Thursday, February 17, 2011



Prof.T.Shivaji Rao, Director, Center for Environmental Studies, Gitam University, Visakhapatnam and a former expert of EAC of Union ministry of Environment that rejected the project in 1990.
For More Details see the following web sites also
Originally during the British rule the Nizam of Hyderabad proposed to builtd an irrigation project over Krishna river at Narayanapur.  He wanted the River water to be given for irrigation of Gulbarga, Raichur and Mahaboobnagar  Districts of Nizam State.  But subsequently some of these areas merged with karnataka in 1956.   Bijapur was transferred from Bombay province  to Karnataka state which planned to develop these drought-prone areas of North Karntaka.  The state proposed a bigger project known as Upper Krishna Project,[UKP] for utilisisng about 442 TMC of water.  It proposed the UKP in September 1963 to  be completed under stage-I and Stage-II.  and the Planning Commission gave permission on 12-12-1963 for this project to irrigate 6 lakh acres by using 103 TMC under Right and Left canals of Narayanapur dam.
1)  Karnataka demanded the Tribunal for 440 TMC for UKP from Bachawat Tribunal in 1970s.
     Bachawat Tribunal carefully examined the extents of drought-prone area maps and found that there were more areas which needed attention i n both Andhra pradesh and Maharashtrs states..see the web site:
Consequent to their close examination of poverty levels and poor farming due to lack of adequate water supplies,the Bachawat Tribunal made a proper assessment of the situation and sanctioned proportional water.
2) Tribunal sanctioned only 103TMC aa Protected and 52TMC as additional water ,totalling155 TMC for UKP ] comprising,Alamatti Dam and Narayanpur Dams and Hippargi /Barrage at that time.
3) Karanataka sanctioned another 18 TMC for UKP from their quota and by deducting 13 TMC for Hippargi ,UKP has Alamatti dam as a carryover storage and Narayanapur dam as a diversion structure to irrigate 10.10 lakh acres by using 103 TMC of  Protected water under left  bank canal and 4.3 lakh acres under the right  bank canal for which 54 TMC was additionally given ,making a total of  155 TMC for 14.4 lakh acres for irrigation..
4)  Original project report of 1960 envisaged Narayanapur and Alamatti dams to irrigate 12 lakh acres by using 206 TMC later on the project was modified with canals on either side of the dams to irrigate 12 lakh acres by using 226 TMC .
At this stage in July 1963 the first stage was approved by CWC to irrigate 6 lakh acres under Narayanapur dam with canals on either side and some works of Alamatti dam that are liable to submersion under Narayanapur reservoir.  Again the project was modified by Karnataka to irrigate 20.84 lakh acres by utilizing 442 TMC .  The modified proposals are as follows:
i) Narayanapur dam to irrigate 10.10 lakh acres left Bank canal and 4.3 lakh acres on the Right Bank canal
ii) Alamatti dam to irrigate 70,000 acres under Right canal and 50,000 acres under left canal.
iii) Hippargi weir and lift canals to irrigate 1,34,000 acres
iv) Lift irrigation of 3,90,000 acres under Narayanapur dam left canal and both the dams
In the final phase the following constructions are  to be completed
1)   1.] Construction of Hippargi along with lift canals to irrigate 1.34 lakh acres
2)      2].Completion of Alamatti dam to full height
3)      3].Alamatti left and right canals to irrigate  to irrigate1.2 lakh acres.
4)    4.]  Lift canals from both reservoirs and also from Narayanapur dam left canal to irrigate 3.9 lakh acres
5)      5].Narayanapur left canal to irrigate 4.30 lakh acres making a grand total of 10.74 lakh acres
Practically Karnataka used 103 TMC to irrigate 10.10 lakh acres under Narayanapur left canal and the Bachawat Tribunal additionally sanctioned 52 TMC to irrigate 4.3  lakh acres under Naryaanapur Right canal.  Thus Bachawat Tribunal sanctioned only 155 TMC to irrigate 14.4 lakh acres under both left and right canals of Narayanapur dam.
