shivajirao

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

HOW ANDHRA PRADESH FAILED TO STOP INCRESE IN HEIGHT OF ALAMATTI DAM

HOW ANDHRA PRADESH FAILED TO CONVICE BRIJESH KUMAR TRIBUNAL TO STOP INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF ALAMATTI DAM

Prof.T.SHIVAJI RAO,

Director,Centre for Environmental Studies,

Gitam University,Visakhapatnam

SOUND LEGAL PRINCIPLES TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL:

The Krishna Water tribunal stressed that the harm versus benefit balancing test is also an integral part of the doctrine of equitable apportionment of the common river waters . (Page 627 of KWDT report). The tribunal stated that in larger public interest even where the benefit obtained by the unilateral action of a river basin state outweighs the harmful disadvantages likely to be suffered by a lower state the tribunal may not interfere in such a case. Since mere apprehension or frivolous objections by one state cannot stop any project taken up by another state in the river basin unless the objecting state establishes its legal right and vital or substantial injury to it.

The tribunal also admitted that if vital interests are substantial injury is involved to the upper or lower riparian states such injury based upon the facts of the case may sometimes be such that it may not be possible to compensate or the damaging costs may outweigh the benefit which may be obtained by the construction of the project by a state, that is to say where they harm caused to one state is more than the benefit obtained by the construction of the project by another state, the project may be objected by the state that suffers and so the factual position will be important in each case (Page 676 of KWDT).

Andhra Pradesh [A.P]State raised objections before the tribunal that Alamatti dam should be restricted with its FRL upto 515m which along with the storage at Narayanapur will be adequate to utilize 160 TMC allotted to Upper Krishna Project by Bachawat Tribunal. (Page 637 of KWDT Report) Alamatti dam height upto 519.6m was permitted by Supreme Court on 25-4-2000 for using 173 TMC under Stage-I and II of the project. AP state argued that increasing height of the dam upto 524.26m would spell disaster to AP State as its irrigation projects planned to utilize 75% dependable waters of Krishna would fail. But Karnataka experts wanted additional 130 TMC under Stage-III of Upper Krishna Project (UKP) to increase utilization from 173 TMC to 303TMC by increasing the storage FRL to 524.26m.

The objection of AP was overruled by the tribunal by stating that a co-riparian state will have no right to veto the project of another basin state unless there is some substantial and vital injury to such a state. (Page 643 of KWDT report) With the assistance of the river gauge readings from the Central Water Commission (CWC) the tribunal stated that the inflows from Krishna into AP State on an average amount to 932 TMC and even if there is a reduction of 230 TMC due to increase of Alamatti upto 524.26m still the inflows into Andhra Pradesh will be 702 TMC. Hence the contention that the inflows into AP State due to increase in height of Alamatti dam would reduce to a negligible quantity was not accepted by the Tribunal (Page 657 of KWDT report). In this connection while the AP sate Government told the tribunal that with FRL 519.6m of Alamatti dam the loss of Krishna water inflow to AP state will be 121 TMC and this view was contradicted by AP State expert Dr.MS Reddy who estimated such loss of inflow at 70 TMC (Page 651 of KWDT) . Thus the tribunal felt irked at the different points of view expressed by the experts on behalf of the AP State.

Initially the Brajesh Kumar Tribunal was requestded to restrict the height of the Alamatti dam to 512.5m by Maharashtra state and to 515.0 m by Andhra Pradesh and both the states opposed the increase inheight of Alamatti Dam to FRL at 524.26m as it would result in catastrophic situation for both the states. (Page 604 of KWDT). Originally,the Upper Krishna Project [UKP]comprised the Alamatti Dam and Narayanpur dams .The UKP State-I was approved in 1963 for utilizing 119 TMC and stage-II was approved on 31-5-2000 for FRL of 519.6m for utilization of 173 TMC (Page 607 of KWDT) and Stage-III for utilization of additional 130 TMC by raising the height of Alamatti dam from 519.6m to 524.26m was proposed by Karnataka and is approved by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) and this proposed increased is opposed at present by Maharashtra and Karnataka states which have been given time to make further representations on the findings of the tribunal upto the end of March 2011 and for demanding the tribunal to revise the present orders on increasing the height of the Alamatti dam and pass the final award after hearing the Appeals from the states and the Union Government. .

