without earthquake forces, the Main Mullaperiyar Dam is unsafe for flood conditions (MWL) since the tensile stresses in the heel of the dam are found to be more than double the permissible apparent tensile stresses.
In the normal operating conditions, the tensile stresses in the Mullaperiyar Dam at the heel are at the border level of the allowable stresses.

IIT, Roorkee made the following recommendation finally, "Based on the analysis, both Main Mullaperiyar Dam and Baby Dam are likely to undergo damage which may lead to failure under static plus earthquake condition and therefore needs serious attention."

Seismic studies conducted by IISc, Bangalore and CESS, Trivandrum

2011-11-26T02:43:00.005-08:00

Immediately after the occurrence of the earthquakes in December 2000 and January 2001 in the vicinity of the Mullaperiyar area, the Government of Kerala entrusted a team of scientists and engineers from IISc, Bangalore and CESS, Trivandrum to study the seismic activities in the area and to assess the seismic safety of the old Mullaperiyar dam. They found that the region is susceptible to earthquakes of intensity up to 6.5 in Richter scale. Having studied the structural condition of the old dam in detail, the team recommended that ‘it is not prudent to increase the water level in the Mullaperiyar dam from the existing level of 136 ft, under any circumstances’.

Even though Government of Kerala submitted this report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at that time, they did not consider the above report relying on CWC’s submission that the analysis was done without considering site specific seismic parameters of the region. But it is worth noting that before reaching the conclusion that the dam is safe for earthquake forces, neither the CWC nor the Expert Committee considered the site specific seismic parameters applicable to Mullaperiyar region for finding out the seismic safety of the Mullaperiyar dam.

PMF studies done by IIT, Delhi

2011-11-26T02:43:00.001-08:00

Government of Kerala entrusted Dr. A.K. Gosain of IIT, New Delhi to recommend the value of PMF applicable to Mullaperiyar reservoir and also to carry out flood routing studies. The Institute considered all relevant hydrological aspects and recommended a figure of 2.91 lakh cusecs as PMF instead of 2.12 lakh cusecs endorsed by the CWC. The Flood routing studies carried out revealed that when the PMF impinges the reservoir with water level at 136 ft, the reservoir level would go up to 159.42 ft with one vent inoperative and 158.67 ft with all vents open. Since the water level goes above the MWL of 155 ft and stays there for hours, IIT Delhi has declared that ‘Mullaperiyar dam is hydrologically unsafe’.

PMF and flood routing studies done by CWC

2011-11-26T02:42:00.001-08:00

Tamil Nadu had fixed the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for Mullaperiyar as 2.12 lakh cusecs, which was endorsed by the Central Water Commission in their Memorandum on Rehabilitation of Mullaperiyar Dam (1986). As the recommended PMF was much lower than the recorded maximum flood of 1943, Kerala requested CWC to supply the workouts of arriving at the above figure to verify its correctness. But the response to the above request was negative.

Subsequently, Kerala managed to get the above details in April 2008 under the RTI Act. The flood routing studies of the CWC revealed that when the PMF impinges the reservoir at 136 ft, the water level would go up to 156.40 ft with one vent inoperative and 156.02 ft with all vents open. Hence, the Mullaperiyar dam would overflow even with the PMF of 2.12 lakh cusecs and as such the dam is hydraulically unsafe. It was quite unfortunate that to circumvent this, it was recommended to increase the height of the parapet wall of this old dam with reinforced concrete construction. This recommendation would increase the water pressure on the dam and increase the threat of failure during flood. Also any rise of water level above 155ft will be contravention of the lease deed of 1886.

Amendment Act of 2006

2011-11-26T02:40:00.000-08:00

Meanwhile, the Kerala Legislature amended the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 in March 2006. The amended Act listed 22 old dams situated in Kerala including Mullaperiyar dam, which are endangered due to their age, as scheduled dams and freezed their FRL to ensure the safety of the people living downstream.

Tamil Nadu challenged the Amendment Act of 2006 in its application to Mullaperiyar dam by filing an Original Suit before the Supreme Court. The Government of Kerala has already made arrangements to defend the case effectively. However, the concern over the safety of the structure of this old dam remains. Tamil Nadu views it as a purely legal issue. For the Government of Kerala, it is for discharging its basic responsibility of ensuring security to the lives and properties of millions of its people.

Litigation in the Hon’ble Supreme Court

2011-11-26T02:37:00.001-08:00

In 1997-98, various writ petitions were filed before Kerala and Madras High Courts regarding the issue of water level to be maintained in the Mullaperiyar reservoir. In August 1998, two transfer petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India citing the possibility of conflicting orders from the two High Courts.

During the hearing of the transfer petitions, Hon’ble Supreme Court desired in its order dated 28th April 2000 that the Minister of Water Resources might convene a meeting of the Chief Ministers of both the States, to amicably resolve the issue. Consequent to this, a meeting was held at New Delhi on 19th may 2000. But due to serious differences on the issue, no consensus could be reached. Finally, the Minister of Water Resources constituted an Expert Committee headed by Dr. B.K. Mittal, Member (D&R), CWC to go into the details of the safety of the dam and advise him on raising of water level in the reservoir.

Unfortunately, the composition of the Expert Committee and the Terms of Reference were fixed without any consultation with the Government of Kerala. Out of the seven members of the Expert Committee, three members were from CWC and two other experts were those having obligations to CWC. As such, it can be reasonably expected that the recommendations of the Committee will be only in line with the earlier stand of the CWC on this issue. This fact is confirmed by the contents of the Expert Committee Report.

The Expert Committee submitted its final report in March 2001 to the Ministry of Water Resources recommending the raising of water level to 142 ft forthwith and to 152 ft after strengthening the baby dam, without giving due consideration to the valid points raised by the member representing Kerala in various Committee meetings.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied on the Expert Committee Report and delivered its final judgement on 27th February 2006 allowing Tamil Nadu to raise the water level of Mullaperiyar reservoir to 142 ft forthwith.

Strengthening carried out during 1980s

2011-11-26T02:36:00.002-08:00

In spite of the guniting and grouting operations in 1960s, seepage through the body of the dam continued. The deteriorated condition of the dam alarmed the people living downstream. A deep fear psychosis developed in their minds. Government of Kerala approached Government of India and apprised them of the grave situation.

Government of India sent a team headed by the Chairman, CWC for inspecting and evaluating the safety of the dam, in 1979. Having realised the seriousness of the situation, the team gave directions to lower the Full Reservoir Level (FRL) of the reservoir forthwith to 136 ft. The team also recommended to study the possibility of locating a suitable site downstream of the existing dam for constructing a new dam. The other strengthening measures recommended by them included cable anchoring, RCC capping on the top, enhancing the spillway capacity and providing a concrete backing on the downstream side of the existing dam.

In 1979 itself a joint team of engineers of Kerala and Tamil Nadu located a technically suitable site for a new dam 1300 ft downstream of the present dam where a new dam could be constructed without endangering the safety of the old one. However, for reasons unknown, this proposal was not pursued. Instead Tamil Nadu proceeded with the strengthening measures, may be then intended as a temporary arrangement.

Government of Kerala took a firm and reasonable stand right from 1980 onwards that the FRL of the reservoir should be maintained only at 136 ft even after carrying out the strengthening works as that would not impart the old structure its original strength. This was conveyed to Government of India and Tamil Nadu many a time. But discarding this technically correct stand, the Central Water Commission(CWC) issued a Memorandum on Rehabilitation of Mullaperiyar Dam (1986) in which they recommended the raising of water level to 152 ft after completion of all the strengthening measures advocated.

Deterioration of the Dam due to continuous leaching of lime

2011-11-26T02:36:00.000-08:00

Distress started developing in the form of wetness and seepage on the downstream face of the dam from initial filling onwards. Seepages through the body of the dam increased continuously causing fear in the minds of British engineers. For controlling the seepage, the authorities treated the upstream face of the dam by guniting and the inside dam body by grouting. Guniting was done on the upstream face above 112 feet during the period 1930–1935. Cement grouting work was carried out on two occasions, viz, 1922-1935 and 1961-1965. The total quantity of cement consumed during these two grouting operations was 543 tonnes. Records show that lime leached out from the body of the dam during its life till date is many times more than the above quantity. The leaching has naturally reduced the density of the materials and hence the total weight of the dam.

As can be seen now, in many areas on the upstream face of the dam plastering has peeled off and mortar in the joints of rubble masonry washed away exposing hollow spaces. The condition of the upstream face below 112 ft where no guniting could be carried out due to the continuous presence of water would be much worse than this.

Mullaperiyar Dam

2011-11-26T02:34:00.001-08:00

The 155 ft high Mullaperiyar dam is a composite gravity dam built during the period 1887–1895. The front and rear faces of the dam are built with uncoursed rubble masonry in lime surkhi mortar. The hearting, which accounts for 62% of the volume of dam, is constructed of lime surkhi concrete. This dam was constructed at a time when the dam technology was in its infancy and hence does not meet the modern requirements of design and construction. The major deficiencies are the following:

• Earthquake and Uplift forces were not considered in the design of the dam

• No drilling and grouting were done to strengthen the foundation of the dam

• No drainage gallery was provided in the dam body

• Transverse contraction joints were not provided in the dam

Arguments by Tamil Nadu and Counter Arguments

2011-11-26T00:21:00.001-08:00

1. ARGUMENT: 37 dams exits in India, which are more than 100 years old and still in service and hence it is not prudent to conclude that Mullaperiyar is unsafe based only citing the age of the structure.

