sampled

Mull(a/ai)periyar dam is a Damocles's sword dangling devilishly over  Keralites- distraught by  the unabated apprehensions of an imminent catastrophe.The engineering Goliath,an antique marvel but decrepit, designed to carry a life span of 60 years funnily bounded to a dictum of 999 years   to serve (not to bite the recipient but to drub the donor)-has presented sleepless nights to the 35 lacks petty mortals in the downside .
On the leeward side of the western ghats ,the lifeline of the Tamils in 4 rain shadow districts ,its fabulous verdure ,2.2 lack acres of lusty lush green catapulting in to a ghastly sprawling barren and dissolute strip,a vast desert-an unimaginable spectacle for its toiling masses

The word Mullapperiyar brings back in the minds of acknowledgeable people , the horrendous spectacle of Morphi of the late 70's- fetid corpses piled up-stinking carrion on top of buildings ,suggesting the height of water walls gushed in, -the men trapped to death in a temple,the pictures of Gods remaining intact-immensely sordid and nauseating-of a forlorn city busily engaged in cleansing by the RSS men.
Six decades back,while consecrating Brakranangalto the nation ,Prime Minister Nehru said "Dams shall be our temples".But his soul will be trembling when he beholds  the laments of  his country men in the downstreams of the  towering  Dam.
Mullapperiyar is a symbol.A symbol of the sombre Indian polity,the vacuity of  federal coexistence.It exposes the nonchalance of the enlightened elites on the face of a demanding disaster.It also hits out at the  sermon often  quoted by our zealot politicians that 'Science should not be questioned "when they tailor the people to believe that, the violent rush of  water would flow in a line demarcated by them, with mathematical precision.

The dam is dying inch by inch. 

The issue is acutely complex.As in Sardar Sarovarthe tussle between a mammoth Dam and the nondescript mortals downside ,comes to the center stage.
The bigone month witnessed heated casuistry and overly emotive histrionics. The puerile overtones,the red herrings of the raucous politicians boiled over the streets while hooligans rampaged them.The media hypes regimented to the targeted audience-the rudderless and seedy yells of the Internet dwarfs-all mazed and straitjacketed our vision.The appalling ineptitude of the regime at the center to intervene- tethered in the turmoils of  political balance sheet,exacerbated  with the vociferous  and pervasive outbursts of some ministers,throwing federalism to the wind-have berated many a thinking citizens.
Happily ,for whatever reasons it may be,there is a consolatory containment of  anger ,a respite on the every day trundling across the borders.It is time now ,we sit back ,rethink -what may come of the verdict -that the bond of brotherhood long cherished shall prevail. Let us make sure that the rabble rousers are given a fitting drub by reinforcing the camaraderie between the states. Our political mandarins on both sides need desist from their parochial joustings and keep the decibels low so that the peace loving  people could return to the idyllic life they deserve.
Mullapperiyar is an overheated issue.'It is a ticklish issue 'for both states and no easy pushover. It  defies  any reasonable debate,but it demands  a lot in the run-up to the crisis.
But, is a new Dam a panache? Hopefully not.There are other ways too."With out constructing a new Dam ,decommissioning the existing Dam ,TamilNadu can be provided with same quantity of water" says experts in the field.
Dr.R.Gopimani,from Trivandrum writes "The Hindu culture is against Dams."He quotes from ' Rigvetha'

-vrishteenam pushti samakritham rodhane papahethu-

There is equitable rain in nature.Preventing it from  flowing as rivers is suicidal. Forgetting this paramount truth we behave as strange bed fellows.
The centenarian dam  perches in the Western ghats with  majesty and grandeur- dual dutied,at one side a great benefactor on the other a wide mouthed specter ready to ravage everything if let loose- preserving  a calculated glee on her countenance.

         You have the right, in fact the duty, to question my story, to doubt everything I've told you.
It's only a story, a tragic one. There's so many of them, aren't there?
You can't bury all of them... But, since you can get there, it's not really so far....
Once in your life you should go on up there, and stand up there ... and then come back down....
Try to prove me wrong, put everything up to the light....
Try to find the reason in it....
But don't just stop at the dam, because you can't tell anything from the dam. Go on up as far as the towns. Then turn around and come back, and stand up there a moment....
If you have the courage, talk to someone about it... and then do your reading; keep records. What you have under your feet is the second worst landslide on the planet since the advent of Mankind; the worst happened in India, in Pamir, on the roof of the world.
The second happened in the heart of Europe. And it didn't just fall. It was provoked."

(actor Marco Paolini in "The Story of Vajont", of Thomas Simpson, 2000, Bordighera Press)

Click For Further Reading-

The Deed in 1886

The agreement

Divan Ramayyangar for Trivandrum province and State Secretary of Madras Presidency Mr.John Child Haningtonhave have signed, a lease deed for constructing a Dam across Periyar river on 29th Oct 1886 .The first correspondence dates back to 1862 September when the Madras presidency wrote to Divan Sri.Madhava Rao of Travancore mooting the idea of constructing a dam across Periyar.He replied on November 25th .The Travancore,Cochi resident Fisher in his letter to the Divan served by in Dec 1882 wanted a clear decision on the Dam as the feasibility for the Dam is to be completed in the fair climate itself. The Madras Presidency has allocated for the Dam in its presidency Budget.Divan in reply to the letter ,proposed that the profit out of the project shall be equally divided and that Travancore has no objection to the study by the engineers.Accordingly Mr Barton ,the British engineer submitted the project after conducting elaborate study on the wild forests in the source of Pariyar. Expectedly the study did not touch on how the inhabits in the downstreams and the valleys.will be affected.
The committee constituted under Diavan Peshkar opined that the project is detrimental to the interests of Travancore.The history says that the British had made the Travancore to sign on pistol point under duress.The contract that the expenditure and the profits will be equally divided was not adhered to and it is history that the Raja did not prefer to sign the agreement.Under threats the Raja was made to sign the agreement after a prolonged 24 years of obdurate defense.The contract was for 99 years ,but the lease deed remained for 999 years.