During the previous hearings on Krishna Water Disputes since 2004, the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal members put searching questions to the expert panels of officials and engineers and advocates of Maharashtra,Karnataka and Andhra pradesh to present evidence to show what kinds of substantial injuries and disadvantages the Maharashtra and AP States will experience if the height of the Alamatti dam is increased from 519.6m to 524.26m.as requested by the Karnataka state Government.

UNION MINISTRIES GRANT CONDITIONAL CLEARENCES FOR THE DAM AND MISLEAD THE TRIBUNAL INTO TAKING WRONG DECISIONS:

When Karnataka wanted clearance for Stage-II of Alamatti dam, the Technical Advisory Committee gave conditional clearance on 31-5-2000 insisting on restricting FRL 519.60m and utilization of 173 TMC under Stage-I and Stage-II of the UKP subject to Environmental clearance and also subject to the operation of the project in such a manner that there will not be any submergence in Maharashtra territory. This condition is like the condition imposed by the judge in the Shakespearian drama of Merchant of Venice where the plaintiff Shylock will be directed to take his pound of flesh from the body of the victim without a drop of blood. The Environmental clearance for Stage-II of Alamatti was given by the Union Ministry of Environment on 4-10-2000 subject to the condition that Karnataka will submit Dam Break Analysis and Disaster Management Plan within 6 months. AP State advocate Deepankar Gupta questioned about the dam break analysis report for FRL 519.6m for Alamatti dam on 12-5-2009 and raised objections against the Dam Break Analysis work under taken by the CWC. But according to the dam break analysis report there was no fear of inundation of any villages below the dam because the flood wave will be contained within the banks of river and this recommendation was attacked on merits by the AP state but unfortunately Karnataka stated that the dam break analysis got done through an independent and reliable agency and hence there should be no reason to raise any grievance or doubt on that account about this project submitted in February, 2002 almost after a delay of one year. But surprisingly the Brijesh Kumar tribunal took a wrong view on this report and said “we also find that some efforts 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.

Further AP State questioned why the disaster management report was not prepared under Rule 5 (iii) (a) of the Environmental Protection Rules 1986. But Karnataka said that when no inundation occurs according to the dam break analysis, no question of the next step of preparing Disaster Management Plan arose. (Page 671 of KWDT). These statements by the Krishna Water Tribunal and Karnataka state are invalid because AP State Government experts should have been questioned by the Tribunal whether the dam break analysis report prepared by the CWC for the Alamatti dam is scientifically correct and it should have been examined by independent experts to find out if the results show irreparable injury to the AP farmers and causes serious economic losses in terms of loss of agricultural production and hydro-power generation and any damaging impacts on the irrigation projects in Andhra Pradesh. This killer dam at Alamatti may burst in its life time as envisaged by the Karnataka Irrigation minister who consulted his experts and concluded the the safety of Dams in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh is in danger for many reasons and so warned the union Government to take remedial action in time as seen from web site:.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2000/10/08/stories/0408210c.htm

It is equally shocking that even representatives of AP State Government miserably failed to get the dam break analysis report examined by independent experts to know the true facts which will help them to demand the tribunal to stop from increasing the height of the Alamatti dam to FRL 524.26m that is how the AP state Government deliberately sacrificed the interests of lakhs of farmers in Telangana and coastal districts of AP.

MANIPULATIONS BY KARNATAKA POLITICIANS HOLDING POWER IN NEW DELHI.

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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PERMISSIONS GIVEN TO ALAMATTI DAM [UKP] IN 1978 BY UNION GOVERNMENT.

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.

Sir,

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.

2^nd PAGE – ANNEXURE

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNETHICAL ACTIONS BY CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION [CWC]1996.
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)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAN UNION MINISTER FOR WATER RESOURCES BE BELIEVED ?