COUNTER ARGUMENT: It is true that there are more than 37 dams exists in

India

which are more than 100 years old (Source: National Register of Large Dams, 2002). But a close look into the above data shows that out of the above 37 dams, 30 dams are of earthen dams having around 20 m height and more over having only an average gross storage capacity of less than 1 TMC! Hence these earthen dams are only can be qualified to be as ‘earthen bunds’ and does not pose much threat.

If we consider the remaining seven masonry gravity dams, the Mullaperiyar dam surpasses all others with its height of 53.64m and its huge storage capacity of 15.66 TMC. The second one on the above list, Khadakwasla dam, which had already overtopped in 1961 due to the failure of the Panchet dam in the upstream (Maharastra - Pune District). The third one on the list is having a height of only 16.77m. Hence such comparisons have no meaning.

Mullaperiyar dam is a composite gravity dam which lost of much of its strength due to continuous leaching of lime from its core. This dam is situated in an active fault zone, which makes the dam vulnerable to failure in an earthquake of moderate intensity with an epicenter close to the dam. Also the high hazard this dam poses a direct threat to the lives and property of 35 lakhs people living downstream and also a threat to the mega storage Idukki reservoir. Hence Mullaperiyar dam has no parallels and considering its age, deterioration and high hazard nature, must be decommissioned and a new dam must be built.

2. ARGUMENT: No masonry gravity dam has failed so far and hence the fear of Kerala about Mullaperiyar dam is not based on facts.

COUNTER ARGUMENT: This is not true and against the facts. World over Masonry gravity dams have failed and a few examples are shown below.

Name	Country	Year of Failure	Height in m
Austin	USA	1900	20.7 m
Tigra	India	1917	26 m
Khadakwasla	India	1961	40 m
Kantalai	Sri Lanka	1986	27 m

A doctoral thesis paper from University of New South Wales, Australia ‘An analysis of Concrete and Masonry Dam Failures’ based on a database called ‘CONGDATA’ is put the figure of the total masonry dam failure reported world over as 21. (This research was funded by the dams community in Australia as part of Dam Risk Project, together with ARC and the Faculty of Engineering at the University of New South Wales)

It reveals that the peaks in failures of masonry gravity dams are noted in dams commissioned in the 1870’s to 1890’s and 1910’s to 1920’s.
It also reveals that dams within the height range of 15 m to 50 m range are failed more than others.

The above findings are relevant as far as the century old Mullaperiyar Dam concerned because it matches both criteria and the probability of failure of this dam is more compared with others.

3. ARGUMENT: Idukki is having a gross storage capacity of 70.5 TMC at FRL and it is not filled up to its full capacity. Hence Idukki can very well contain, even if worst happens to Mullaperiyar Reservoir!

COUNTER ARGUMENT: It is regretted to note that Tamil Nadu ignore the fact that once the Mullaperiyar fails, the water will traverse through river for a length of 36 kms before reaching to Idukki reservoir. There lives around 75,000 people on the banks of River Periyar in towns like Vallakadavu, Vandiperiyar, Upputhara, etc. Any dam break of Mullaperiyar will completely wash away the entire population between Mullaperiyar and Idukki and hence the Government of Kerala is not prepared for taking any risk in this regard. If we consider this fact, Mullaperiyar dam qualifies to classify as a High Hazard dam as per CWC norms, which means failure will cause loss of life of more than a few people and excessive economic loss (CWC Guidelines for Inspection of Dams, 1987).

More than 6 years during last 30 years (means a probability of occurrence of around once in 5 years!) the Mullaperiyar and Idukki storages together crossed the gross storage of Idukki reservoir. Hence it is evident that if Mullaperiyar dam failed at that time, Idukki dams would have been got overtopped due to the combined storage crossing 70.5 TMC, which Idukki reservoir cannot accommodate in now way. Hence the argument that if worst happens, Mulllaperiyar flows will be contained by Idukki have no relevance. It is important to look at the probability of becoming both these reservoirs filling, it is once in five years, such a high probability! I am shivered to imagine about such a catastrophe of overtopping of dams of Idukki reservoir, which is having a gross storage capacity of 70.5 TMC and having a downstream population of around 35 lakhs people! Is India, which poses itself as super power can accommodate such a catastrophe? It is high time for Government of India to open their eyes and look into the facts which are already available with them, yes, both Idukki and Mullaperiyar reservoir statistics are available with them.

YEAR	DATE	GROSS STORAGE IN TMC
YEAR	DATE	IDUKKI	MULLAPERIYAR	IDUKKI + MULLAPERIYAR
1981	13-Nov	70.59	11.22	81.81
1992	18-Nov	70.20	7.78	77.98
1994	11-Nov	66.58	11.99	78.57
1998	15-Nov	67.35	10.79	78.14
2005	17-Sep	68.56	11.21	79.77
2007	28- Sep	69.45	10.23	79.68

Note:- The gross storage at FRL of Idukki is 70.5 TMC and at MWL is 74.4 TMC

4. Argument: Due to the non-restoration of water level from 136ft to 142ft, Mullaperiyar spills and water is wasted.

COUNTER ARGUMENT: Even though the FRL of the reservoir is kept at 136 feet, Tamil Nadu never denied by Government of Kerala to draw the entire quantity of water from this reservoir. If we consider the period of 1911-1979 (FRL-152ft), we can see that the Mullaperiyar reservoir spilled at a rate of 18.14 days per year to the downstream. But it can be seen that between 1980-2005 (FRL-136ft), the reservoir is spilled only at a rate of 8.62 days per year! It is to be noted that the reservoir spilled 40 years out of 69 years (1911-1979). But it only spilled in 11 years out of the last 27 years and the rest of the years entire water from this reservoir was drawn by TN. This is because of the high rate of emptying Periyar reservoir (due to the increased tunnel capacity from 1300 cusecs to 2100 cusecs done in late 1959) by transferring waters to TN territory and storing the entire waters (due to development of subsequent reservoirs and 1373 tanks in their territory so that the dependable inflow from Periyar can be easily accommodated). Hence it can be concluded that the lowering of water level has not affected TN’s historical water rights (1911-1979) from Mullaperiyar.

5. ARGUMENT: Due to the non-restoration of FRL from 136 ft to 142 ft, and TN’s irrigation benefits are suffering

COUNTER ARGUMENT: It is important to note that the Mullaperiyar spilled only on occasions wherein TN is unable to draw water from Mullaperiyar either due to avoid spilling in their area during the flood years wherein the North-East Monsoon is so active and flooding their area (Eg: Year 2006) or due to some failure of their conveyance mechanism (Eg: Year 2005). It is another fact that if we consider the spilled years, TN irrigated more area during those years than the other normal years and dry years wherein they have taken the entire water.

We can see that less than 5% of the inflow is only spilled from Mullaperiyar, that too during high flood years. It is important to note that during majority of those years TN’s Vaigai Reservoir also spilled and water was wasted to the sea (1984, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2004, 2005 & 2006). During the flood years, it is natural that all medium reservoirs will invariably spill and not even a water scarce State like Tamil Nadu can avoid such phenomenon.

It is important to note that TN has added around 22647 ha (55962 acres) ayacut to the Periyar Vaigai Irrigation Project after 1980, ie, lowering of the FRL with World Bank aid and the ayacut is still expanding. If the water diversion is reduced, what is the meaning of this additional ayacuts?

Another aspect is that such huge additions of ayacut, will create problems during lean years even though there will be water available during flood years. It is not advisable to extent ayacut to enormous proportions while the 75% dependable flow from Periyar catchment is around 20 TMC (hardly sufficient for 1,60,000 acres ayacut, which is 10,000 acres more than what British Engineers envisaged) and during lean years the flow dwindles to 15 TMC to 12 TMC. That means lean years the flow wont be sufficient to irrigate even 50% of the ayacut and it naturally result in a blame game. Hence it can be concluded that not because of the lowering of the FRL, but because of the unscientific ayacut development to exploit the water only available during flood years is the real problem of TN and it is not fair to blame Kerala for that. It is a fact that more ayacut developed than the dependable flow only creates more unhappy ryots in lean years and sometimes normal years! The World Bank Report on ‘India’s Water Economy’ narrates this apathy in Periyar-Vaigai basin as an example for the future Indian irrigation planners.

