EXPERTS MISLEAD ON BACKWATER IMPACTS OF ALAMATTI DAM

EXPERTS MISLEAD ON BACKWATER IMPACTS OF ALAMATTI DAM

Prof.T.Shivaji Rao, Director, Center for Environmental Studies, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam

WHY CWC IS NOT GIVING  DATA ON ALAMATTI BACK WATER CURVE AND DAMBRERAK ANALYSIS?
 see website: http://www.asianage.com/india/cwc-cic-draw-swords-over-info-979
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-back-water-curve-at_4653.html

It is shocking for people of Kolhapur, Sangli and Karad of Maharashtra and  Belgaum of Karnataka to know that hundreds of their  villages including major cities like Sangli and Kolhapur will be forcibly drowned frequently during rainy seasons and cyclonic periods due to heavy downpours that are bound to cause extreme floods such extreme floods have to be calculated on scientific lines and by using internationally accepted envelop cures as published by the top most experts like Lempererie of France and L.Berga of Spain who worked as Chairman, Technical Committees on Floods and Dams  of the International Commission on large Dams (ICOLD).  Unfortunately the Engineering experts of the CWC and the State Governments of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh chose to ignore the state-of-art technology on estimating the extreme floods expected in the catchment areas of Krishna river and its tributaries and they did not even consider the Probable Maximum Precipitation estimates made by International Hydrology expert like PR Rakhecha and others.  Consequently these Indian experts are deliberately underestimating the extreme floods expected in Krishna river basin and Godavari river basin inspite of the fact that the October 2009 floods in Krishna river proved that the spillway design floods estimated upto the previous decade do not hold good anymore after 2010 when the state-of-art technology must be followed to estimate the Probable Maximum Floods for calculation of backwater cures and to avoid dam collapses and to plan for safety of lakhs of people, their properties and agricultural wealth.  In the present case of Alamatti dam a comparative statement of the backwater calculations made by the CWC and the independent experts is presented in the following pages to create awareness among the people and particularly the farmers, the non-Governmental organizations, the intellectuals and the patriots like Anna Hazare who have to fight against the social evils being perpetrated by some of the unethical and immoral scientific and engineering experts who occupy possession of power and use the garb of development to destroy the life and culture of the farmers and farm workers who form the backbone of the social democratic welfare state.  Unless the people exert pressure over the elected representatives in panchayats, state legislatures and the parliament.  The present and future generations of Indian will stand to lose their right to life and the right to livelihood and right to natural resources as envisaged by the constitution of India.see the impact of previous floods situation on flooding of Sangli and kolhapur during August floods of 2005 when serious loss of life and properties occured as can be seen from web sites;

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2217/stories/20050826006413100.htm

: http://finance.maharashtra.gov.in/english/dcmNew/commonpdf/civil%20performance.pdf [pages 36 to40]
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2217/stories/20050826005801400.htm  [ Why Cloud Bursts occur?]
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=r0N4pBXTxBAC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=point+and+areal+PMP+estimates+,P.R.rakhecha&source=bl&ots=rZzRna9Yo2&sig=SD8w70AQo09_mSuGsl5YDxZgBA4&hl=en&ei=31m-TY_zHcnhrAfw3aiKBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false  ['page-287]

CWC violates NarmadaTribunal  Award[NWDT] ON:BACK WATER CALCULATIONS from MWL/MAX.Flood Levels
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Official%20report.pdf  [see Expert;s Report on violations on calculations done for Sardar Sarovar project .SUPREME COURT must  apply Sec.45 of the EVIDENCE ACT in giving  undue weightage to CWC as an Expert authority ]

Sub-Clause II - Lands Which are to be Compulsorily Acquired.  