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.
ALAMATTI DAM IS RAISED ILLEGALLY TO PROMOTE SECONDARY PRIORITY UTILISATION OF WATER FOR HYDRO_POWER PRODUCTION BY DENYING IT FOR PRIMARY PRIORITY OF TIMELY USE OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES
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.

For more details see the following websites:

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-dam-mischievous-actions-of.html

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-sangli-kolhapur-will-be-flooded-by.html

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-dam-break-analysis-latest.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-back-water-curve-at-5196.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/01/almathi-dam-hazardous.html

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-maharashtra-state-failed-before.html

HOW MAHARASHTRA STATE FAILED BEFORE KRISHNA WATER TRIBUNAL

HOW MAHARASHTRA FAILED TO PREVENT KRISHNA TRIBUNAL FROM RAISING THE HEIGHT OF ALAMATTI DAM FROM 519.6M TO 524.26M INSTEAD OF GETTING IT REDUCED

Prof.T.SHIVAJI RAO,DIRECTOR,

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES,

GITAM UNIVERSITY,VISAKHAPATNAM

see web site :http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-sangli-kolhapur-will-be-flooded-by.html
see web site:http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-back-water-curve-at_10.html
[Back water levels }
SOUND LEGAL PRINCIPLES TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL:

The Krishna Water tribunal appointed by the Union Government to make proper allocation of Krishna river waters to the basin states of Maharahstra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh stressed that the harm versus benefit balancing test is also an integral part of the doctrine of equitable apportionment of the common river waters . (Page 627 of KWDT report). The tribunal stated that in larger public interest even where the benefit obtained by the unilateral action of a river basin state outweighs the harmful disadvantages likely to be suffered by a lower state the tribunal may not interfere in such a case. This concept is based on the view that in the process of development there willbe certain minor injuries and disadvantages to a lower state and such minor damages can be compensated adequately without stopping the project that confers substantial benefits not only to the concerned states but also to the vast majority of a nation. Since mere apprehension or frivolous objections by one state cannot stop any project taken up by another state in the river basin unless the objecting state establishes its legal right and vital or substantial injury to it.

DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT (ALAMATTI & NARAYANAPUR DAMS)
Initially the Brajesh Kumar Tribunal was requestded to restrict the height of the Alamatti dam to 512.5m by Maharashtra state and to 515.0 m by Andhra Pradesh and both the states opposed the increase inheight of Alamatti Dam to FRL at 524.26m as it would result in catastrophic situation for both the states. (Page 604 of KWDT). Originally,the Upper Krishna Project [UKP]comprised the Alamatti Dam and Narayanpur dams . The UKP Stage-I was approved in 1963 for utilizing 119 TMC and stage-II was approved on 31-5-2000 for FRL of 519.6m for utilization of 173 TMC (Page 607 of KWDT) and Stage-III for utilization of additional 130 TMC by raising the height of Alamatti dam from 519.6m to 524.26m was proposed by Karnataka and is approved by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) and this proposed increased is opposed at present by Maharashtra and Karnataka states which have been given time to make further representations on the findings of the tribunal upto the end of March 2011 and for demanding the tribunal to revise the present orders on increasing the height of the Alamatti dam and pass the final award after hearing the Appeals from the states and the Union Government. .

MAHARASHTRA FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT SUFFERS INJURY DUE TO RAISING OF ALAMATTI DAM HEIGHT

Maharashtra state Government failed to show to the tribunal that their state will experience substantial injury and economic losses due to frequent submersion of lands consequent to increased backwater levels caused by the back push of the flood waters by the obstruction of Alamatti dam in the path of the natural flow regime of Krishna river in the mode of its open channel flow. Submersion is caused by a dam to villages which will be permanently submerged under the reservoir created by the dam. Submersion of lands occurs on either side of the upstream side of a dam and construction of afflux bunds helps to contain the flood waters without flowing over the river banks.