Alamatti dam is thus intended only as a carryover reservoir with unspecified height for passing the water into Naryanapur reservoir which is provided with left and right canals to utilize only 155 TMC.  But Karnataka has given another 18 TMC for this UKP project  for making a total utilization of 173 TMC.
Since Hippargi barrage is using 13 TMC Alamatti and Narayanapur reservoirs have to use only 160TMC.  Since Narayanapur dam is 29.72m high with a storage of 37.65 TMC the water utilization comes to about 58 TMC and hence Alamatti dam can use 102 TMC.  for which the storage capacity must be limited to 68 TMC with the corresponding FRL of about 515m height .Due to various political manipularions by Karnataka  politicians and experts,the height  of alamatti dam was fixed at 518.7m as suggested by the experts of the Chief Ministers group appointed by Government of India to decide on height of Alamatti dam.  But the Supreme court considered another report on this subject and consented for 519.6m for FRL of Alamatti dam and passed orders in 1997-98 that the issue of controversy whether the height should be 512m as demanded by Maharashtra or 515m as demanded Andhra Pradesh or 524.26m as demanded by Karnataka  should be decided by a new Krishna waters disputes Tribunal which will be appointed by Government after May 2000.
In reality Alamatti dam was  to be constructed with a height of 48.29m and also with a storage capacity of 42.24 TMC which means water utilization as accepted by karnataka wasto be about 68 TMC.see web site: 
But Karnataka State Government published in its Irrigation Department Reports of 1992-93  that the project is divided into 2 stages, Stage-I, Stage-II.:For Details see the above web site
Stage-I:   (a) Narayanapur dam with a left canal to irrigate 4.09 lakh ha.
(b) Another dam at Alamatti with rigid crest level of 519.02m and radial crest gates of 15.24m with FRL at 512.07 to irrigate 0.16lakh ha.
Thus under stage-I 119 TMC will be used to irrigate 4.25lakh ha (10.54 lakh acres)
Stage-II:  This final stage of Alamatti dam envisages FRL  524.26m (1720ft) to use 54 TMC to irrigate 2.35 lakh ha (5.8 lakh acres).thus the total utilization of 173 TMC under Stage-I and final stage irrigates 6.60 lakh ha (16.36lakh acres).  Surprisingly this report has never mentioned anything about use of Alamatti reservoir water for Hydro-Power Generation (1992-93) 
[ detailed technical data of Alamatti project/Upper krishna project are given by karnataka state]
The Alamatti dam power house report of March 1996 mentions that in the final stage irrigation of 6,22,185ha and 1107MW Hydro-power generation under 39.40m High Alamatti dam with a storage of 6431M.cum and FRL 524.26m.  MoEF cleared UKP on 5-4-1989 for the first 2 phases under stage-I of UKP.  For the sake of Environmental clearance of UKP the project was split into 4 parts thus,
1. Stage –I, PhaseI and II
2. Stage-I, Phase-III
3. Stage-II
4. Hydro-Electric projecsts
Before discussing as to how the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal on Krishna water Disputes Tribunal was misguided by all the 3 basin stages of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh on fixing the FRL of the Alamatti dam at 524.26m it is considered to relevant to examine the historical developments on how the central Governemnt organsiations like the Planning Commission, Union Ministry of Water resources  and the Cengtral Water Commission have mismanaged the scientific, technical and environmental aspects pertaining to Alamatti dam projecjt.   Firstly the Ap State Gsovenment raised several objections at frequent intervals about the project by sending representations to the Prime Minister the Union Ministry of Water Resources and the Central Water Commission and even two resolutions passed by the AP State Assembly on Alamatti dam problems.  But no serious action was taken in this regard and even the technical reports on the Alamatti dam were not supplied to the AP state  government for necessary verification and appraisal on the impacts of this project to AP State.