6. ARGUMENT: Spilling of Mullaperiyar to Kerala means wastage of water to the sea!

COUNTER ARGUMENT: This is also a wrong argument without understanding the reality. The spill water from Mullaperiyar is being collected at Idukki reservoir and owing to its huge capacity, Idukki can regulate these waters in a better manner and the waters are sufficient water can be discharged during lean summer months to meet the irrigation demands in Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. Moreover, these waters can cater the drinking water requirements, saline intrusion problems especially in summer months. It is important to note that during 1886 to 2006, the population of Kerala has increased by six times and the water demand also swelled to around 20 to 25 times. Hence it is a wrong perception that the waters are being wasted into the sea. Also, it is proved that flooding is always helps to recharge the ground water availability to a great extent. It is important to note that while Vaigai is rich in ground water availability, Periyar is not like that and the basin has to depend on its surface waters, which are now being limited to 80 to 90 days of rainy days. Hence the spill water received to the largest storage reservoir is useful to the huge population for various needs. It is important to note that inbasin needs are may get more priority than trans basin needs.

7. ARGUMENT: Even though the water level in Mullaperiyar reached close to 140 feet during spill years nothing happened to the dam. Similarly the recent earthquakes have no effect on the safety of the dam. Hence Kerala’s concerns about the safety of dam are not genuine.

COUNTER ARGUMENT: It is true that the dam sustained the increased water levels around 140 feet. Similarly the dam sustained the earthquakes recorded. But it is important to note that no earthquake of moderate intensity has so far happened close to the active fault below the Mullaperiyar dam. The worst scenario, we are trying to avoid is an deteriorated dam with 142 feet of water and an earthquake of intensity 6 to 6.5 in the fault zone below the dam same time. The good luck that not the dam has yet been seriously tested in a severe earthquake with the above water load and hence the dam is still there. Disaster prevention is more seriously taken by the societies world over in the recent years. Government of India after the Tsunami, Bhuj and Latur earthquakes and Mumbai floods also geared up to meet the challengee of disasters and recognized that the prevention is better than cure. Hence I can quote Koffi Annan, “Building culture of prevention is not easy. While the cost of prevention had to be paid in the present, its benefits lie in the distant future. More over, the benefits are not tangible; they are disasters that did not happen.”

Hence it is prudent that we must show the character of statesman and show the positive attitude to build a new dam instead of waiting for a disaster! This old dam, has the potential to kill thousands, even millions, of people, is no more unbreakable than the Titanic was unsinkable.

8. ARGUMENT: Mullaperiyar reservoir is safe even for PMF floods and the fear of overtopping of dam is baseless.

COUNTER ARGUMENT: This is another area CWC has failed miserably to deliver. It is important to note that Tamil Nadu Government in consultation with CWC reviewed the PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) value for this Project and arrived at a value of 6003 cumecs. Even with this value of PMF, the flood routing studies shown that the reservoir will touch a MWL of 157.70 feet, with the mandatory one vent inoperative condition. It is important to note that the century old dam is designed for a MWL of 155 feet only. Hence the immediate logical remedy considering this high hazard dam is to reduce

the FRL forthwith such that the MWL will not exceed 155 feet. But to the surprise CWC recommended increasing the parapet height to accommodate more waters than the designed MWL.

This PMF itself warrants a close examination. It is part of the records that Mullaperiyar reservoir has experienced an extreme flood during 1943 with a peak inflow 8453 cumecs. But while calculating the PMF of Mullaperiyar, the peak inflow of 6003 cumecs was only considered, a very low value than the original observed peak flood. As per CWC guidelines even small reservoirs shall be designed for 1 in 100 year flood and large reservoirs shall be designed for PMF. But here CWC has adopted a low value than the observed peak inflow! Some comparisons are shown below to expose the double game played by CWC while endorsing TN’s PMF estimate. Except the case of Mullaperiyar, all other places the PMF values were calculated by CWC in a realistic manner and it is very high than the observed flood.

Project	Observed Maximum Peak Inflow	PMF Value adopted as per CWC recommendation
Dantiwada dam, Gujarat	12770 cumecs	18122 cumecs
Machu – I dam, Gujarat	7277 cumecs	13224 cumecs
Machu-II dam, Gujarat	13421 cumecs	26420 cumecs
Mullaperiyar	8453 cumecs	6003 cumecs

(Ref: Workshops on Strengthening of Dams, CBIP, 1989)

To expose these further, the following comparison between Machu-I and Mullaperiyar reveals the double game played by CWC. The striking similarity between these two almost similar area of catchments and the PMF review of both dams shown below shall be noted.

Description	Machu –I	Mullaperiyar
Height of Dam	28.00 m	53.64 m
Catchment Area	730 sq.km.	624 sq.km.
Avg. Annual Rainfall	508 mm	1800mm
Observed Peak Inflow	7277 cumecs	8453 cumecs
PMF Value Adopted	13224 cumecs	6003 cumecs

Nobody can find fault with the some one who doubt that the above so called ‘PMF’ is nothing but a result of the reverse calculation to adjust the FRL of 152ft! It is important to note that this so called ‘PMF’ had created an insufficient spillway capacity and the possibility of the dam may overturn by an extreme flood situation cannot be brushed aside. In this context, it may please be noted that 40% of the dam failures occurred in the world is due to overtopping consequent to insufficient spillway capacity.

This warrants an urgent re-estimation of the PMF of Mullaperiyar and also revised flood routing starts from various reservoir levels such that in any case MWL shall not increase more than 142 feet. While doing this, the following conditions must also taken into account, the possibility of unavailability of tunnel withdrawal by TN as happened during this year (an unsual event in FRL conditions) and also the revised area capacity of the reservoir to accommodate the siltation in the live storage area.

In this context, it may be noted that in United Kingdom, the PMF is 1 in 10,000 year flood and in United States of America it is between 1 in 1000 to 1 in 3000 year flood. It is important to note that over a 50 year period of our life, there is a 1.5% chance of death in fatal car accident or the occurrence of a 3000 year flood. Hence the compromising done by CWC overlooking even the flood occurred just 60 years is not at all justifiable and admissible by Kerala

Seismic Threat to Mullaperiyar Dam

2011-11-25T23:49:00.001-08:00

Seismic Threat to Mullaperiyar Dam

Within a span of 2 days, two tremors of mild intensity on 5/11/10 (M2.0) and 6/11/2010 (M2.9) occurred in the 50KM range of Mullaperiyar Dam suddenly caused great anxiety in the minds of people, earthquake scientists and dam engineers. Even though, these earthquakes are minor in nature, the above earthquakes are seen as indication of the increased seismicity of the region surrounding Mullaperiyar Dam, which was once thought completely dormant. These warning signals by nature must taken very seriously, even though the present tremors are not able to create any significant damage to the dam due to its low intensity and large distance from the Mullaperiyar Dam.

Upstream face of Mullaperiyar Dam before the recent repairs

The above tremors are coincident with the cosmetic beautification done by Tamil Nadu authorities to the grandma Mullaperiyar Dam to conceal its chronic ailments from the naked eyes. But the ailments of Mullaperiyar Dam are inherent and deep rooted. This dam was constructed during 1886-1895, when the dam engineering was at infancy. The dam is a composite structure with rubble masonry in lime surkhi mortar as facing on upstream and downstream and a lime surkhi concrete inner core. Later in 1980s, a concrete backing of 10 M width was added to the downstream of the old dam.

Structural Weakeness of Mullaperiyar Dam

The Mullaperiyar Dam, aged 116 years, was built of lime surkhi concrete, which occupies almost two-third of its volume. The above concrete is a very low strength concrete. The ‘History of Periyar Project’ by A. T. Mackenzie (1898) illustrate the tests conducted on determining the strength of this concrete “...the block generally beginning to disintegrate with a pressure of from 40 to 50 tons on the square foot...” ie, it is evident that its strength is almost equal to M5 concrete (This designation the letter M refers to the mix and the number to the specified 28 day cube strength of mix in N/mm²), which is having one third of the strength of the roofing concrete (M15) we are using for our homes. This must be compared with the M30 concrete we used for Idukki Arch Dam, which is almost having six times the strength of the lime surkhi concrete used in Mullaperiyar dam. The strength of this concrete has further reduced due to the continuous leaching of lime reported from its inception. Even though two attempts of grouting were attempted in 1930s and 1960s, it was not able to completely fill the cavities formed due to the leaching of lime.

History of Earthquake Design of Dams

While constructing Mullaperiyar dam, the dam engineers were not aware of the how to design the dams against the effect of seismic forces. The first seismic forces were taken care in a preliminary manner in the design of the dam by engineers only in the 1920s . The classic paper by H. M. Westergaard entitled "Water Pressure on Dams During Earthquakes" was published in 1933. In the period 1930-1970, design practice usually considered earthquake effects by simply incorporating in the stability or stress analysis for a dam a static lateral force intended to represent the inertia force induced by the earthquake. Most often this force was expressed as the product of a lateral force coefficient and the force of gravity. The coefficient generally varied, depending on the seismicity of the area in which the dam was located and the judgment of the engineer involved, between values of about 0.05 and 0.15. This method of approach was termed the pseudostatic analysis method, in recognition of the fact that the static lateral forces were only intended to represent the effects of the actual dynamic earthquake forces, which effects could well be substantially different from those of the static forces used in the analysis procedure.

In the 1960s and early 1970s a number of events occurred that caused engineers to reevaluate the adequacy of this approach:

· The observation was made that the pseudostatic method of analysis would not adequately predict the slope failures that occurred at many places in Alaska in the 1964 Alaska earthquake (M 8.3).