Submersion along the reservoir margins occurs due to siltation and the consequential increase in the level natural floods. In the case of Maharashtra an expert was produced before the tribunal and Maharashtra examined Mr.S.Y.Shukla on the point of submergence of Maharashtra due to Alamatti dam with FRL at 519.6m. Unfortunately Mr.Shukla admitted that there will be no submergence in Maharashtra region due to increase in the FRL of Alamatti dam but for the effect of siltation which occurs in the reservoir. Even Karnataka examined its experts witness on the point of siltation and another expert also gave an opinion on behalf of Maharashtra about the annual silt load. M/s.TOJO Vikas, International company also engaged by the Government to make an independent indepth study on siltation study when the tribunal asked the advocate he stated that no objections were to be filed on these studies. According to this study there was to be no backwater effect also the study indicates no submergence on account of siltation in Hipparigi and Alamatti dam and Maharashtra told the tribunal that they do not propose to file any objections to the reports submitted by the Tojo Vikas firm in whose study report on page-12 it is indicated that the lowering of the FRL at Alamatti dam offers no advantage to Maharashtra and it was held that so far the flood levels are concern, they continued to be the same as at pre-dam level (page 632 of KWDT). It is shocking to realize how Maharashtra has accepted this view that Alamatti dam will not cause any change in the flood levels in Maharashtra territory although the ground level of Maharashtra at Karnataka border in between Narsobavadi and Ankali is 518m above the mean sea level while the full reservoir level of Alamatti is proposed to be kept at 524.26m in the initial stages which may be ultimately taken to 528.8m for hydro power generation. Since water flows from a higher to a lower level any person with common sense can understand that Maharashtra territory will be highly flooded due to Alamatti dam. Surprisingly when a joint study by the Karnataka and Maharashtra Engineers were made to evaluate the potential submersion of Maharashtra territory due to Alamatti dam they jointly certified that even Alamatti dam is raised upto FRL 524.26m there will not be any submersion in Maharashtra due to Alamatti and this report was accepted by the CWC.

The most crucial aspect of submersion of lands upstream of a barrage/dam occur due to the build up of these flood level during extreme flood flows that occur during rainy season due to vigorous monsoon rainfalls caused by prolonged depressions and cyclones with great intensity caused by impacts of climate change and such back water levels have to be calculated based upon principles of open channel flow hydraulics. In the present case Krishna water Tribunal has considered only back water level impacts caused by Alamatti dam only from the angle of siltation and sedimentation which does not deserve so much of attention in preference to more serious problem of build-up of back water levels to be estimated on the fundamental principles of open channel flow. Perhaps the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal members were completely misguided on this crucial factor which governs public safety rehabilitation and resettlement, ecological and environmental damaging impacts on agriculture and animal husbandry, Emergency Action Plans, construction of embankment structures to provide flood proof facilities for hundreds of villages in Karnataka and Maharashtra and the cost benefit analysis which perhaps shows that the proposed project for raising the Alamatti dam becomes economically unviable and thereby forces the Karnataka state to build safer and economical barrages and small dams in preference to this killer Alamatti dam. . It means that the experts of Maharashtra and CWC took a a very narrow view of the critical impacts of Back water Levels arising from extreme floods during rainy seasons,depressions and cyclones of prolonged duration along with the CWC and consequently their decisions are bound to be very harmful to the interests of lakhs of farmers of Maharashtra and the interests of lakhs of people in the several towns and cities of Maharashtra whose lives and properties have to be sacrificed for the sake of an unsafe, uneconomical and environmentally hazardous and that too a killer dam at Alamatti which may burst in its life time as envisaged by the Karnataka Irrigation minister who consulted his experts and concluded the the safety of Dams in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh is in danger for many reasons and so warned the union Government to take remedial action in time as seen from web site:. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2000/10/08/stories/0408210c.htm
UNION MINISTRIES GRANT CONDITIONAL CLEARENCES FOR THE DAM AND MISLEAD THE TRIBUNAL INTO TAKING WRONG DECISIONS:

MANIPULATIONS BY KARNATAKA POLITICIANS HOLDING POWER IN NEW DELHI.

PERMISSIONS GIVEN TO ALAMATTI DAM [UKP] IN 1978 BY UNION GOVERNMENT.

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.

Sir,

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.