II(1) : Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall acquire for Sardar Sarovar Project under the provisions of  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, all lands of private ownership situated below the FRL + 138.68 m (455') of  Sardar Sarovar and all interests therein not belonging to the respective States. If on the basis aforesaid, 75 per cent or more land of a contiguous holding of any person is required to be compulsorily acquired, such person shall have the option to compel compulsory acquisition of the entire contiguous holding.  

II(2) : Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall also acquire for Sardar Sarovar Project under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, all buildings with their appurtenant land situated between  FRL + 138.68 m (455') and MWL + 141.21 m (460') as also those affected by the backwater effect resulting from MWL + 141.21 m (460').  

II(3) : The backwater level at the highest flood level in Sardar Sarovar shall be worked out by the Central  Water Commission in consultation with Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat.

http://nca.gov.in/forms_pdf/nwdt_finalorder.pdf

 Central Water Commission[CWC],  F.E. & S.A Directorate

Backwater study for Alamatti and Hippargi Reservoirs

1.      INTRODUCTION:  Director, Project Appraisal (S), CWC vide U.O. No.21/10/99-PA(S)/585 dated 29^th May 2003 requested for an independent study by FE&SA Dte.. CWC regarding the backwater effects and submergence in Maharashtra territory due to  construction of Alamatti and Hippargi Reservoirs in Karnataka, in pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting held on 23-2-99 under the chairmanship of Chairman, CWC.  The original study regarding backwater effects and submergence in Maharashtra territory due to construction of Alamatti and Hippargi Reservoirs in Karnataka was carried out by Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore which was submitted by the Karnataka Government.  The then Direcotr (FE &SA) vide lr.No.CWC/DBAG/FE&SA/2001/602 dt.11^th June 2003 observed that the methodology adopted for the back water study and the value of the rugosity co-efficient taken for the study were found to be in order.  However, in cae an independent confirmation of the result is required then necessary data/information may be supplied to FE&SA directorate. Subsequently, necessary data comprising of cross sections of Krishna river upstream of Almatti dam and Hippargi Barrage and rating curve of Almatti spillway submitted by Government of Maharashtra  and Karnataka were forwarded to this Directorate vide U.O.No.21/10/2004-PA(S)/1246 dated 22^nd December, 2004.

Accordingly, a study was carried out in FE&SA Directorate using one-dimensional mathematical model MIKE 11.

2.      SCENARIOS STUDIED: Following scenarios were considered for study of backwater effects and submergence in Maharashtra territority due to construction of Almatti and Hippargi Reservervoirs in Karnataka;

1.      PMF discharge of 31000 cumec at Almatti and 24609 cumecs (proportionate discharge proportional to square root of catchment area as per suggestion of the February, 1999 meeting at CWC as mentioned in back water study report of IISC, Bangalore) at Hippargi taking Almatti FRL at 524.25m, considering both Almatti and Hippargi reservoirs.

2.      PMF discharge of 31000 cumec at Almatti and 24609 cumec at Hippargi taking Almatti FRL at 524.25m, considering Almatti reservoir only, as Hippargi is yet to be constructed.

3.      PMF discharge of 31000 cumec at Almatti and PMF discharge of 25485 cumec at Hippargi taking Almatti FRL at 519.60m, considering both Almatti and Hioppargi reservoirs.

4.      PMF discharge of 31000 cumec at Almatti and PMF discharge 25485 cumec at Hippargi taking Almatti FRL at 519.60m, considering Almatti reservoir only, as Hippargi is yet to be constructed.

5.      This yars discharge of 10100 cumec at Almatti and 9000 cumec u/s of Hippargi taking Almatti FRL  at 519.60m, considering Almatti reservoir only.