Most of the confusion about the project was due to illegal intereferences by Sri.B.Sankaranand, former Union Water Resources Minister and Shri.Ramakrishna Hegde, former Dy.Chairman of the Planning Commission and both of them hailed from  Karnataka for whose development these Karnataka leaders have manipulated for securing clearances since 1990.[SEE Reports in Andhra prabha,dated 13-8-1996] and also the reports on Chief Minister,NAIDU speeches printed in EENADUdaily dated 12-8-1996 and 13-8-1996]
Karnataka was given permission by the Planning Commission and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of Ministry of Water Resources on 22-4-1978 for only the first stage works of the UKP and no permission was given for the second stage .In fact,TAC advised Karnataka to restrict their works as proposed under the first stage only. In order to nullify the objections Karnataka sent revised proposals to the Union Government in 1988 for approval. ThenTAC pointed out the illegal constructions  by Karnataka and listed them as follows.
1.       1]Completion of spillway works upto 500m elevation abovethe mean sea level.
2.     2]Completion of Non-overflow sections in the lieft canal upto elevation 515m and upto 527.57m in right canal.
3.       3]Completion of Power House dam upto 496.5m elevation.
See the following letters and their abstracts to understand the manipulations made in case of Alamatti Dam
Lr.No.2(10)/89-Irrigation Command Area Development, Dt.24-9-90.
From                                                                                  To
 J.S.Nanda                                                                              The Secretary,
Dy.Advisor to the Planning Commission,                                   Department of Planning,
Yojana Bhavan,                                                                     Government of Karnataka,     
New Delhi-110 001.                                                              Bangalore.

We are pleased to modify the works under Stage-I of Alamatti dam as sanctioned in 1978 to incorporate the following changes:-
1)      Increase spillway crest of Alamatti dam from 500m to 509m
2)      By fixisng radial gates of 3.2m over the crest the reservoir level as approved in 1978 may be kept at 512.2m
3)      Alamatti dam height be raised to fix the water level in the reservoir at 523.8m
Planning Commission has no objection for Karnataka Government to incur expenditure for the project works mentioned in the annexure on second page.

Project works sanctioned during a second revision of stage-I of Upper Krishna Project.
1)Radial gates must be fixed on the spillway.
2) By fixing the spillway at 509m, the crest gates may be increased from 523.8m to 528.25m for hydro-power generation.
3) Lift irrigation schemes may be provided from 5 places in the Alamatti reservoir.
According to a letter from M.K.Sinha, Director, Project Appraisals, CWC to The Chief Engineer of Upper Krishna Project the detailed project report of UKP Stage-II was received by the CWC for Techno Economic Appraisal that they have cleared the gates design, subject to compliance of certain observations “According to this letter it is only technical clearance for the gates design but not a total clearance from the angle of water availability.  BYPASSING the existing Norms on Water availabilty, the Union Government sanctioned the Stage-II of the Alamatti dam and  is said to have sanctioned Rs.182 crores. (4-7-1996)
The Union Minister for water resources stated that clearance of Union Government for Alamatti dam is for a full Reservoir Level of 512.2m only and the Stage-II of Upper Krishna Project envisaging higher full Reservoir Level is still under examination by the Central Water Commission (CWC).  It means the approval of CWC for crest gates of 15m is only a technical sanction but not a clearance for the project from the point of water availability.  Hence the sanction given by Planning Commission in 1990 for Karnataka to increase the height of the dam is illegal as it violates the Bachawat Award. (11-7-1996)and also conditions stipulated in thePermission granted for the project in 1978.

Inspite of the above irregularities the Planning Commission gave approval to Karnataka on 24-9-1990 for more illegal works including raising of the spillway crest from 500 to 509m and increasing the height of Alamatti dam upto 528m and inclusion of the components of second stage of 1990 to get merged with the components of the project under the stage-I approved in 1978.
But the subsequent letters sent by the Union Minister for water Resources  to A.P.state on Alamatti project in his letter dt.11-7-1996 stated that the Union Government has cleared permission only for the stage-I of Alamatti dam and that the Stage-II report of the project is still under consideration and if any changes against the spirit and conditions of the Bachawat Tribunal have to be approved. , the AP state Government and Maharashtra will have to give their consent for such modifications if any.