2^nd PAGE – ANNEXURE

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAN UNION MINISTER FOR WATER RESOURCES BE BELIEVED ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information see the followisng websites:

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-dam-mischievous-actions-of.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-sangli-kolhapur-will-be-flooded-by.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-dam-break-analysis-latest.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-back-water-curve-at-5196.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/01/almathi-dam-hazardous.html

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-andhra-pradesh-failed-to-stop.html

Friday, March 4, 2011

WHY EXPERTS ARE WRONG ON POLAVARAM DESIGN

WHY GOVERNMENT EXPERTS TAKE WRONG DECISIONS ON POLAVARAM (INDIRA SAGAR) DAM?

1) Right fromthe beginning the Engineering experts of AP state Government and the Central Water Commission have been knowingly committing grave mistakes in the design of he dam and in estimating the cost benefit ratios on improper data.For instance the National Water Development Agency (See web site: see paras

http://nwda.gov.in/index4.asp?ssslid=122&subsubsublinkid=32&langid=1

http://nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/6907034768.pdf

http://nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/4129963896.PDF
http://nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/6479885403.PDF

a] Alternatives not considered by A.P.state as per Environmental Clearence Regulations,1994 While the Central Water Commission suggested for off take canal at 110ft elevation with a discharge point in Krishna basin at about 60ft, the AP state Government for its own vested interests for increasing the elevation of the Polavaram dam on a large scale insisted on increasing the level of Polavaram at off take level of 133ft with a discharge point in river Krishna at an elevation of about 92ft.A.P.state did not consider the alternatives of Barrages project since they failed to assess the Hazard potential due to a dam-break analysis although it was prepared by the National institute of Hydrology and Disaster Management and Risk Analysis reports too were not prepared and thus they failed to grasp the need for preparing alteratives to the project

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide/chap6.pdf [U.S.A.]

A.P.state and CWC are misleading the courts by failing to prepare these crucial reports even when CWC directed for redesign of the project by increasing PMF from 36 to 50 lakh cusecs.

Since CWC and A.P.state failed to evaluate Hazard Potential of the Dam as per international standards on Dam safety,they failed to modify the Dam as per standard procedures

According to Bureau of Indian Standard guidelines IS: 11223-1985, “Guidelines for fixing spillway capacity”, the IDF to be considered for different requirements

b) Inflow Design Flood for the safety of the dam is under estimated:

Design flood for storage dams( As per ISI Standards)

http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IIT%20Kharagpur/Water%20Resource%20Engg/pdf/m2l04.pdf

Dams are important hydraulic structures which are constructed to serve a variety of purpose, more of which shall be discussed in detail in lesson 3.2. Most dams have a capacity to store substantial amount of water in the reservoir, and a portion of the inflow flood gets stored and the excess overflows through the spillways. According to Bureau of Indian Standard guidelines IS: 11223-1985, “Guidelines for fixing spillway capacity”, the IDF to be considered for different requirements

2.4.3.1 IDF for the safety of the dam

It is the flood for which, when used with standard specifications, the performance of the dam should be safe against overtopping, structural failures, and the spillway and its energy dissipation arrangement, if provided for a lower flood, should function reasonable well.

1. For large dams (defined as those with gross storage greater than 60 million m³or hydraulic head greater than 30 m), IDF should be based on PMF.

2. For intermediate dams (gross storage between 10 and 60 million m³or hydraulic head between 12 m and 30 m), IDF should be based on SPF.

3. For small dams (gross storage between 0.5 to 10 million m³or hydraulic head between 7.5 m to 12 m), IDF may be taken as 100 years return period flood.

4. Floods of larger or smaller magnitude may be used if the hazard involved in the eventuality of a failure is particularly high or low. The relevant parameters to be considered in judging the hazard in addition to the size would be:

a. Distance to and location of the human habitations on the downstream after considering the likely future developments; and

b. Maximum hydraulic capacity of the downstream channel at a level at which catastrophic damage is not expected.

Floods of larger or smaller magnitude may be used if the hazard involved in the eventuality of a failure is particularly high or low.