Britishers were very cunning to extract benifits from the provinces to areas in tis direct control. Karnataka always grumble that the natural rights of Mysore Kingdom over Kaveri has been forcefully taken away by the Britishers.Thelunkana region witnesses recurring agitations over denial of rightful shares of Godavari water .The coastal andhra was a part of of the old Madras presidency under British rule .Arthar Coat is worshipped there as a valiant warrior.

        The study for taking Mullapperiyar water to Vaiga was taken up as back as 1789.The initiative was of Muthirupilla ,the chief lieutenant of Muthulinga Sethupathi the King of Ramnad ,who was an ally of Britishers.But as the King was fighting with Britishers , so project did not come up.King Senupathy was defeated in the battle and the Britishers annexed his kingdom.

The water scarcity in Madhurai,Theni,Ramnadhpuram,Dindugal were a point to worry to the Britishers. Subsequently Jaims Kadvelli was entrusted to take up the study to flow Periyar water by tunnelling western ghat to Vaigai, in 1808.But Jaims decided against it.Britishers did not retract and started the construction work of a Dam in 1850 by diverting water through the chinnamuliyat rivulet on the study of captain Faber .But this again was abandoned.

After the agreement in In 1867 a British engineer Maj Reeves propounded a plan to construct a dam of 162 feet in Periyar and take water to Churuliyar a rivulet of Vaiga through canals .The project failed as water could not be held back during construction.Again the project adduced by General Wakker was abandoned due to technical problems.In 1882 the British Engineers John Penniquik and R.Smith were entrusted to take up a fresh study and after a thorough analysis of earlier attempts,they came up with a new project. Accordingly a dam was planned with a height of 155ft ,a width of 115.57 ft and at the top 12 feet based on Surky,lime and stone ,the then available construction materials.

As per the agreement in 1886,the water from can be used only for agricultural purposes.But from then onwards Tamil Nadu has been using it for generating Electricity also.Travancore province authorised the Divan Sir CP in the case who fought vigorously for the Raja.The words of Sir CP before the arbitrators are history.Divan argued that not only the water should not be used to generate Electricity but should also be not used for drinking.When the tussle extended the TN advocate general Alladi Krishnaswamy directly engaged with Sir CP and finally as per the arbitrator the case was left to the decision of Nalini Chatterji ,the judge of Harcourt of Calkutta.The highcourt finally pronounced that the electricity generation is an industry and hence Mullapperiar waters can not be used for that.TN has to subdue before Sir CP.But 1n 1970 without any discussions ,without the directives of Kerala Assembly ,the then CM of Kerala, Sri.C.Achutha Menon signed the renewal of the agreement which some believe was perfunctory and shortsighted.
         The first agreement was signed after long 20 years of debates.But as per Indian Independence act -section 7 the agreement has become void.Section 7 says that all treaties in between the British and the indian kings have become redundant. If any treaty has to hold further a standing agreement need to have evolved as in Kaveri water disputes in Karnataka.If the treaty is to hold water ,modifications or renewal of it should have happened before 1957-Nov 1.But since such an action has not been resorted to ,the agreement signed between Kerala and TN in 1979 stands void.Interestingly the officials signed on behalf of Kerala were all Tamilians.