Even the Director,Project Appraisals of the CWC wrote to the Chief Engineer that their report of 1993 on Stage-II of the Alamatti project was received by the CWC for Techno-Economic Appraisal and that they have cleared the design for the gates subject compliance of certain observations.  It is only a technical clearance for the design of the gates and not a total clearance from the angle of water availability for the project.  When Planning Commission and CWC gave clearance in 1978 the height of the Alamatti dam was to be kept at about 512m .  Hence the subsequent permissions given in 1990 by the Planning Commission to increase the height of  Alamatti dam upto 528.2m is  definitely an illegal action because AP state and Mahrashtra were not consulted as parties to the inter state water dispute.
By  permitting raising Alamatti Dam Height to 528 meters for hydro-power production occupying second priority in National water policy,2002 ,authorities are depriving timely irrigation water supplies to Andhra farmers whose first pririty is irrigation that produces food for survival of people
 Although Planning Commission promoted increased height in Alamatti dam in 1990 it was specifically stated that the action was to promote hydro=power generation.  although the Karnataka Government never included any detailed project report for the purpose and the central Electricity Authority permitted Karnataka in January, 1996 to increase hydro-power generation from 267 to 1107MW.  Thus the permissions given by the Central Government agencies to increase the height of the Alamatti dam without taking the consent  of the co-riparian states is violative of Bachawat Tribunal Award and Environmental Protection Act 1986
The  Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal opted to fail in providing justice to Save Millions of Farmers
How can pdeople believe that that the Tribunal members are ignorant about the legal aspects of National water Policy,2002 on water allocation priorities  for irrigation and Hydro-power generation and the rules under The Environmental Protection Act,1986?
without taking into consideration all these illegal actions done byt he Karnataka state Government and the Central Government Agencies like Planning Commission, the Union Minister of Water Resources, the CWC and the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal on Krishna Water Dispute failed to study indpeth the above mal-practices and the provisions under the notifications of the Environmental Protection Act, the question of submersion of lands due to backwater afflux created in Maharashtra by the increased height of the Alamatti dam and the denial of the timely supplies of irrigation waters to the farmers of A P state.  the tribunal erred in coming to correct decisions on Alamatti dam and hence a review must be made immediately in the interests of promoting the economic wealth, public health and welfare of lakhs of people in the 3 basin states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
There are several mistakes committed by the Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra , Karnataka  and Union Governments and their officials, technical and legal experts who failed to present scientific and technical  data and arguments before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal on Krishna water Tribunal to prove that the Upper and lower states will suffer injuries and environmental damaging impacts if the tribunal were to increase the height of the Alamatti dam from 519.6m to 524.26m and hence the tribunal stated on page 643 of its report “there is hardly any valid reason not to allow the State of Karnataka to go ahead with its project UKP-III. We have already discussed earlier that a co-riparian State will have no right to veto the project or water management of other co-riparian State unless, of course, there is some substantial and vital injury to such a co-riparian State.
The tribunal stated on page 660 “  These are compelling circumstances coupled with the fact that a higher FRL of 524.256 m is not causing any injury or damage much less substantial or vital damage to the upper or the lower riparian States. There cannot be any other possibility but to allow the State of Karnataka to raise the height of FRL to 524.256 m. The hurdle of submergence raised by Maharashtra and that of nil inflows into Andhra Pradesh by raising the FRL to 524.256 m, are not substantiated much less established. Therefore, such grounds of the upper and lower riparian States
Page 661 we therefore find that there is no reason to hold that Karnataka cannot operate Alamatti dam with FRL  524.26m.
Page 627 to 628: In the present case The State of Maharashtra has examined Mr. S.Y. Shukla on the point of submergence in the territory of Maharashtra in case the Alamatti FRL is at 519.6 m. In his statement Mr. Shukla has admitted that there will be no submergence in the State of Maharashtra as a consequence of increase in FRL of Alamatti Dam but for the effect of siltation which has set in Alamatti Reservoir.