Relevant Design factors considered in judging the hazard in addition to size of Dam project

1] Distance to and location of the human habitations on the downstream after considering the likely future developments; and

2] Maximum hydraulic capacity of the downstream channel at a level at which catastrophic damage is not expected

http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IIT%20Kharagpur/Water%20Resource%20Engg/pdf/m2l04.pdf

c) CWC failed to estimate Peak Flood for Spill-way design:

Moreover the Central Water Comission always considered Polavaram as a barrage structure for purposes of design flood and thereby accepted for spillway design a 500-year return flood of 36 lakhs cusecs while the CWC guidelines insist on considering for the size of Polavaram dam a Probable Maximum Flood or a 1000-year return flood for spillway design purposes. .see the following web site for design of Dams in USA.

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide/chap2.pdf [safety standards for dams]
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2010/11/polavaram-dam-in-indira-gandhis.html

d) AREA TO BE IRRIGATED -BASED ON WRONG CALCULATIONS: WRONG-BENEFIT RATIO
DOES POLAVARAM DAM PROJECT CREATE 2 lakhs Ha.of additional New irrigation Area ?
According to the calculations by Dr.Bhiksham in his book on "POLAVARAM PERSPECTIVES",
published in 2007,polavaram project brings into irrigation about one lakh ha.of land as against the claim made by the Government of 2.91 lakh ha,while 2 lakh ha.is needed under National Project Criteria.see the following web sites:http://mowr.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/NProjects572133778.pdf
[CWC guide-lines for National projects,irrigation]http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=49885

The NWDA website of the Government on Polavaram project clearly states under table 9.2 of the report under the Polavaram right canal out of 1,62,691ha of irrigable land area only 44,000 ha[about one lakh acres] is unirrigated while the rest of the land is irrigated under different sources like canals, lift irrigation systems,borewells and village tanks as can be seen from the following web site:
http://nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/6479885403.PDF [see Table 8.2]
http://www.apwaterreforms.in/Water%20resources%20Statistics-PDF%20files/4.2.pdf [A.P.water sources.District-wise irrigation under,canals,tanks,bore-wells etc.,]
http://www.jalayagnam.org/index1.php?action=results [Tadipdi Lift and Pushkaram Lift schemes ]
http://jalayagnam.org/index1.php?action=devlop [Jala yagnam Projects ]
http://irrigation.cgg.gov.in/dp/VishakapatnamDistrictProfile.jsp
CAG report on Pushkaram LIS objected in December 2010 [as reported in EENADU,Dt.22-12-2010]that Government has shown 73,318 ha.of irrigable land under Pushkaram lift irrigation scheme and the same land is again shown under Polavaram command area under Left Canal.Parell canals were started within 6 months of each other.Hence Head works and pumps costing Rs.102 crores are wasteful expenditure. More money is wasted for Main canals that are redundant.Arguments of the state officials that they will use these head works for another new project when polavaram is completed were not accepted by the Controller & Auditor-General..Similar is the case with Tadipudi Lift Irrigation scheme.
http://www.edocfind.com/download.html?dl=aHR0cDovL2phbGF5YWduYW0ub3JnL3N0YXRyZXBvcnQvYW5kaHJhX3JlZ2lvbi9UQURJUFVESV9MSUZUX0lSUklHQVRJT05fU0NIRU1FLnBwdA==&t=ppt&name=Tadipudi%20Lift%20irrigation%20Scheme%20-%20Slide%201

http://www.igovernment.in/site/andhra-launches-pushkara-lift-irrigation-scheme/ [Pushkara LIS]

Thus polavaram Dam project does not Qualify for being taken up as a National project for several reasons although demanded by A.P.state and although blindly supported by the Central Water Commission[CWC] without going into details of various components of the project and its implications to public health and welfare in the basin states.The state Public accounts committede of the A.P.state assembly may come out with more details in the matter in January,2011.