· Major cracking occurred in the Koyna Dam, in India, a 340-foot-high concrete gravity dam, subjected to a near-field M 6.4 earthquake in 1967.

· Major cracking developed near the top of the Hsingfengkiang Dam, a 345-foot-high concrete buttress dam in China, as a result of a near-field M 6.1 earthquake in 1962.

· A near failure occurred at the Lower Van Norman (San Fernando) Dam, and significant sliding occurred in the Upper Van Norman (San Fernando) Dam as a result of the San Fernando earthquake of 1971. In spite of the fact that both of these dams were judged to be adequately safe on the basis of pseudostatic analyses made before the earthquake, their performance east doubt on the validity of this approach.

· Accelograph records showed peak accelerations during earthquake shaking greater than 0.3g.

These events, and others, led to an increasing concern that the pseudostatic method of analysis could not always predict the safety of dams against earthquake shaking.

The Earthquake Committee of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD, 1975) recommended that: “As regards low dams in remote areas, they may be designed by the conventional (pseudostatic) method for any type of dam. As regards high gravity or arch dams or embankment dams whose failure may cause loss-of-life or major damage, they should be designed by the conventional method at first and they should then be subjected to dynamic analyses in order to investigate the deficiencies which might be involved in the seismic design of the dam in case the conventional method is used.”

These requirements and recommendations led to a major review of design procedures by many design agencies, as a result of which increasing emphasis was given to the use of dynamic analysis methods.

Need for Site Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment and Dynamic Analysis

Mullaperiyar dam and the site lies in seismic zone-III as per the seismic zoning map of India. This area is close to a large number of major faults in this region, some of which are active and others having the potential to become active. Earthquakes of intensities around 5.0 in Richter scale were experienced in this region in the recent past (5.0 on Richter Scale on 12/12/2000 and 4.8 on 7/01/2001 in the Palai/Erattupetta region, concurrent multiple events called doublets).

This is a high hazard dam as per the hazard potential classification considering the human and economic loss as per the criteria fixed by the Central Water Commission (CWC). In this context, it is highly necessary to get the structural stability of this dam must be verified by proper estimation of the seismic parameters and carrying out detailed dynamic analysis. This becomes imperative considering the high hazard nature of this century old weak dam and consequent catastrophe, if it fails.

As per CWC guidelines itself, stability assessments are to be done utilising in situ properties of the structure and its foundation and pertinent geologic information. It also recommends dynamic analysis and higher seismic coefficient, if the structure is in the proximity of major faults.

CWC’s Certification in 1986

In spite of the above clear guidelines, the CWC in 1986 rushed to the conclusion in the ‘Memorandum of Rehabilitation of Mullaperiyar Dam’ that the Mullaperiyar dam is safe for an FRL of 152 ft after carrying out simple pseudo-statistical method of analysis meant only for preliminary design of dams. Neither the CWC had carried out dynamic analysis taking into consideration the present actual in situ properties of the structure, its foundation, geology and the site specific seismic parameters till date.

In this context, it is worth to note that IS: 1893, ‘The Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures’ was revised in the year 1984. As per clause 3.4.2.3 the horizontal seismic co-efficient to be considered in the case of pseudo static analysis is 0.12g in Seismic Zone III for the preliminary analysis of dams. As per clause 7.3.1, this value must be multiplied by 1.5 times in the case of Dams. CWC, totally ignoring the revision of the Indian Standard, carried out the certification of Mullaperiyar Dam using a seismic co-efficient of 0.10g. Also the same Indian Standard clearly recommends site specific seismic hazard assessment study for dams and critical structures (nuclear power stations, major bridges, etc.) considering its magnitude of hazard. It is surprising that CWC completely ignored to carry out site specific seismic hazard assessment. In the above context, Government of Kerala has not concurred with the Memorandum of Rehabilitation and rejected the same.

GSI Recommendation in 1995

Geological Survey of India conducted a geological mapping of the Mullaperiyar Dam area in 1995 as part of the Dam Safety Assurance and Rehabilitation Project aided by the World Bank. Sri. V. Balachandran, Senior Geologist, Geological Survery of India in his report, remarks that “…Based on the available data, the seismic status of the Periyar and Suruliyar-Cumbum lineaments are inferred to be active. However it is desirable to assess the seismogenic capability of these lineaments by instrumentation and monitoring. It is also desirable to study the provision of RCC capping over the structure from the seismic consideration…” But no positive action in this account was taken by Government of Tamil Nadu.

Expert Committee of 2000 not tested, analysed Main Mullaperiyar Dam!

In this context, it may be noted that the Expert Committee of 2000 (EC of 2000) appointed by the Union Ministry of Water Resources, had never carried out any NDT (Non Destructive Tests) or taken or tested any core samples or made any analysis as far as the Main Mullaperiyar Dam is concerned. EC of 2000 analysed using pseudo static method and adopting a zonal seismic co-efficient of 0.12g while checking the Baby Dam. It is an irony that the EC of 2000 concentrated all their efforts to check the Baby Dam, a saddle dam of one third height of the Mullaperiyar Main Dam, which is fully available for upstream sealing. They have taken physical samples, conducted non-destructive tests and structural stability analysis of the Baby Dam and concluded that that the Mullaperiyar reservoir is safe for water levels upto 142 ft.

It may be noted that the EC of 2000 was neither taken any physical samples nor non-destructive tests nor any safety analysis of the Main Dam. Moreover, they have not done any re-analysis of the Main Dam using the revised zonal seismic co-efficient of 0.12g which they used for Baby Dam, instead they simply relied the CWC document of 1986 to conclude that Mullaperiyar Main Dam is safe. Moreover, they have not checked the structural stability of the Baby Dam against the flood conditions, which will clearly render the Baby Dam not safe for an FRL of 136ft.

Combined Study of CESS, Trivandrum and IISc, Bangalore in 2001

In 2001, Kerala had conducted a detailed seismic assessment of the area by the scientists of CESS and a finite element study by Prof. R.N. Iyengar of Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore for assessing the safety of the Mullaperiyar dam for seismic forces (‘Stability of Mullaperiyar Dam in the light of recent earthquakes’ – Final Report by the Expert Committee of Govt. Of Kerala- June 2001).

The CESS scientists have concluded noting the major tremors viz. Nedumkandam 1988 (M4.5), Wadakkancheri 1994 (M4.3) and Earttupetta 2000 (M5.0), 2001 (M4.8) ”...although these tremors have not serious damage, it should be noted that all these earthquakes have occurred during a short span of twelve years, quiet unprecedented in the earthquake history of the State..” They further observed that there is every chance of occurrence of an earthquake with a maximum magnitude of 6.5.

Considering the above observation, detailed dynamic studies of Prof. Iyengar, IISc had indicated that the Mullaperiyar dam is unsafe for water levels above 136ft. The seismic acceleration values adopted by Prof. Iyengar are 0.16g considering Uttarkashi Earthquake and 0.4738g considering the Koyna Earthquake, as possibility these of earthquakes happened in Pennisular India are possible in Mullaperiyar region with almost same geology. He had done detailed dynamic analysis using both scenarios and found that the dam is unsafe for both cases with water level above 136ft. Then, Prof. Iyengar had concluded that it is not prudent to raise the water level in the reservoir from the existing level of 136 feet under any circumstances.

However, the said studies of Prof. Iyengar were rejected by the CWC on the ground that Prof. Iyengar had adopted PGA based on values of Uttarkashi and Koyna Earthquakes. They rejected the seismic inputs used by him citing that those are not based on site specific assessment of seismicity accelogram relevant to tectonics of Mullaperiyar site.

Site Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment by Earthquake Engineering Department of IIT, Roorkee in 2008

Indian Standard specifies that instead of using the general seismic co-efficient applicable for zones, detailed site specific studies must be conducted for special structures like Dam, Nuclear Power Stations, Major Bridges, etc to determine the seismic co-efficient. But neither CWC nor Expert Committee has ever conducted such a study for Mullaperiyar Dam even though they questioned the logic of Prof. R.N. Iyengar’s adoption of seismic co-efficient. Instead they decided to adopt the zonal seismic co-efficient, which are used for general structures.

In the above context that, after detailed deliberations, Government of Kerala decided to entrust the Earthquake Engineering Department of IIT, Roorkee to study the site specific seismic parameters of the Mullaperiyar dam region and to carry out a detailed Structural Stability Analysis using Dynamic Method. The above Institution was selected because they are the premier institute in India for such studies and of high international repute.

It is worth to note that all site specific studies are to be conducted in a radius of 300KM zone of influence by the national and international practises. IIT, Roorkee team have identified 22 major faults in a radius of 300km around Mullaperiyar dam site. Out of this, the Tekkady-Kodaivannalur Fault is identified as the one which will create most devastating effect on the Mullaperiyar dam site, which is capable of producing an earthquake of 6.5 Magnitude in Ritcher scale with a close distance of 16km from dam site. The intensities of maximum possible earthquakes due to the 22 faults and their effect on Mullaperiyar dam site were studied in detail. IIT, Roorkee in their report on Seismic Hazard Assement recommended that the existing Mullaperiyar dam has to be checked for its safety under Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) condition since eventuality of its failure may result in huge economic and human loss. Finally Dr. D.K. Paul and Dr. M.L. Sharma of IIT, Roorkee have concluded that the (MCE) possible in Mullaperiyar region will produce a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.21g at the site.