Page-630: On the basis of supplementary report of M/s Tojo Vikas International (Pvt.) Ltd. regarding amount of siltation, the State of Karnataka filed a study on 29.3.2010 regarding submergence with height of Alamatti Dam at 519.6 m. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, on being specifically put to him, stated that no objections to the study were to be filed. According to the study, there was to be no back water effect or submergence on account of very little siltation in the Hippargi and Alamatti Dam.
Page-631:   State of Karnataka was, however, required to get a study made applying the relevant data of sedimentation etc. as found by M/s Tojo Vikas International (Pvt.) Ltd. in the report of Dec., 2009 with FRL of Alamatti at 524.256 m. It has been filed with I.A.No.121 of 2010 (C-I-D399). No objections to C-1-D-399 have been filed and it was stated on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that they do not propose to file any objection to the same. According to the findings recorded in C-1-D-399, sedimentation does not extend to the territory of Maharashtra at all and in Table 2 page 10 it is indicated that there is no rise in water level from pre-dam stage in the State of Maharashtra, in period of 100 years operation of the reservoir. On the other hand, it shows that at the border, at the chainage (kilometers) 202.40, the water surface level is less by 0.03 m. At page 12 of the study, it is indicated that the lowering of the FRL at Alamatti offers no advantage to Maharashtra. So far as flood levels are concerned, they continue to be the same as at pre-dam level.
According to page 667 AP Advocate Mr.Deepankar Gupta raised questions about violations of conditions on Environmental clearance to Alamatti dam upto 519.6m and he objected to the dam break analysis done by CWC who stated that there is no fear of inundation in the downstream area beyond the banks of the river.  But Karnataka argued that the dam break analysis was got done through an independent reliable agency and hence there should be no reason to raise any grievance or doubt.  The tribunal failed to examine this critical question and instead stated as follows:
Page 669:   We also find that some effort has been made on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh to question the correctness of the report but we do not think it would be a matter to be examined on merits by this Tribunal. It has been indicated earlier also that according to the dam break analysis report, there was to be no inundation in the downstream area beyond the banks of the river. It shall be confined within the banks.As  per Art.51A[g] of the constitution of india,Brijesh kumar Tribunal Members should not have failed to appoint an "amicus curiae" to help the Tribunal in understanding what kinds of risks the Tribunal is imposing  unknowningly Environmental crimes of the highest order over the lives of millions of Indian Farmers which even Hitler would not have dared to commit by fixing the Height of Alamatti dam without even basic knowledge about the cricial design factors needed to design the dam as per international standards as can be seen from  International Commission on Large Dams[ICOLD]Hazard classification of Dams with web site  :
But the Tribunal avoided to examine this critical issue that would have helped them to reduce the height of the Alamatti dam to 515m only instead of increasing it to 524.26m and such a risky decision will create a man-made disaster which makes Bhopal disaster fade into insignificance..So the public are made to suffer
According to pages 636 to 637 Union Ministry of  Environment and Forests gave clearance dt.18-7-2000 for the project only upto the level of 512.2m height including 3.2m spillway gates over the crest and another clearance was given by MoEF on 4-10-2000 for UKP project  Stage-II is alleged to have been mechanically granted based on Supreme Court decision dt.25.4.2000 by increasing the dam height to 519.6m.  That AP argued that the dam height with FRL 515m together with storage at Narayanapur is sufficient for utilization of 160 TMC sanctioned under UKP.
Page 663 to 667:  The project in question is known as Upper Krishna Project Stage-II Multipurpose Project. The Central Water Commission prepared a note for consideration of Technical Advisory Committee of Ministry of Irrigation, Flood Control And Multipurpose Projects. The matter was considered by the Committee on 31.5.2000 in which the representatives of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra pointed out their objections. Ultimately, the project was accepted by the Advisory Committee subject to the following conditions which are enumerated
(i) Clearance of forest, environment and R & R plans  from the respective Central Ministries.
(ii) The FRL will be restricted to 519.60 m and there would be no physical capacity to store more water above 519.60 m.
(iii) The operation of the project would be such that there will not be any submergence in territory of Maharashtra.