Hence as per independent experts there is only about 1 lakh hectares of land available to be freshly irrigated by water from Polavaram dam while the claim is made for irrigating about 3.2 lakh acres under the right canal and 4 lakh acres under the Left Canal,making a total of 7.2 lakh acres
http://eastgodavari.nic.in/irrigationchapter1.html
In fact independent experts have collected field data which shows that about 95% lands under the left polavaram canal is already irrigated and only 5% land may get benefitted by polavaram dam project.see the following web site:
http://www.weap21.org/downloads/NRLP.pdf Similarly under the left canal of the Polavaram project while about 4 lakh acres is proposed to be irrigated with water from Polavaram dam about 2.5 lakh acres is already under irrigation under the lift irrigation schemes,canals, medium irrigation projects, borewells and village tanks with the result that only about 1.5 lakh acres can be fed by Godavari waters from Polavaram project.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HSnDO8Nlj2IC&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=pwerspectives+on+polavaram+project&source=bl&ots=VToJpFbRP6&sig=76NYpCAyQLPMTLk9cURDSVBfahM&hl=en&ei=lmifTP2-cercefi5IQK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false [ see Chapter 6 on Costs exceed Benefits by Dr.G.Bhiksham,Expert]

If these two true facts are taken into consideration the cost benefit analysis of Polavaram dam will be negative and there is no feasibility for taking up this project to promote national economy . Under the circumstances how can planning commission promote. such a project that is highly risky as also not economically viable but also very costly, uneconomical and detrimental to public and national interests

2) When Environmental clearance was granted in October 2005 the spillway design flood was taken as 36 lakhs cusecs and the design of the project including the rehabilitation, resettlement schemes were prepared accordingly. But in September, 2006 the CWC without consulting the Orissa and Chattisgarh states changed the spillway design flood magnitude from 36 lakh cusecs to 50 lakh cusecs and as a consequence the design of the spillway has undergone a sea- change and the other components of the project also had to be changed accordingly and these changes caused drastic increase in the cost of the project from about Rs.12,000 crores to about 17,000 cores. According to international Banking guidelines the cost escalation of a project by 15% is treated as a change in the scope of the project and when there is change in the scope of the project the Union Ministry of Environment requires that the project proponents should again apply for Environmental clearance of the project as per the conditions specified in the first Environmental clearance letter given to the project .

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Manuals/PAI/PAI-504.pdf. [see page 2,item 2]

3) In the case of the Polavaram dam the project authorities proposed to irrigate7.2 lakhs acres of land under the left canal (4.0 lakh acres) and Right canal (3.2 lakh acres) in 1985 but since the project was delayed for decades the state Government approved several alternate projects including lift irrigation schemes. Consequently the Tatipudi lift irrigation scheme was taken up to irrigate about 2 lakh acres which comes under the Polavaram right canal command area and the Pushkaram lift irrigation scheme to cultivate another 2 lakh acres that fall under the command area of Polavaram left bank and they executed. In addition several deep bore wells for irrigation purposes were dug during the recent years. Some medium irrigation projects were also constructed to irrigate the lands falling under the Polavaram command area. Hence the Polavaram project when it comes into operation will have no more than one-third of the area originally contemplated under the Polavaram project. If a cost-benefit analysis is made by taking into consideration the irrigation potential created already the costs of Polavaram project become far higher than the benefits to be gained under the project, making the project economically very unviable.

4. AUDITOR GENERAL FAULTED A.P.STATE FOR SHOWING SAME LANDS UNDER TWO PROJECTS

The CAG report which reviewed one of these new schemes known as Pushkaram lift irrigation project has on the projectadversely commented that the huge expenditure incurred is a wasteful expenditure. The CAG did not accept the replies of the State Government that the lift scheme will be abandoned later and the pump sets and other equipment will be used for other projects when Polavaram Dam gets completed But the CAG did not accept the replies provided by the AP State on this project

See website: http://saiindia.gov.in/cag/sites/default/files/andhra/rep_2009/civil_chap1.pdf

Pushkara Lift Irrigation Scheme

The ayacut of 73,318 Hectares contemplated under ‘Pushkara’ project was already covered and contemplated under Polavaram project. Further, the canal works of both the projects were taken up in the year 2004-05 with a gap of six months. Hence, if the Polavaram project is completed, the head works i.e., pump house, regulators etc. of Pushkara project costing Rs 101.49 crore will be redundant. Government stated (July 2009) that the headworks will be utilised in other proposed LI schemes. The fact remains that there is overlapping of ayacut and the pump house machinery will become redundant.