The Dam is infirm

Structurel deficiencies

Mullapperiyar built on the then medieval technology  has celebrated its 115 years of existence in the last February.The present dam has no homogeneity in the materials used.It is an assortment  of different materials used to strengthen in the begone years.There are no expansion joints in the dam as being given to the present day Dams and it remains as a single block in its entire width.Dam in the upstream face ie the storage portion was built in rubble masonry.(-cement was not in vogue those days) containing  a mixture of lime and Sukey.Next to it is a concrete of Sukey,lime and crumbs of stones followed by the rubber masonry of lime and Surky.Then a gap which is  not grouted.Finally,on the downstream face, the new concrete-depriving it the much wonted structural continuity .
dam was  filled with water for the first time itself,it  showed dampness and many seepage's.Through this wet area it is estimated that 30 tons of lime are lost per year as conceded by the Tamil Nadu authorities.There are no provisions for drainage gallery,pipe wells for releasing inner pressure.In these dam models it is a criterion that there should not be any  pull on any side either in full water level or not.Several examinations suggested that Mullapperiar is subjected to these pulls  which make it abundantly clear that the dam is built with such abysmal standards.The strength of a dam is decided by the  thrust exerted upward by water within and in the depths.
No such tests were done at Mullapperiyar.A study has revealed that,when considering the ground movements and 100% upward pressure, accounted as per the  Indian Standards, the pressure  shall be 2.8 tons-raising alarms. Even in brand new dams built with modern technology and practices seepages appear.As per Tamil Nadu the leakage in Mullapperiyar is much less.
Mr.P.K.JayaChandran adds."There lies the doubt.While the masonry dams built with identical characteristics show more leakages,then how come an old Mullapperiyar crossing 115 years could show less leakage!The water loss could be many folded as per experts.The loss cannot be detected as the water collected in the ungroutted empty spaces goes to the bottom and leaves out  which can not be seen.
When a dam is built,before the work begins, normally the rocky bottom is strengthened by grouting or such other techniques -which has not been adhered to in the case of Mullapperiyar.Considerable  quantity of water- is lost  being drained through the cavities; in the bottom and the ungrouted gaps in the new concreted portion - flows out under the heap of  soil piled up in the bottom.Holes  provided , in the new concrete  'prop dam' built later to strengthen  the dam, to take the trapped water  getting collected inside the old dam and the new structure(prop) - is being  filled with the seeping in  lime so that very little amount of water is reaching the gallery built in the new prop dam ,which TN claims to be a meagre 89 litre /minute..This is how TN braves on the low amount of lime loss.M.K.Parameswaran nair ,the chairman of the special cell on Mullapperiyar remarks that it is insane to suggest that this is the total discharge of water leaking through the creeks on the wall and is against the technical sanity.If this state of affairs allowed to continue it shall tantamount to inviting danger to the dam.In such a scenario an earth quake of sufficient magnitude can unseat the dam.
Kerala has asked for isotope tests to find the water leak in the year 2004. Babha atomic research centre is competent to conduct such tests.But TN is yet to respond positively.It must be noted that the same TN were up in their arms to conduct the tests when it came to Aliyar.The empowered committee has directed the TN to conduct the tests but it is yet to be known that the report will be tabled before the reports of High Power Committee reaches Supreme Court.
The Hindu reports..... The scanning of upstream side of the Mullaperiyar dam using a remote operated vehicle by the Central Soil and Materials Research Station on directions from the Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court had found serious damage to the masonry structure between 95 to 106 feet from the base of the dam, retired engineer M. Sasidharan who was observer of Kerala during the scanning- said in a report to the government.The scan results projected deterioration at all 34 sections of the dam from massive erosion of lime Suki mortar from the rubble joints; exposing huge voids, deep pot holes, wide open joints, deep crevices and hollowness on the upstream periphery of the dam.RCC capping as part of emergency strengthening measure. The pre-stressing done by cable anchoring through the upstream masonry portion might have loosened and damaged the masonry. Mr. Sasidharan told The Hindu that when the original case over raising of water level was argued before the Supreme Court, Kerala had failed to present the argument that the dam was structurally weak.
What it had presented was applicable to many other dams. In court records, the Mullaperiyar dam was stated as a masonry dam whereas it was a composite dam. The inner core (62 per cent) of the dam was constructed with hydraulic lime surki mix and its upstream and downstream sides with rubble masonry.
He said that no present day engineer would dare even in his dream to design and construct a dam using hydraulic lime surki mix, in the manner of Mullperiyar dam, as this hydraulic lime surki mix is a very weak and unsound material, especially to withstand earthquake forces and high water pressure when compared to dams constructed with rubble or concrete materials.30 tonnes of lime is lost per year through the process of leaching-as admitted by Tamil Nadu.If so the dam might have lost 2079 tones of lime up to 1965,in 69 years,is a simple arithmetic.To make good these losses,TN had made grouting with cement during 1932-35 and in 1965.This way the quantity of cement reached inside the dam is a mere 543 tonne which testifies there are abundant vacuum  inside.This was the situation till  1965.What could be the picture now!
Times of India Report: Underwater visuals recorded by a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) show a deep fracture along the entire 1,200 ft length of the dam's foundation. The dam has inclined inwards as a result.The visuals came from an inspection carried out by experts, including those from Tamil Nadu and Kerala, for the high-power committee set up by the Supreme Court to look into the stability of the dam. The ROV inspection began on March 5, after dividing the entire structure into 23 sectors, and lasted nearly a month."The CDs have been endorsed by officials from Tamil Nadu and Kerala. They have signed the CDs, and have submitted them before the high-power committee appointed by Supreme Court. The CDs show a huge crack in the foundation of the dam running all along the span of 1200 ft. The Tamil Nadu officials are fully aware of it," one engineer from Kerala, who was part of the inspection team, told TOI.The visuals recorded by the ROV have been transferred to 42 CDs which have signatures of engineers from both Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments. When contacted, a Tamil Nadu official, who had analysed the visuals taken by the ROV, refused to acknowledge the crack. "There are 15 CDs and we have analysed the visuals. The CDs have been endorsed by senior engineers of the Tamil Nadu government," the official said.
In the bygone years the Dam has stood umpteen tremors and pressures.Several efforts for strengthening the Dam was taken up on Mullapperiyar as being done elsewhere such as strengthening with cable,concrete capping in the top,a crutch in the rear with concrete.etc which has extended its life .115 years have gone Will the dam live up to 999 years.
(The materials were collected from the different articles appeared in National and regional languages and also  from the Internet)