(iv) Canal capacity would be restricted to water requirements as per the demand table and considering 10% extra for rush irrigation and the design FSL should ensure irrigation in the command under Stage-II.
(v) The utilization shall not exceed 173 TMC under Stage-I and II of Upper Krishna Project.
 (vi) Finalization of cost estimate of the project with FRL 519.60 m and firming of the other economic parameters of the project. (CIII-2B page 456/457 – CII-3C page 120)
It appears that environmental clearance was accorded to Upper Krishna Project Stage-II which was communicated to the State of Karnataka by letter dated 4.10.2000 from Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment &Forests. While according clearance, strict compliance of terms and conditions was provided for in Part-A of the letter – specific conditions. Under condition No.(ii), it was required that DAM BREAK analysis and Disaster Management Plan[DMP] should be submitted within six months and condition No.(iv) required to undertake soil loss study in the streams flowing to the reservoirs and reservoir sedimentation survey at an interval of five years. Amongst other things, it was also provided that such studies for selected storm events may be done routinely every year and the first reservoir sedimentation survey may be conducted within a year to provide benchmark information followed by two surveys during the next ten years. There are some other general conditions in Part-B. (CII-3C page 131).
The Planning Commission vide its letter dated 13.12.2000 addressed to the Secretary, Planning Department, Govt. of Karnataka, conveyed that Upper Krishna Project Stage-II was considered
acceptable for investment in the State Plan of Karnataka subject to the conditions indicated in the letter. 
The condition No.2 required compliance to the conditions as stipulated in the Ministry of
Environment and Forests’ letter dated 4.10.2000. This condition No.2 said in the end “Failure to non-fulfillment of the conditions will automatically lead to cancellation of the clearance.” It also said that there should be no submergence in the territory of Maharashtra and the FRL shall be restricted to 519.6 m and further that utilization shall not exceed 173 TMC. The condition No.6 mentions about the letter of the Managing Director, KBJNL, it is quoted below:-
“(6) As certified vide letter No.MD/DBJNL/Planning/2000 dated 4.12.2000 from the Managing Director, KBJNL and as recommended by the Central Water Commission vide their letter No.11/3/2000-PA(S)/1378 dated 5.12.2000, no forest land is to be required or used for implementation of this project including the construction of the dam, thereby not requiring “Forest Clearance” and no tribal population is to be displaced due to this project; besides the details of R&R have been gone into by the Ministry of Environment & Forests while according
environmental clearance.
Page 674:   The tribunal said as follows: All that we have found under issue No.14  is that there is need of additional water to the State of Karnataka for its project UKP Stage-III and that a storage is also readily available for the purpose in the Almatti Dam and that the required amount of water is also available without any injury being caused to the upper or the lower riparian States. Let fresh consideration of clearance take place by the Authorities, on being moved by the State of Karnataka.
Page 675:  UKP Stage-III raises the FRL of Alamatti Dam to 524.256 m. After considering the facts and circumstances, it has been held that the State of Karnataka could go ahead with FRL 524.256 m at Almatti Dam. It has been held that no submergence was likely to take place in the State of Maharashtra on the basis of the report of the hydrographic survey conducted about actual sedimentation in Hippargi Barrage and Almatti Dam.

No comments:

About Me

My photo
Born in 1932 at Mudinepalli, near Gudivada, Krishna Dist. Andhra Pradesh, received Bachelors degree in Civil Engg., from Viswesaraiah Engineering College, Banglore (1956) and Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering from Rice university, Houston, Texas, (USA) (1962), Ph.D (Hony). Former Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and principal of College of Engineering, Andhra university.Formerly Hony.Professor in Andhra University,Manonmanian Sundarnar University,JNT University. Fellow of the Institution of Engineers,India Recipient of the University Grants Commissions National Award "Swami Pranavananda Award on Ecology and Environmental Sciences" for the year 1991. Recipient of Sivananda Eminent Citizen Award for 2002 by Sanathana Dharma Charitable Trust, Andhra Pradesh state. Presently Working as Director, centre for Environmental Studies, GITAM University,