Pushkara Lift Irrigation Scheme : Electricity cost to be paid by contractor is paid by State An amount of Rs 0.70 crore was paid towards electrical charges by the department. As electrical charges are to be met by the contractor as per the agreement conditions, this resulted in undue benefit to the contractor. Government stated (July 2009) that there is no condition in the agreement that the agency has to pay the current consumption charges. The reply is factually incorrect as the agreement clause clearly stipulates that no separate payment towards O&M expenses will be made to the contractor by the employer and the bid price quoted by the bidder shall be inclusive of all these expenses. Further, the facilities e.g., accommodation, transport, electricity, water etc., are to be provided to the deployed manpower by the contractor only.

5) EXPERTS OF CWC AND MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT ARE PRONE TO TAKE WRONG DECISIONS:

a) Experts of Union Ministry of Environment: Experts of Central Water Commission and Union Ministry of Environment are prone to take wrong decisions due to lack of expertise, knowledge in a particular subject of serious concern with Environmental sustainability and public welfare. For instance the expert committee which cleared the Polavaram project in 2005 failed to ask the question whether in case the dam were to burst the wall of floods gushing out of the dam amounting to more than 60 to 70 lakh cusecs will be contained by the river below within the river flood banks and if not whether the disaster management plan has been prepared to save lakhs of people getting drowned before they can be shifted to safe places. The expert committee members were blind to the fact that they cannot take a decision on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report if Orissa and Chattisgarh Governments have not furnished them with the reports of public hearing on the EIA reports pertaining to the dam and the embankment dam reports proposed as flood proof measures in Orissa and Chattisgarh. The members were ignorant of the fact that when the previous historical flood of 36 lakh cusecs occurred in Godavari in August 1986 the utilization of 36 lakh cusecs as spillway design flood by the AP State Government is unscientific and illogical. That the experts of Envrionmental Appraisal Committee are not at all experts as per Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act is confirmed by the fact that within one year in September 2006 the CWC increased the spillway design flood from 36 lakh cusecs to 50 lakh cusecs thereby proving that the EAC experts are not competent persons even to estimate the Probable Maximum Flood of Godavari river. The experts again never studied the crucial portions of the Bachawat Tribunal report wherein it is stated that AP State Government wanted the Bachawat Tribunal to permit the state to inundate the lands in Orissa and Chattisgarh upto 175ft. The expert committee failed to grasp the fact that the dam break Analysis for Polavaram dam prepared by the experts of the National Institute of Hydrology at a huge expenditure of several lakhs of rupees used an inflow design flood of 1,70,000 cumecs while the Godavari flood banks downstream of the dam cannot accommodate even 50% of the above flood during dam collapse resulting in braking of the river embankments and killed lakhs of people in East Godavari and West Godavari districts. Infact some of the experts of the CWC were engineers specialized in fields other than civil engineering, Hydraulic Engineering and Environmental Engineering with the result that their decision making cannot be more relevant to provide public safety than the quality of their expertise to take scientific decisions.

b) Experts of Central Water Commission: The technical staff in Central Water Commission (CWC) lack experience in operation and maintenance of Irrigation Projects, flood protection embankments etc. since they are not in direct charge of the same. Irrigation being a state subject, there is no scope for this staff to directly got involved in these disciplines. What is not commonly known is that CWC staff have also no opportunity to gain practical experience in irrigation projects pertaining to investigation, survey, construction, operation and maintenance etc., since these are all the responsibilities solely of the State Governments. It would therefore be not correct, to be guided by the CWC with regard to flood protection embankments, submersion of villages etc. Opinions of experts in State Governments would be relevant in this context.

shivajirao

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

HOW ANDHRA PRADESH FAILED TO STOP INCRESE IN HEIGHT OF ALAMATTI DAM

HOW MAHARASHTRA STATE FAILED BEFORE KRISHNA WATER TRIBUNAL

Friday, March 4, 2011

WHY EXPERTS ARE WRONG ON POLAVARAM DESIGN

Blog Archive

About Me