A triologue

These are the gists of the writeups appeared in The Hindu openion pages enunciating the thoughts of eminant people in politics in the Mullapperiyar issue.It is felt that their view points are vital to understand the intricacies underlying in the burning issue.
DM: Sri.Durai Murugan is a Congress leader from Tamil Nadu and an Ex-MP. RS:Sri.Ramaswamy Iyyer is the former Water Resourse Secretary to the Govt of India and the architect of Indias first National Water Policy. PC: Sri.Premachandran is the prominent  left front political leader ,a great orstor/thinker  and Ex-minister of water resources in Kerala

The Agreement: RS   Under the 1886 agreement between the former Madras Presidency and the princely State of Travancore, Travancore agreed to the diversion of Periyar waters to Madras Presidency, and to lease a piece of land (8000 acres) in its territory to Madras Presidency for building and operating the project designed for this purpose. The curious fact is that the lease was for 999 years. Whole countries and civilisations could have changed during that period! In Kerala, there is an almost universal feeling (right or wrong) that the 1886 agreement was an unfair one imposed on a reluctant Travancore by a more powerful Madras Presidency with the prestige and power of the British government behind it; and that while Madras (now Tamil Nadu) benefited substantially from the agreement, Travancore (Kerala) got little more than a negligible lease-rent for the land leased to Madras. In 1970, an increase in the lease rent was negotiated by Kerala but there was no radical revision of the totality of the agreement. In any resolution of the Mullaperiyar issue, some assuaging of Kerala's longstanding grievance will have to be an element. DM Mullaiperiyar  is not an emotive or political issue in Tamil Nadu, which has been treating it as a rights issue that it can solve legally. After all, justice is on the side of the right. In the various talks I have participated in, the alleged unfairness of the agreement never cropped up. The land clearly belongs to Tamil Nadu as the agreement of 1886 is legally sound. The “sense of grievance” over the alleged unfairness over the 1886 agreement between the Maharaja of Travancore and the British government in India  is baseless since the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments ratified the original agreement and also entered into a supplementary agreement in 1970 as equal States. This agreement was not a colonial trick, but an attempt at mutual cooperation between the States, initiated by democratically elected eminent leaders.  In fact, during the discussions with Pennycuick from 1862 onwards, the Maharaja was for a joint venture with the profit accrued from the revenue to be shared on agreed basis. But later he pulled out and preferred to accept lease rent for the land submerged, which only goes to prove that the King did not sign the agreement under any duress. Today, it is Kerala that is refusing to acknowledge the Maharaja's wisdom and vision in protecting his people from the annual floods in the Periyar — and getting some income by leasing a piece of land that was lying waste between hills. PC Kerala has not repudiated the Periyar lease agreement at any point: this is indeed a reflection of the earnest desire on the part of Kerala to assure its brethren across the border that it would not renege on its assurance to ensure water to Tamil Nadu. The issue of the validity of the original lease agreement is pending before the Supreme Court, with a Constitution Bench examining the merits of this pre-Independence-era agreement. Why not obey Supreme court directions DM It is the case of judicial probe-not for amicable settlement.Mr. Premachandran's claim that Kerala “has always respected the judiciary and unflinchingly abided by its verdicts,” is far from the truth. The entire world knows that Kerala amended its Act to circumvent the Supreme Court's 2006 verdict, which allowed an increase in the storage level to 142 ft initially and 152 ft finally after completion of the strengthening process. While ordering status quo, the Supreme Court Bench made it clear that there “would be no impediment for Tamil Nadu to carry out maintenance and repairs for upkeep” of the dam. This is essentially a matter for settlement by amicable agreement, not judicial determination.” When I read his statements that neither the view of the Central Water Commission nor the judgment of the Supreme Court was acceptable, I wondered what locus standi he had to make such a suggestion. let me provide key irrefutable facts to reject his thesis. Mr. Iyer himself should be aware of the fact that several rounds of talks have been held between the two States during the past three decades and all of them failed. The talks were held at different levels. Chief Ministers of the States have discussed the issue; Irrigation Ministers have tried to sort out the differences; Chief Secretaries have attempted to arrive at a solution; and other officials have sat across the table several times, even in the presence of the Union Water Resources Ministry. Does Mr. Iyer think that a mutual agreement is possible even now? what is galling is Mr. Iyer's contention that it is not a matter for judicial determination. It is the right of every citizen of this country to seek legal recourse on contentious issues and his or her duty to abide by the ruling of the courts. The fact that the Kerala government has failed to abide by the directions of the Supreme Court of India is something no one is bringing to light in the media discourse. PC Kerala abided by SC verdicts. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of February 27, 2006, allowed the raising of the water level to 142 feet, and thereafter to 152 feet upon the baby dam being strengthened. This verdict was based entirely on the recommendations of an Expert Committee constituted by the CWC, which had concluded that the dam is safe, on the basis of erroneous values and insufficient data. In March 2006, the Kerala Assembly amended the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003, fixing the full reservoir level (FRL) of 22 dams in the State. In the case of the Mullaperiyar dam, the FRL was fixed at 136 feet. Through an Original Suit before the Supreme Court, pending final verdict, Tamil Nadu has questioned the Kerala Legislature's competence to enact such an amendment. The Supreme Court has so far not stayed the legislation fixing the water level at 136 feet, and has only ordered that no dam-strengthening measures be taken up, and that the status quo be maintained on the water level issue. Kerala has the right to object to any cosmetic strengthening measures proposed by Tamil Nadu in the interregnum. It is not true that Kerala has displayed scant regard for a judgment of the Supreme Court. Mr. Durai Murugan contends that there is no scope for further dialogue between the States. Our democracy and the Constitution provide ample opportunity for sustained and purposeful discussions to resolve even the most vexed of issues. Kerala has immense faith in this mechanism to resolve the Mullaperiyar issue to mutual satisfaction. But apparently, Tamil Nadu has been in a state of denial and reluctant to reciprocate, even at the bidding of the Government of India. RA c) The dam safety question and the people's fears: Prima facie , dam safety does not seem a suitable subject for judicial determination. One wishes that the Supreme Court had told the two State governments to resolve the issue by amicable discussions, or to seek the intervention of the Central government. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could have directed the Inter-State Council, a constitutional body, to intervene and bring about an amicable settlement. Instead the learned judges decided to deal with the matter themselves, and appointed an Empowered Committee to examine and report on it. The Empowered Committee includes eminent experts but their opinion, even if the Supreme Court accepts it, may not necessarily be the final word on the subject, particularly if a different opinion is given by other equally distinguished experts outside. Under the circumstances, the sensible course would be for the two State governments, perhaps with the assistance of a joint committee of experts, to reach a reasonable agreement on the subject. Why do Kerala steadfastly resist TN to take up Strengthening efforts DM But the Kerala Forest Department foisted criminal cases against Tamil Nadu's engineers who went there to carry out regular maintenance work. One example relates to the strengthening of the Mullaiperiyar dam, which needs to be done in three phases — emergency, medium-term, and long-term, as advised by the Central Water Commission. Though the medium level strengthening has been completed, Kerala did not allow Tamil Nadu to raise the water level to 142 feet as per the Supreme Court's directive. But overcoming the obstacles that Kerala threw in the way of carrying out the work was more agonising. When Tamil Nadu wanted to use small explosives to break stones, Kerala objected saying that the noise would disturb wildlife. When Tamil Nadu tried to transport the gravel in lorries, they stopped the vehicles saying the sound would scare the animals. At last, we used donkeys to transport building material. Now Kerala is refusing to give permission for strengthening the baby dam, which is part of the irrigation system in Mullaiperiyar, and the building of the parapet walls on the main dam, which is essential if Tamil Nadu is to complete the long-term strengthening process. If Kerala's concern is the dam's safety alone, why is it preventing us physically from carrying out the strengthening work? I hope the people of Kerala, if they are really fearful of the dam bursting, would ask this of their rulers. Once the long-term strengthening is done, Tamil Nadu would be legally entitled to store water up to 152 feet. It is pertinent here to record the fact that the Kerala government has steadfastly refused to give a power connection to the small PWD maintenance office located at the dam site. In fact, the very idea behind my writing to The Hindu was to bring out the simple fact that Tamil Nadu is truly concerned about the safety of the dam and has been investing huge resources not just to strengthen the dam but to create a structure that is as good as a new one. It was in that context that I said that Kerala was physically preventing Tamil Nadu from undertaking work on strengthening it. Mr. Premachandran conveniently ignores it, while Mr. Iyer callously says he has nothing to say on that. PC Kerala's apprehensions about the dam's stability — or lack of it — are not of recent origin. It was built when construction techniques were in a nascent stage. Its core was built of lime surki concrete, with a facing of coarse rubble masonry in lime mortar. Attempts were made in the 1930s to strengthen it by grouting and guniting. Even after repeating the grouting in 1960, leaks were observed. Tamil Nadu itself has conceded before the Supreme Court that over 3,500 tonnes of lime has been washed away from the structure over the last century. As against this, a mere 542 tonnes of concrete has been put into the dam which, it should be reiterated, relies on gravity for stability. Strengthening cannot guarantee the structural stability of the dam, which lies in a highly seismic zone. That it is necessary to periodically strengthen the dam is in itself a pointer to its intrinsic structural weakness and the hazards that have manifested over time. Even as the Central Water Commission (CWC) was advocating short, medium and long-term measures to strengthen the dam, Kerala and Tamil Nadu agreed in 1979 that a permanent solution lay in constructing a new dam. At the discussions held on January 25, 1979, under the chairmanship of K.C. Thomas, CWC Chairman, it was decided that “a joint team of engineers from Tamil Nadu and Kerala will explore the possibility of locating a new dam within a reasonable distance from the existing dam.” Officials from both States jointly identified and confirmed the specific location and alignment where the new construction was to be made. Officials from Kerala and Tamil Nadu even inked an agreement on December 20, 1979, to this effect, and this was approved by the CWC Chairman. But this agreement was not carried forward to its logical conclusion. Why is Tamil Nadu objecting to a new dam now? RS A further point is that with strengthening measures, the 116-year-old dam can perhaps be kept going for some more years but it must be presumed to be nearing the end of its useful life. Contingency plans must be prepared for the eventual phasing out of the dam. These must include alternative means of supporting economic activity and prosperity in the project-dependent areas in Tamil Nadu.Periyar is an interstate river DM There can be no question of Tamil Nadu giving up its rights over Mullaiperiyar To Mr. Iyer's averment that “Periyar is not an inter-State river,” I would like to point out that a river whose catchment lies in more than one State is an inter-State river. As per the Water Atlas When it comes to “rights,” Tamil Nadu has the right to maintain the dam and also draw water under the lease agreement, whether Mr. Iyer agrees on that or not. Besides, Tamil Nadu has usage rights over the waters as its usage period exceeds a century: this is an internationally accepted principle on water-sharing. Mullaiperiyar waters are not exclusively Kerala's, but an inter-State resource governed by the principles of inter-State rivers. The concerns of people in Tamil Nadu: Whatever views one might hold on the nature of the project, the fact is that the people in the water-short Vaigai Basin areas in Tamil Nadu have been recipients of Periyar waters for over a hundred years, and must be presumed to have acquired some kind of a right of established use.  The dispute regarding the safety of the dam has created a sense of uncertainty — in fact an acute anxiety — in the areas concerned in Tamil Nadu about continued flows. Thus, there are two vulnerabilities in this case: the life-security concerns of people in Kerala and the livelihood-security concerns of the people of Tamil Nadu. Both need to be addressed. PC It is true that the Mullaperiyar dam was commissioned as part of a lease deed signed in 1886 to divert the waters of the Periyar for irrigation in parts of the Madras Presidency, and that Tamil Nadu is entitled to claim its share as a right. But by no stretch of imagination can the Periyar be classified as an inter-State river, as claimed in the article. The river across which the dam is situated is entirely in Kerala; no part of it originates from, or runs through, any other State. The entire stretch flows through Kerala, with a negligible 2 per cent contribution from insignificant rivulets from Tamil Nadu joining the main course downstream of the Mullaperiyar dam. Therefore, claiming that Mullaperiyar is an “inter-State resource governed by the principles of inter-State rivers” is fallacious. The author seeks to assert that “the land belongs to Tamil Nadu.” This is a new claim, fraught with serious ramifications. Tamil Nadu is merely the lessee. Far from helping to find a lasting solution within the federal framework, this new contention will only serve to provide a new twist to the imbroglio. The latest slogan, ‘Water for Tamil Nadu, Safety for Kerala,' is just a deception. DM The proposal for a new dam downstream, which has caught the fancy of many well-meaning people with no real knowledge of