22 Major Faults around Mullaperiyar dam considered by IIT, Roorkee

IISc Study of Vulnerability of Central Kerala to Seismicity in 2009

A recent study conducted by Dr. C.P. Rajendran, Fellow, Centre for Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore jointly done with Kusala Rajendran, IISc, Bangalore, Biju John, National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Kolar and B. Sreekumari, KFRI, Peechi has reassessed the seismic hazard in Kerala in the light of improved historical and instrumental database. The improved historical database essentially suggests that the central midland region is more prone to seismic activity compared to other parts of Kerala. The above paper was published in June 2009 issue of the prestigious journal of Geological Society of India.

Central Midland region of Kerala appears to have generated larger number of significant earthquakes; the most prominent being the multiple events (doublets) of 1856 and 1953, whose magnitudes are comparable to that of the 2000/2001 (central Kerala) events. Occurrences of these historical events and the recent earthquakes, and the local geology suggest that the NNW-SSE trending faults in central midland Kerala may host discrete potentially active sources that may be capable of generating light to moderate size earthquakes. A simple statistical treatment of the historical information suggests that an earthquake of magnitude ML 4.5 to 5.5 can be expected to recur in the central midland region every 25±22 years. Thus from a hazard point of view, the central midland region must be considered as seismically most potential in Kerala.

Isoseismals of 2000-2001 and felt areas of 1952-53

The seismicity in Kerala shows a perceptible increase during the recent times. They ascribe this rise in seismicity to the anthropogenic activities that probably impacted the changes in hydrologic regimes in facilitating faster hydrostatic pressure transmission to hypocentral depths. The post monsoon relative increase in seismicity must be understood in this context. They speculate that the ground water plays a key role in triggering micro tremors in Kerala for want of other mechanisms to explain such temporal characteristics. Longterm changes in rainfall cause periodic temporal variations of water table.

The exhaustive study considered the 87 earthquake records recorded at the IMD’s Broadband station at Peechi during December 2000-December 2008. The study also considered all historical earthquakes reported from 18th Century onwards in the region. an important point to be noted is that there was a general increase of seismicity in the southern India after the 2001 (January 26) Bhuj earthquake in particular in the Koyna region, and there was also an M 4.5 earthquake from the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu border on January 29, 2001.

Historic Earthquakes in Central Midland Kerala

They concludes their study with the recommendation that the engineered structures in the central midland region should incorporate at least the most conservative seismic codes available for the region, but these will not be sufficient for critical facilities. The critical facilities must be designed based on exclusively site specific seismic study.

Structural Analysis by Finite Element Model and Dynamic Analysis by IIT, Roorkee in 2009

The structural stability of a dam can be determined either by pusedo static method or dynamic method. In the pusedo static method the effect of the earthquake forces is considered as pure static loads, by simplifying their dynamic effect. This method is prescribed only for the preliminary design of the dam structure. The Indian Standard recommends the dynamic analysis for the final design and analysis. ICOLD (International Commission for Large Dams) also recommend Dynamic Analysis for the safety evaluation of the existing Dams.

A detailed structural stability analysis by dynamic analysis using a Finite Element Mesh (FEM) method can only give light to the structural stability of the Mullaperiyar Dam. The advantage of the FEM method is that it will enable us to truly represent the heterogeneity of the dam structure. If such an FEM model is subjected to dynamic loading by the dynamic analysis, the structural stability can be determined with high degree of accuracy. The only dilemma faced by State of Kerala was to supply the in situ material properties of the Mullaperiyar Dam for carrying out the studies. As such the dam is under Tamil Nadu custody, it was finally decided to rely the test results of 1972-73 and 1983 core test results done by Tamil Nadu in this regard, which was relied upon by the CWC.

The structural stability of the Mullaperiyar Dam was done using Dynamic Analysis after creating a Finite Element Model (FEM). The structural stability of the Mullaperiyar Dam was analysed considering the following conditions:

Normal Operating Condition (Full Reservoir Level without considering earthquake)
Flood Level Condition (Maximum Water Level without considering earthquake)
Earthquake Condition (FRL with earthquake and MWL with earthquake)

IIT, Roorkee submitted their second part of the study report in October, 2009. The detailed Structural Stability Analysis clearly brought out the following:

i. The Main Mullaperiyar Dam even under DBE condition (seismic co-efficient of 0.12g) under reservoir level of 136ft, the value of tensile stresses are found more than double the ultimate apparent seismic tensile stresses. The MCE condition makes the things much worse.

ii. Even without earthquake forces, the Main Mullaperiyar Dam is unsafe for flood conditions (MWL) since the tensile stresses in the heel of the dam are found to be more than double the permissible apparent tensile stresses.

iii. In the normal operating conditions, the tensile stresses in the Mullaperiyar Dam at the heel are at the border level of the allowable stresses.

IIT, Roorkee made the following recommendation finally “Based on the analysis, both the Main Mullaperiyar dam and Baby Dam are likely to undergo damage which may lead to failure under static plus earthquake condition and therefore needs serious attention.”

Conclusion

The above conclusions/suggestions/recommendations from the country’s premier scientific organizations like GSI, CESS, IISc, IIT, etc clearly indicates the seismic vulnerability of the region around Mullaperiyar Dam. The inherent weakness of the dam will lead to the collapse of the structure in the event of a higher earthquake of magnitude above 5.0 in Ritcher scale in the immediate vicinity of 15 KMs or so. Such a failure of the Mullaperiyar Dam will lead to a catastrophe to the thousands of people living downstream of this century old dam. State of Kerala fervently prays that no calamity occurs during the interim period till the new dam is completed.

It is not fair to Tamil Nadu to keep a blind eye to the above facts. Nothing in life is entirely risk free, and indeed science cannot demonstrate freedom from risk, particularly from as yet known risks, because ‘absence of evidence’ is not ‘evidence of absence’! There are situations where engineers may disagree with one another. Some experts may consider the condition of a dam to be marginally safer than what others say it is. But nature has its own way, and experts’ expectations and calculations may go awry. Once there are reasonable apprehensions about the imminent danger and the possibility of a risk, the State should not take any chances.

References:

1. History of the Periyar Project, A.T. Mackenzie (1898)

2. History of Periyar Dam with Century Long Performance, Prof. A. Mohanakrishnan (1997)

3. Memorandum of Rehabilitation of Mullaperiyar Dam, CWC (1986)

4. Geological Document of Periyar Dam, V. Balachandran, Geological Survey of India (1995)

5. Stability of Mullaperiyar Dam in the light of Recent Earthquakes, Final Report by Expert Committee submitted to Government of Kerala (2001)

6. Safety of Dams : Flood and Earthquake Criteria, National Academy Press (1985)

7. Report of the Committee setup by the Ministry of Water Resources, GoI to study the problem of Dam Safety in Mulla Periyar Dam & Raising of the water level in the Mulla Periyar reservoir, CWC (2001)

8. Regulatory Frame Works for Dam Safety, World Bank (2002)

9. Structural Stability of Mullaperiyar Dam consisting Seismic Effects, Part I - Seismic Hazard Assessment, Earthquake Engg Dept, IIT , Roorkee (2008)

10. Structural Stability of Mullaperiyar Composite Dam, Part II - Structural Stability Analysis, Earthquake Engg Dept, IIT , Roorkee (2009)

11. Technical Report on Periyar Dam, Government of Tamil Nadu (1998)

12. Reassessing the Earthquake Hazard in Kerala based on Historical and Current Seismicity, Dr. C.P. Rajendran, IISc, et all, Journal of Geological Survey of India (June 2009)

Litigation History

2011-11-25T23:29:00.000-08:00

WRIT PETITIONS BEFORE HIGH COURTS

During 1997-98, A.G. Sojan, Devassia Joseph, and Sajan Kolath & Anthr filed writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala to reject the request of Tamil Nadu Government to raise the water level in Mullaperiyar reservoir from 136 ft. R. Sundaram, a Contractor from Tamil Nadu also filed a writ petition in Kerala High Court to issue directions to facilitate to carry out his work in respect of Mullaperiyar Dam. Meanwhile, similar petitions were filed in Madras High Court by Dr. Subramoniam Swamy, R.K. Ramachandran, Periyar-Vaigai Single Crop Cultivating Agriculturist Society and A. Suresh filed writ petitions before High Court of Madras to raise the water level in Mullaperiyar reservoir up to 152 ft. Dr. Subramoniam Swamy filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court of India on 5^th August 1998 citing that there is a possibility of conflicting orders being passed by the High Courts and hence requested that the entire cases may be transferred to Supreme Court.