ground realities, is only a ploy to deprive Tamil Nadu of water. First, if a new dam is constructed away — that too, downstream — from the Mullaiperiyar, Tamil Nadu will not be able to draw water and supply it to the rain-shadow districts of Theni, Dindigul, Madurai, Sivagangai, and Ramanathapuram. Secondly, environmental clearance could be an uphill task for the construction of a new structure now, given the latest laws, which might be used as a pretext by Kerala to throw up its hands after knocking off the present dam and thus achieving its goal of diverting the water to Idukki dam for power generation. PC Kerala's commitment to supply the same quantum of water to Tamil Nadu has been endorsed by the Kerala Assembly through a unanimous resolution. Therefore, it is hard to fathom Tamil Nadu's objections against Kerala building a dam on its territory, across a State-river with its own funds. Moreover, is the Tamil Nadu Government — or indeed Mr. Durai Murugan — willing to guarantee that the present structure would withstand the shortcomings in its construction technology and the ravages of nature for the 863 years of the residual period of the lease agreement? DAM will never burst DM Mr. Iyer's philosophical statement, “if, hypothetically speaking, the dam were to burst, waters will cease to flow to Tamil Nadu,” holds no water as no gravity dam has burst anywhere in the world. If at all there is a risk of a dam-burst in Kerala, it is with the Idukki dam, which is an arch-dam. The dam tamed so effectively the roguish river that was causing devastation before flowing into the Arabian Sea, that the Maharaja approached the British government to build another dam in southern Travancore, where the Kodaiyar was wreaking havoc in Nanjilnadu, the southern rice bowl of his kingdom. It was that effort that led to the construction of the Pechiparai dam, which now stands tall, even a hundred years later, in Kanyakumari district that was acceded to Tamil Nadu during the reorganisation of States. In the same reorganisation process, had Peermedu and Devikulam taluks of Idukki district been acceded to Tamil Nadu, perhaps I would not have been writing this now. Finally, to allay Mr. Premachandran's fear of the Idukki dam bursting in the (imaginary) event of the Mullaiperiyar dam giving way, I have a piece of advice for Kerala: Please keep the storage level [in the Idukki dam] a little low. After all, the Idukki water goes waste, flowing into the Arabian Sea. Mr. Premachandran has also conveniently forgotten the fact that the finding of a Professor at IIT Delhi that the dam was hydrologically unsafe was categorically rejected by the Union Water Resources Ministry, which said “the findings did not appear well founded.” RS However, no expert can give an absolute guarantee of safety. The dam in this case is 116 years old, and even with all the strengthening measures, one can hardly be wholly confident about its safety under all circumstances. The recent tremors in the area might have been minor but no one can guarantee that a stronger earthquake will not occur, or that if it does the dam will withstand it; or that if there is an exceptionally heavy flood the dam will be safe. These are extreme and perhaps improbable situations but the point is that there can be no absolute unqualified guarantee of safety under all circumstances. That is true of all dams, and particularly so of ageing dams and of dams in seismically active areas. Moreover, what the experts say may not allay the fears of the people downstream of the dam. To some extent those fears might have been accentuated by the statements of political leaders but they cannot be lightly dismissed as imaginary or paranoid. The people living in the shadow of the dam need to be reassured. The remote contingency of a risk actually materialising may be acceptable in many cases, but unacceptable in a few. It seems to this writer that the risk in this case falls into the category of ‘unacceptable'. PC A study on the “Probable Maximum Flood Estimation and Flood Routing of Mullaperiyar Dam,” by Dr. A.K. Gosain of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, concluded that the dam is hydraulically unsafe. At no point have the findings been disputed. A study on the “Structural Stability of Mullaperiyar Dam with regard to Seismic Effect,” by a team with Dr. Arun Bapat as Chairman, and Dr. D.K. Paul, Head of the Earthquake Engineering Department of the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, as member, predicted that the structure would collapse in the event of a Magnitude-6 earthquake. These studies point to the fact that the dam is a disaster waiting to happen. In the past few months, the area proximate to the dam has experienced over two dozen tremors of varying magnitudes. The argument that the Idukki dam also lies in this zone and is equally vulnerable is again ingenuous. The Idukki dam has been designed and built to withstand earthquakes of Magnitude-8. Can Idukki hold waters of Mullapperiyar DM Kerala's politicians have never told their people for more than two decades that if the Mullaiperiyar is removed, then only about eight tmcft of water would flow into the Idukki dam, which can hold 73 tmcft water. When the people, who have never had an opportunity to see the dam in the thick reserve forest area, were enlightened that the Idukki dam, which is normally filled only up to half its capacity, would hold the water, the Kerala government machinery floated a theory that Idukki would not be able to withstand the sudden inflow. But even the Kerala Advocate General recently told the court that the water would easily collect in the three dams downstream, including Idukki.Finally, to allay Mr. Premachandran's fear of the Idukki dam bursting in the (imaginary) event of the Mullaiperiyar dam giving way, I have a piece of advice for Kerala: Please keep the storage level [in the Idukki dam] a little low. After all, the Idukki water goes waste, flowing into the Arabian Sea. PC The claim that the Idukki dam can contain the flood water in the event of the Mullaperiyar dam collapsing is contrary to the truth. The combined storage of the Mullaperiyar and Idukki reservoirs had crossed the FRL in 1981, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2005 and 2007. In the event of such a situation arising again and the Mullaperiyar dam collapsing, Idukki would overflow, thereby putting its stability under serious jeopardy. There are more than 1.5 lakh people living downstream between the Mullaperiyar structure and the Idukki dam. What happens to them in the event of damage to the Mullaperiyar dam? Kerala stares at the prospect of a 30-feet tall column of water surging down at a speed of 50 kmph upon the Idukki and Kulamavu dams, thereby overwhelming them and setting off a chain of events that have the makings of an apocalypse for the 35 lakh people living in four districts. The Government of Kerala has to protect its people. There is ample scope to invoke the “precautionary principle of action” in this case, and Kerala is duty-bound to raise it. Why a new Dam PC The need is for a “new dam,” and not “as good as new dam” as advocated by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister. In Kerala, we hope the government and the people of Tamil Nadu, and indeed the whole nation, would accept this reality and recognise the need for a dam to replace the existing Mullaperiyar dam. RS A further point is that with strengthening measures, the 116-year-old dam can perhaps be kept going for some more years but it must be presumed to be nearing the end of its useful life. Contingency plans must be prepared for the eventual phasing out of the dam. These must include alternative means of supporting economic activity and prosperity in the project-dependent areas in Tamil Nadu.

Seismic Activities

SEISMIC ACTIVITIES

Wikki reports

The dam is situated in a seismically active zone. An earthquake measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale occurred on June 7, 1988 with maximum damage in Nedumkandam and Kallar (within 20 km of the dam). Consequently several earthquake tremors have occurred in the area in recent times. These could be reservoir-induced seismicity, requiring further studies according to experts. A report by IIT Roorkee states that the dam "was likely to face damage if an earthquake of the magnitude of 6.5 on the Richter scale struck its vicinity when the water level is at 136 feet".
After the 1979 Morvi Dam failure which killed up to 25,000 people, safety concerns of the aging Mullaperiyar dam's and alleged leaks and cracks in the structure were raised by the Kerala Government. A Kerala government institution, Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS), Thiruvananthapuram, had reported that the structure would not withstand an earthquake above magnitude 6 on the Richter scale. The dam was also inspected by the Chairman, CWC (Central Water Commission). On the orders of the CWC, the Tamil Nadu government lowered the storage level from 142.2 feet to 136 feet, conducted safety repairs and strengthened the dam.

Strengthening measures adopted by Tamil Nadu PWD from 1979 onwards include cable anchoring of the dam's structure and RCC backing for the front slope. During a recent scanning of the Mullaperiyar dam using a remotely operated vehicle by the Central Soil and Materials Research Station on directions from the Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court, the Kerala Government observer opined that "mistakes in the strengthening works carried out by Tamil Nadu" in 1979 damaged the masonry of the dam.