TRANSFER PETITIONS TO SUPREME COURT

The issue was come up for hearing before Supreme Court on 13/12/1999. Supreme Court directed both States to meet and hold talks for the settlement of the issue and reported back to Court. Accordingly a Chief Minister level meeting was held between Kerala and Tamil Nadu on 5/04/2000 at Thiruvananthapuram, but no consensus was reached. The issue came up for hearing before Supreme Court on 28/04/2000. The Court directed the Union Minister for Water Resources, Government of India to convene a meeting of both Chief Ministers in order to explore the possibilities of sorting out the differences between two States within two months. Accordingly, a meeting was convened by Central Government with both State Governments on 19/05/2000 at New Delhi. Mean while, in 2001, the Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India seeking the Lease Deed of 1886 and Supplemental Agreements of 1970 are null and void on various legal ground.

EXPERT COMMITTEE OF 2000

Consequent to this, Ministry of Water Resources constituted a seven member committee under the chairmanship of Member (D&R), CWC including one representative nominated by each State to study the issue related to Mullaperiyar on 14/06/2000. Kerala Government had a lot of apprehensions about the terms of reference of the Committee and the matter was taken up with the Union Government. At the insistence of the Supreme Court, Government of Kerala had nominated Sri. M.K. Parameswaran Nair, Retd. Member (Civil), KSEB as its representative. In 16/09/2000, the Supreme Court of India directed the Committee shall meet within four weeks and to submit their report within three weeks from the date of first meeting.

Accordingly the Committee headed by Dr. B.K. Mittal, Member (D&R), CWC inspected the Mullaperiyar dam on 10/10/2000 and had its first meeting on 10/11.10.2000. The Committee decided that subject to the review of PMF and after checking the designs of baby dam, if found within allowable limits, the reservoir water level can be raised to 145ft on a majority opinion. The nominee from Kerala signed the above minutes with his dissenting note strongly disagreeing with the above suggestion to increase of FRL from 136ft. The Committee finalised its report on March 2001 and submitted that to the Supreme Court. The Committee recommended on a majority opinion (except Kerala nominee) that the dam would be safe for raising the reservoir water level up to 142 feet. It also recommended that the strengthening measures for the baby dam and earthen bund as suggested by CWC should be carried out at the earliest.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT OF 27^TH FEBRUARY 2006

After prolonged arguments, Supreme Court of India (a three member bench headed by the Chief Justice of India) on 27/02/2006 permitted the water level in the reservoir to 142 feet relying on the findings of the Mittal Committee report (http://www.scribd.com/full/45113896?access_key=key-1nutop5ovigu8meccbp2). The Court also directed to Government of Kerala not to obstruct in carrying out strengthening measures for baby dam and earthen bund, as suggested by the CWC.

While delivering the above Judgement, Supreme Court had also observed that:

Ø Section 108 of State Re-organisation Act 1956 which upheld the continuation of the pre-constitutional agreements pertaining to water and electric power are constitutionally valid.

Ø The rising of FRL in Mullaperiyar is not an inter state water dispute and hence Supreme Court is competent hear the case. The barring of Supreme Court in the case of inter state water issues as per Article 262 read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 is not applicable in this case.

Ø It was also held that the Supreme Court is not barred to hear Mullaperiyar issue since it does not attract provisions of Article 363. Article 363 bars Supreme Court to hear any dispute arising out of any provision of an agreement entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution. Supreme Court held that the Article 363 was provided to make certain class of agreements non-justiciable and to prevent the Indian Rulers from resiling from such agreements because that would have affected the integrity of India.

Ø It also held that the above dispute is not liable to arbitration since Mullaperiyar dispute because the arbitration clause in the Lease Deed permits arbitration only about the rights, duties and obligations or interpretation of any part of the agreement. The Court observed that the present issue is not such an issue.

Ø It was held that the raising of water level of the reservoir from 136 ft to 142 ft could result not result in degradation of environment and will not attract provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Instead it was held that the raising of water level will increase the carrying capacity of the wild life and will improve the environment.

AMENDMENT ACT OF 2006

Meanwhile, Kerala Legislature amended the Kerala Irrigation and Water (Conservation) Act during March 2006. In the amended act, along with other 22 dams, Mullaperiyar dam was designated as a Scheduled dam and its FRL was restricted to 136ft. Also, the powers of the Dam Safety Authority has been enhanced. Amended Act was published in the official gazette on 18/03/2006.

ORIGINAL SUIT 3 OF 2006

Subsequent to this, Tamil Nadu filed an Original Suit in the Hon’ble Supreme Court (OS No. 3 of 2006) on 31^st March 2006 against the provisions of the amended act in its application to the Mullaperiyar. Their main contention was that as per Section 108 of State Reorganization Act, 1956 Kerala State Legislature is not at all competent to impose restrictions over Mullaperiyar dam and also prayed to declare the said act unconstitutional.

DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE STATES

When the case came for hearing on 25^th September 2006, the Hon. Supreme Court directed that “the two state governments, independently or with the intervention of Union of India may try to sort out, if possible, the dispute.”

Accordingly, the two Chief Ministers held talks on 29^th November 2006 at New Delhi in the presence of Union Minister of Water Resources. In continuation of the above meeting, one more meeting was convened by the Union Minister for Water Resources between the Water Resources Ministers of both States on 18^th December 2006 at New Delhi. In the above meetings, Government of Kerala offered a new dam, which would ensure safety to the people of Kerala as well as continued supply of water to Tamil Nadu as permanent solution to this dispute. But Government of Tamil Nadu was not ready to accept the above solution and hence the discussions ended in a deadlock.

FRAMING OF ISSUES

After hearing both parties, the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed issues on the Original Suit on 13^th December 2007. The eleven issues framed by the Court are as following:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?

2. (a) Whether the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 is unconstitutional and ultra vires, in its application to and effect on the Mullai Periyar Dam?

(b) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from applying and enforcing the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 with reference to Mullai Periyar Dam?

3. Whether the rights of the plaintiff, crystalised in the Judgment dated 27.02.2006 passed by this Court in WP(C) NO.386/2001 can be nullified by a legislation made by the Kerala State Legislature?

4. (a) Whether the judgment dated 27.2.2006 of this Court in WP(C) No.286/2001 operates as res judicata, in respect of all or any of the defences set up by the first defendant in its written statement?

(b) Whether the pleas relating to validity and binding nature of the deed dated 29.10.1886, the nature of Periyar River, structural safely of Mullai Periyar Dam etc. raised by the first defendant in its defence, are finally decided by the judgment of this Court dated 27.2.2006 in WP(C) No.386/2001, and consequently first defendant is barred from raising or reagitating those issues and pleas in this suit, by the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata?

5. Whether the suit based on a legal right claimed under the lease deed executed between the Government of the Maharaja of Travancore and the Secretary of State for India on 29.10.1886, is barred by the proviso to Article 131 of the Constitution of India?

6. Whether the first defendant is estopped from raising the plea that the deed dated 29.10.1886 has lapsed, in view of subsequent conduct of the first defendant and execution of the supplemental agreements dated 29.05.1970 ratifying the various provisions of the original Deed dated 29.10.1886?

7. Whether the lease deed executed between the Government of the Maharaja of Travancore and Secretary of State for India on 29.10.1886 is valid, binding on first defendant and enforceable by plaintiff against the first defendant?

8. Whether the first defendant is estopped from contending that Periyar River is not an inter-State river?

9. Whether the offer of the first defendant, to construct a new dam across River Periyar in the downstream region of Mullai Periyar Dam would meet the ends of justice and requirements of plaintiff?

10. Whether the first defendant can obstruct the plaintiff from increasing the water level of Mullai Periyar Dam to 142 ft. and from carrying out repair works as per the judgment dated 27.2.2006 of this Court in WP(C) No.386/2001?

11. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to?”

EVIDENCE BEFORE JUSTICE ANIL DEV COMMISSION

Subsequent to this both parties filed the documents by May 2008. State of Tamil Nadu filed one affidavit of Sri. R. Subramanian, Vice-Chairman of Cauvery Technical Cell. While State of Kerala filed five affidavits of the following witnesses.

1. Sri. V. K. Mahanudevan, Superintending Engineer, Siruvani Project Circle, Palakkad.

2. Dr. A. K. Gosain, Professor, Civil Engineering Department, IIT, Delhi

3. Sri. K. Jayakumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Kerala.

4. Sri. M. K. Parameswaran Nair, Chairman, Mullaperiyar Special Cell

5. Dr. Dhrubajyothi Gosh, Chairman, National Expert Committee for Assessment of the Ecological Impact of Water Level increase in Mullaperiyar Dam.

On 21^st July 2008, the court appointed Hon’ble Justice Anil Dev Singh, Retired Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court as the Commission for taking evidence in the case. The cross examination of the witnesses was started on 13^th August 2008 and was completed on 2^nd September 2008.

HEARING BEFORE DIVISION BENCH OF SUPREME COURT

The case was listed for hearing before the three bench panel headed Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayath on 10^th February 2008 to 12^th February 2008. Senior Counsel Harish Salve, who appeared for the State of Kerala, apprised the Court about the Probable Maximum Flood studies conducted by the IIT, Delhi and the possible threat to the Mullaperiyar Dam. In the above context, the Hon’ble Court wanted to know the opinion of the two States for referring the IIT report for assessment by an independent agency. Even though State of Tamil Nadu agreed for the above suggestion during the hearing, the very next day, they informed the Court that “they were not agreeable to the suggestion. They would take a ruling from this court instead of the matter going before another Committee.” The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 31^st March 2008. It was informed by the Counsels for the parties that the hearing of the case would at least take 7 to 8 days to finish. As the Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayath was retiring on May 2008, the case was adjourned till a new bench is constituted.