Excerpts from a continued feature in Mathrubhumi daily by Sri.Jayachandran,P.K

M D was built when the earth science was in its infancy.-No authentic scientific tests were feasible then.The potential danger was understood in later studies.The dam stands at a place where there are a number of clefts on the earth and it lies in the seismic sensitive area.Mullapperiyar lies in the much daunted area in the seismic regions.
The expert committee under Dr.M.Baba the ex-director of Trivandrum CESS has found that Mullapperyar situates on the rendezvous of Kambam,Udumbamchola seismic line.Again the Baby dam is situated in another seismic centre as reported by the Geological survey of India.
Kerala lies in the  3rd zone  where magnitude of  6.5 in Ricture scale is possible.Such tremors can destabilise the rocks in the bottom where leakage can increase through the vents created.However as per the latest study by BIS(Bureau of Indian Statistics),Kerala is sheduled in the 4th zone where themagneude of maximum intensity of 7.5 is predicted.
Nedungandam in Idukki a quack of magnitude  4.5 was felt.John Mathaui a Senior scientist from CESS says that the seismic centre of the tremors felt at Uluppooni,valavukodu,Kannambadi were near to Mullapperiyar Dam.
In Kerala it has been pointd out that the seismic Zones are active.The seismic zone centering the Continental shelf in the Arabian sea is also active,.The tremor at a magnitude of 4.5 felt at Trivandrum was centered on this.The tremor felt in the south west of Kolambo in November  also was centered in this zone which passes from Bombay High to Sreelanka.The possibility of a severe earth quake in kerala is rare since the frequently felt minor quakes exit the pressure in earth.But some scientists do believe that these shocks are the harbinger of a greater shock.
According to the strength of tremor the country is being divided in to 4 zones.Lathur in Maharashtra was in the 1st zone (expected magnitude 4.8 )where,contrary to expectations of scientific community ,an earth quake of magnitude 6.3 occurred in September 1993 killing 20,000 people in the process.Before the mishap there were 40 short and minor fore shocks which was neglected by the scientific community.The locales who marched to the taluk office , complaining of cracks to their houses ,were brutally caned and dispersed.
Dr C.P.Rajendran an Earth quack scientists from Indian Institute of Science ,Bangalore says that studies have not established that the dam has suffered due to the frequent earthquakes experienced recently.There is remote chances of earth quakes of appreciable magnitude.The existing dam has reduced strength which would mean that it has to be decommissioned which might take time.The water level should not be increased.
The Kerala government has sought  reducing the storage level of the dam which has a gross capacity of 15.6 TMC by16 ft to 120 ft and reaffirmed its demand to build a new dam at the site proposed. Kerala has conten­ded that the region has rec­o­r­ded 22 quakes /tremors this year. State irrigation minister P J Joseph claims that studies conducted by scientists from IIT-Roorkee and Thiruvananthapuram-based Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) have pointed out that the Mullaperiyar dam is in a seismic zone and the quake of six or more on the Richter Scale can not be ruled out. CESS scientist John Mathai is of the opinion that any qu­ake of the magnitude of six on the Richter Scale could damage the dam located 4,000 ft above the sea level and put millions of people in the downstream area at a grave risk.
If the dam bursts, flood waters released in its wake could submerge small towns before reaching the Idukki dam, the biggest in the state. The force of the water could breach the Idukki dam also and it could be catastrophic as 3.5 million people would be affected.Above all, the rare flora and fauna in the Periyar National Park and adjoining Periyar Tiger Reserve would be completely destroyed.

Recent tremors (Collected from daily news,Mathrubhumi)

In the last century more than 100 tremors of varying intensity have been recorded in the region ,the majority of them in 2011.Although history witnessed two major quakes in 1342 at Neryamangalam and in 1875 at Palght Kerala is considered as a region where tremor susceptibility is minimal.But scientists say that dormant seismic zones have recently became active.Since 1976 when Idukki was first filled with water ,900 tremors per year  ,mild and insignificant though ,have  occurred in the vicinity of 2 Km from the dam.The tremors are expected to come down with in 25 years of Dam construction.But things remain negative.
>

1)Magnitude 4.5 in Dec2000 centered at Melukavu

2)Magnitude 5 centered at Erattuopetta

3)Magnitude 2.8 of 20 Km away from Dam on 18th Aug 2006

4)Magnitude 2.2  centered at Nedunkandam on 30th Jan 2008 -30Km from the Dam

5)Magnitude 3.2  epicenter at Malayatti on 26th June 2009-67 Km from the Dam

6)Epicenter at Peryar Wild Life Sanctuary -Ranni on 3rd November

7)Magnitude 2.9 epicenter at Vellakkayam near Cheruthoni-on 7th November 2010-37 Km from the Dam

There were 23 incidences of tremors of small and large in the last 9 months-the seismic center being in the Idukki project area starting from 5th March last year.

Major quakes reported in 2011.

1)Magnitude 3.8 centered at Kottamala on 26th July 2011.Continued to this there were 7 tremors shortly after-cracks developed in the dam.

2)Magnitude 2.0 centered at Upputhara on 23rd October 2011-30 Km from the Dam

3)Magnitude 2.1 centered at Parathott near Thoprankudi  -16th september 2011-repeated trmors after 5 minutes. again and on 18th

4)Magnitude 1.3,0.3-2 strokes .

This is not an exhaustive list. There were 23 incidences of tremors of small and large in the last 9 months-the seismic center being in the Idukki project area starting from 5th March last year. This has presented sleepless nights to the people in the downstream.
    Unlike the water raws on Kaveri-Almattu dam, Panjab water raws,Indira Ghandhi canal in Rajastan-where the disputes centered around water sharing,the story is altogether different at Mullapperiyar It is the issue of lifes of 35 Lack people.

Litigations

To be prepared

Twitter Delicious Digg Facebook Stumbleupon RSS