The new Bench headed by Hon’ble Justice D.K. Jain (with Hon’ble Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Justice R.M. Lodha) heard the case on 21^st_, 22^nd and 28^th October 2009 and 4^th and 5^th November 2009.

After hearing both parties Counsels at length, the Hon’ble Court ordered that:

“…We are of the view that for deciding some of the issues framed in the suit, it would be necessary to decide certain substantial questions of law involving interpretation of the Constitution, in particular :

(i) Articles 3 and 4 read with Article 246 of the Constitution;

(ii) Article 131 read with Article 32 of the Constitution;

(iii) Proviso to Article 131 read with Articles 295 and 363 of the Constitution and the effect of the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971; and

(iv) The effect of decision of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 643 in the context of aforereferred constitutional provisions..

As the case involves the resolution of the said questions, the suit may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for necessary directions for placing it before a Constitution Bench.”

HEARING BEFORE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF SUPREME COURT

The case was listed before the Constitution Bench headed by Hon’ble Justice D.K. Jain (with with Hon’ble Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Hon’ble Justice R.M. Lodha, Hon’ble Justice B. Sudarsan Reddy and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Varma) on 20^th January 2010. The case was heard on 20^th, 21^st, 27^th and 28^th January 2010 and 2^nd, 4^th, 16^th, 17^th and 18^th February 2010.

After hearing both the parties, the Hon’ble Court ordered that:

“…We have heard Mr. K. Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu, and Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel for State of Kerala, at some length. Regard being had to the nature of controversy, we are of the opinion that before we proceed further in this case, it would be appropriate to call for a report from an Empowered Committee on all the issues that arise in relation to the Mullai Periyar Dam and the concerns raised by both the States in relation thereto.

 It may be noticed that apart from the legal and constitutional issues, inter alia, the real grievance that concerns the State of Tamil Nadu is of not being able to increase reservoir level of Mullai Periyar Dam to 142 feet. The   concern of      the State of Kerala, on the other hand, appears to be relating to the safety of the Dam. While the State of Tamil Nadu had submitted  that in the present suit they seek invalidation of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 that seeks to override the judgment of this Court in the previous case, the State of Kerala had submitted, amongst other things, that there are genuine concerns as to the safety of Mullai Periyar Dam, and that they have also offered to build a New Dam at their cost which will ensure that there is no fall in the water drawals of the State of Tamil Nadu, and that their law is valid.

Before we consider the matter further, we direct as under:

(1)The Central Government shall, within four weeks from today,   set   up,   by   notification   in   the   Official Gazette, an Empowered Committee comprising of Hon'ble Dr. A.S. Anand, former Chief Justice of India, as the Chairman;

 (2)The Empowered Committee shall consist of five members, including the Chairman. The other four members shall be -

(a)  One member to be nominated by the State of Tamil Nadu in consultation with the Chairman.

         (b) One member to be nominated by the State of Kerala in consultation with the Chairman.

          (c) Two renowned technical experts not connected with the dispute to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation with the Chairman.

(3)The Central Government shall set up the Committee and also appoint a Member Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman, within two weeks from today.

(4)The    Central    Government   shall    make    available   the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the working of     the   Committee,   and   shall    bear    all   expenses thereof, including those relating to remuneration of the members of the Committee.

 (5)We would request the Committee to hear parties to the suit on all issues that will be raised before  them, without being limited to the issues that have been raised before us, and furnish a report, as far as possible, within  six months from their constitution.

 The Committee shall frame its own procedure and issue appropriate directions as to the hearings as well as venue of its sittings. The Registry shall make a set of the record of this case, and transmit it to the Committee for its   assistance.  The Committee is free to receive such further evidence as it considers appropriate.

Needless to clarify that the legal and constitutional issues, including the validity of the amendment Act, 2006 are matters that would be considered by us.”

Even though State of Tamil Nadu filed an IA to recall the above order, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the above application on 29^th March 2010 and directed the Union of India to form the Empowered Committee before 30^th April 2010.

EMPOWERED COMMITTEE

Central Government constituted an Empowered Committee, which was published in the official gazettet on 30^th April 2010. The Empowered Committee consists of Hon’ble Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Former Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice K.T. Thomas, Former Supreme Court Justice (Kerala Nominee), Hon’ble Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, Former Supreme Court Justice (Tamil Nadu Nominee), Dr. C.D. Thattee, Former Union Water Resources Secretary and Chairman, CWC (Govt. of India Nominee) and D.K. Mehta, Former Chief Engineer, CWC (Govt. of India Nominee).

The Empowered Committee had their first meeting on 14^th June 2010 at New Delhi. After deliberations, the Committee issued notices through dailies inviting Memorandum containing views/suggestions from parties of OS No. 3 of 2006.

The Empowered Committee in its next sitting on 23^rd August 2010, permitted both States, to submit additional documents and list of witnesses they wanted to examine within 15 days. They also instructed both parties to submit a Brief Submission to their respective cases not more than 3 pages. Accordingly State of Kerala filed additional documents including the Structural Stability Analysis of Mullaperiyar Dam carried out by IIT, Roorkee and also the application for producing three witnesses viz. Dr. D.K. Paul, Professor, Earthquake Engg. Dept, IIT, Roorkee Dr. M.L. Sharma, Professor, Earthquake Engg. Dept, IIT, Roorkee and Dr. A. Komalavalli Amma, Former Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kerala.

ISSUES SETTLED BY THE EMPOWERD COMMITTEE

The Empowered Committee again met on 15^th October 2010. The Committee has settled the following issues for their consideration.

1. Which strengthening measures as suggested by CWC have already been carried out by the State of Tamil Nadu for the dam, each of the two: main and the baby dam components, to ensure its safety and stability based on the investigations so far carried out?

2. Which remaining measures from amongst those suggested by CWC are yet to be carried out by the State of Tamil Nadu for the safety and stability of the Dam and when they be undertaken and completed?

3. Has the State of Kerala complied with the suggestions and recommendations made by the CWC about strengthening the Dam and taken appropriate steps in that behalf?

4. Should the reservoir level be raised from 136 ft? If yes, what further measures for strengthening the existing dam, do the two parties envisage, to allow the raising of water level from 136 ft to 142 ft and beyond?

5. Since the State of Kerala for safety and stability concerns of the existing dam and downstream population in the event of the dam failure and stability, wants to build a new dam at its own expense, the Committee seeks answers from the two parties to the following questions about the fall out of such proposal.

a) How much time will the State of Kerala take to carry out survey, feasibility studies, preparation of DPR, tying of finances, obtain clearance and construction for the new dam?

b) Who would have control of the New Dam and be responsible for its operation and maintenance, ie, the State of Tamil Nadu or the State of Kerala?

c) Whether and how the existing dam would continue to supply water to the State of Tamil Nadu during the construction of the new dam and till it becomes functional.

d) Would the construction of the new dam in any way affect the supply of water for use by the State of Tamil Nadu, during or after its construction?

The Empowered Committee also decided to visit the Mullaperiyar Dam and Project areas during December 20-22, 2010.

The IIT Roorkee Report

2011-11-25T23:24:00.000-08:00

The IIT Roorkee team which studied the horizontal and vertical forces on the Mullaperiyar dam found that an earthquake in the area would produce a Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.21 g at the site (where “g” is a unit of gravitational acceleration), which worsens fears over the safety of the 114-year-old structure. It was also found that the tensile strength of the dam was the lower side, making it unlikely that the dam would withstand seismic forces.

Besides, the dam not being made of homogenous material, would behave strangely in the event of an earthquake. The forces on the lime-surkhi-concrete structure will be different at different locations. The compression strength of the dam is also just one third of what is now used for concreting buildings.

The dam, built much before engineers became aware of the effect of earthquakes on dams, is structurally deficient, says the report. This is the second report by experts from an IIT that has said that the dam is structurally unsafe. Earlier, internationally accepted hydrologists Dr A K Gosain and Dr Subash Chander of IIT Delhi had submitted a report that that stated that with its existing spillway capacity, the Mullaperiyar dam could not withstand any floods and that it was “hydrologically unsafe”. This analysis, as opposed to the static analysis done by the Central Water Commission, found that the dam was structurally unstable.

PERIYAR LEASE DEED - 1886

2011-11-25T23:14:00.000-08:00

PERIYAR LEASE DEED - 1886

This is the first page of the original Lease Deed of 1886. You can see the seal of Registrar Office of the Travancore Palace on the left margin.

LEASE OF LANDS

IN TRAVANCORE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PERIAUR PROJECT

INDENTURE made between the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA and the MAHARAJA OF TRAVANCORE in respect of the lease of certain territory in the Travancore State in connection with the PERIYAR IRRIGATION PROJECT -1886.

This indenture made the twenty-ninth day of October One thousand eight hundred and eighty-six (corresponding with the fourteenth day of Tulam 1062 of the Malabar era between the Government of His Highness the Maharajah of Travancore hereinafter called the Lessor) of the one part and the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for India in Council of the other part witnesseth that in consideration of the rents hereinafter reserved and of the covenants by the said Secretary of the State for India in Council hereinafter contained the Lessor done hereby demise and grant upto the said Secretary of State for India in Council his successors and assigns tail of whom are intended to be included in and to be referred to by the expression the Lessee hereinafter used.). First. All that tract of land part of the tributary of Travancore situated on or near toe Periyar river bounded on all sides by a contour line one hundred and fifty-five feet above the deepest point of the bed of the said Periyar river at the site of the dam to be constructed there and shown in the map or plan hereunto annexed and which said tract of land is delineated in the said map or plan hereunto annexed and therein coloured blue and contains eight thousand acres or thereabouts.
Secondly. All such land in the immediate vicinity of the tract of land above mentioned and not exceeding in the whole in extent one hundred acres as may be required by the lessee for the execution and preservation of the irrigation works to be executed by the lessee within the said tract of land first above mentioned and which said works are commonly called or known as the “Periyar Project”. Thirdly. Full right power and liberty to construct make and carry out on any part of the said lands herein before demised and to use exclusively when constructed made and carried out by the lessee all such irrigation works and other works auxiliary thereto as the lessee shall think fit for all purposes or any purpose connected with the said Periyar Project or with the use exercise or enjoyment of the lands rights liberties and Powers hereby demised and granted or any of them. Fourthly. All waters flowing into through over to from the said tract of land firstly herein before demised. Fifthly. All timber and other trees woods underwoods and saplings which now are or shall during the continuance of this demise be growing or standing upon any of the said demised lands with liberty to the lessee to fell grub up and use, free of all charge for the same all such of the said timber and other trees weeds underwoods and saplings as shall be required in or about the construction or maintenance of or otherwise for all or any of the purposes of the said works or any of them or in connection therewith provided always that the lessee shall not be responsible for the destruction of or for any damage done to any others of the said timber of other trees woods underwoods or saplings for the time being growing or standing upon any of the said demised lands by of through the construction or maintenance of the said works of any of them. Sixthly.The right of fishing in over and upon such waters tanks and ponds as now are or shall during the term hereby granted by upon or within any of the said demised lands. Seventhly. Free way leave and right and liberty of way and passage in manner hereinafter mentioned through and over the lands of the lessor and liberty for the lessee his officers agents servants and workmen to enter upon and to make lay and repair such one and not more than one main or wagon way from any point on the boundary line between British territory in India and the Territory of Travancore to any part of the said demised lands in the usual manner by digging the soil and levelling the ground and making gutters through and over the lands of the lessor between such point and the said demised lands for leading and carriages for and alone the said wagons way upto and towards the said demised lands all materials required for all or any of the said works and other material matters and things whatsoever to an from any of the said demised lands and liberty for the lessee his officers agents, servants and workmen as occasion shall require to lay and fix wood timber earth, stones gravel and other materials in and upon the lands of the lessor and to cut, dig and make trenches and water courses for the purpose of keeping the said wagon way free from water and to do all other things necessary or convenient as well for making and laying the said wagon way as for repairing and upholding the same whenever there shall be occasion and liberty for the lessee his officers agents servants and workmen to go pass and repass along the said wagon way either on foot or with horses and other cattle wagons carts or other carriages unto and from the said demised lands and all other liberties and appurtenances necessary or convenient for making laying, altering repairing using or removing the said wagon way or any part thereof the lessee making reasonable compensation unto tree lessor and the tenants or occupiers for all damage occasioned by or in the exercise of the said liberties to the lands belonging to him or them except those actually taken and used for the line of the said was on way except nevertheless put of this demise all sovereign rights of the lessor in and to the said demised lands or any of them other than the rights liberties and powers herein before particularly mentioned and expressed to be hereby demised and excepted all minerals and precious stones whatsoever in and under the said lands hereby demised or any of them other than earth rubble stone and line required for the said works or any of them together with liberty for the lessee to erect build and set up alter maintain and use upon or within then lands hereby demised such houses and other buildings and to take free of all charge for the same all such earth rubble stone and lime therefrom as shall be necessary or proper for effectual or conveniently making and maintaining the said several works and generally to do all such things whatsoever in or upon the hereby demised lands as shall be necessary or expedient for the construction and repair of the said irrigation and accommodation works and for any of the purpose of these presents to have and to hold the premises herein before expressed to be hereby demised and granted unto the lessee from the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six for the term of nine hundred and ninety-nine years yielding and paying therefore by the same being deducted from the tribute from time to time payable by the lessor to the Government of India or Madras the yearly rent of forty thousand rupees of British India commencing from the day on which the water of the said Periyar river now flowing into the said territory of Travancore shall by means of the said works be diverted and shall flow in to British territory the first of payments to be made at the expiration of twelve calendar months from such list mentioned date and yielding and paying from the date from which the said yearly rent of forty thousand rupees of British India shall become payable and over and above the same the further yearly rent (hereinafter called acreage rent ) after the rate of five rupees of British India currency for every acre and so in proportion for a less quantity of the lands hereby demised and granted which on the completion of the said works shall be found on measurement to be included within the said contour line in excess of the said area of eight thousand acres the first of such payments of acreage rent to be made at the time and place when and where the said yearly rent shall become payable as herein before provided and the lessee doth hereby covenant with the lessor that the lessee will pay to the lessor the several rents herein before reserved at the times herein before appointed by allowing the same to be deducted from the tribute from time to time payable by the lessor as aforesaid and will at the expiration or sooner determination of the said term peaceably deliver upto the lessor all the said premises hereby demised in such stale and condition as shall be consistent with a due regard to the provisions of this lease and in particular will within two years after the expiration of determination of the said term clear from the said lands hereby demised all machinery and plant in or about the same or any part thereof or shall at the option of the lessee abandon all claim to such machinery and plant or to such part or parts thereof as the lessee shall think it provided always and it is hereby agreed and declared that it shall be lawful for the lessee at any time before the expiration of the said term to surrounding and yield up all the demised premises to the lessor in which case and immediately upon such surrender the rents hereby reserved shall cease. Provided always and these presents are on this express condition that if and when ever there shall be a breach of any of the covenants and agreements by the lessee herein contained the lessor may re-enter upon any part of the said premises in the name of the whole and there upon the said term of nine hundred and ninety-nine hundred absolutely determine without prejudice nevertheless to the recovery of any rent or money then payable or to the liability of the lease to perform and to the right of the lessor to enforce the performance and observance of every or any covenant or situation herein contained and which ought to be performed or observed after the expiration of the said term in case the same had expired by effluxion of time. And the lessor doth hereby covenant with the lessor that the lessee paying the rents herein before reserved in manner aforesaid and performing and observing all the covenants and agreements by the lessee herein contained may quietly hold and enjoy all the lands rights and premises herein before, demised and granted during the said term and also free of rent so much of the said lands as shall then be required for any machinery or plant for two years after the expiration or determination of the said term without any interruption or disturbance by the lessor or any person claiming through or in trust for the lessor and that if the lessee shall be desirous of taking a renewed lessee of the said premises for the further term of nine hundred and ninety-nine years from the expiration of the term hereby granted and of such desire shall prior to the expiration of the said last mentioned term give to the lessor six calendar months previous notice in writing signed by any Secretary to the Government of Madras and shall pay the rents hereby reserved and perform and observe the several covenants and agreements herein contained and on the part of the lessee to be observed and performed upto the expiration of the said term hereby granted the lessor will upon the request and at expense of the lessee forthwith execute and deliver to the lessee a renewed lease of the said premises for the further term of nine hundred and ninety-nine years at the same yearly and acreage repts and under and subject to the same covenants provisions and agreements including this present covenant as are herein contained. If and whenever any dispute or question shall arise between the lessor and lessee touching these presents or anything herein contained or the construction hereof or the rights duties or liabilities of either party in relation to the premises the matter in difference shall be referred to two arbitrators or their umpire pursuant to and so as with regard in the mode and consequence of the referring and in all other respect to conform to the provision in that behalf of the Code of Civil Procedure 1882 of the Legislative Council of India or any there subsisting statutory modification thereof. In witness whereof Vembankum Ramiengar, Esq. CSI Diwan of His Highness in Maharajah of Travancore by order and direction of the Government of M/s. Highness the said Maharajah and John Child Hannynglen Esl. Resident of Travancore and Cochin of order and direction of the Rigln Honourable the Governor in Council of Fort St. George acting for and on behalf of the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for India in Council have hereunder set their respective hands and seals the day and year first above written.

Signed, sealed and delivered by the above named Vembaukum Ramiengar in the presence of:

V. RAMIENGAR

K.K.Kuruvila

Maramath Secretary, Travancore Sircar

J.H. PRINCE

Ag. Head Sircar Vakil, Travancore Government

Signed, sealed and delivered by the above named John Child Hannyngton in the presence of:

J.C. HANNYNGTON