3.      STUDY RESULTS: The results of hydrohynaci modeling of Krishna river upstream of Almatti dam under various scenario, enumerated above, are tabulated in Tables 1 to 5 respectively.  The corresponding plots of water surface profiles are given in plate 1 to 5 .  From the above tables and plates it can be seen.

i)        The backwater profile of Almatti dam for FRL at 524.25m PMF discharge of 31000 cumec at Almatti and 24609 cumec at Hippargi, considering both Almatti and Hippargi reservoirs merges with water profile in the natural condition of Krishna river, just downstream of the Hippargi barrage (Table 1 and Plate 1).  Hence the backwater effect of Almatti reservoir is upto the downstream of Hippargi barrage is upto about 221 km upstream of Almatti dam.

ii)      The backwater profile of Almatti dam for FRL at 524.25m, PMF discharge of 31000 cumec at Almatti and 24609 cumec at Hippargi, considering Almatti reservoir only merges with water profile in the natural condition of Krishna river at about 145 km upstream of Almatti dam (Table 2 and Plate 2)

iii)    The backwater profile of Almatti dam for FRL at 519.60 PMF discharge of 31000 cumec at Almatti and PMF discharge of 25485 cumec at Hippargi considering both Almatti and Hippargi reservoir, merges with water profile in natural condition of Krishna river  just downstream of the Hippargi barrage (Table 3 and Plate3).  Hence the backwater effect of Almatti reservoir is upto the downstream of Hipprgi barrge only.  The backwater effect of Hippargi barrage is upto about 221km upstream of Almatti dam.

iv)    The backwater profile of Almatti dam for FRL at 519.60 , PMF discharge of 31000 cumec at Almatti and PMF discharge of 25485 cumec at Hippargi, considering Almatti reservoir only merges with water profile in the natural condition of Krishna river at about 126km upstream of Almati dam (Table 4 and Plate 4)

v)      The backwater profile of Almatti dam for FRL at 519.60m for this years flood of 10100 cumec considering Almatti reservoir only merges with water profile in the natural condition of Krishna river at about 175km upstream of Almatti dam (Table 5 and Plate 5).

4.      COMPARISION WITH IISC STUDY: The study carried out for case 1 and above has been compared with IISC, Bangalore study.  The trend of profile has been found to be matching.  However, there is a difference of 1-2m in water level at different cross sections of Krishna river u/s of Almatti dam.  This is due to difference in method of backwater calculation.  The IISC Bangalore has used the standard step method, which is an approximate method to calculate the profile.  In the above method, first the trial value of water level at the upstream location is assumed based on the known water level at the downstream location.  The velocity is then calculated dividing the discharge with the cross section area corresponding to assumed water surface.  This gives a lower velocity in comparison to the velocity calculated by MIKE 11 model using finite difference solution of St.Venants’s equations of conservation of mass and momentum.  Hydrodynamic modeling used in MIKE11 models the complete river stretch together to provide physically balanced water surface profile, which is more accurate than the approximate standard step method.

According to the international Irrigation expert Dr.Lempererie, Chairman of ICOLD committee for France, the extreme flood is calculated by the formula S>3000Km², Q=10,000(S/300)^0.4 as published in his paper under the website:

http://bhujangam.blogspot.com/2010/12/dams-and-floods.html

http://www.hydrocoop.org/Shall_we_forget_the_traditional_design_flood.doc

The extreme Probable Maximum Flood for Alamatti dam with a catchment area of 35,200 sq.km works out to 67,300 cumecs.  However we opted to use 50,000 cumecs as PMF  value for calculating the backwater curve for Alamatti Dam by using Mannings coefficient of 0.05

According to table-6 in the website the PMF in cumecs could be 2 to 3 times the catchment area measured in sq.km as in the case of Gandhi Sagar catchment area on Chambal river in Madhya Pradesh.  Hence the peak flood assumed by the CWC for Alamati dam is an underestimate and the backwater calculations are also under estimated and hence the engineers of the Karnataka and Maharashtra state are completely mislead on the issue of submersion of Sangli and Kolhapur areas due to backwater impacts of Alamatti dam.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482700001389/pdf

Roughness Coefficients (Manning’s “n”) for Overland Flow

http://www.shippensburgtownship.com/2010-01/media/development/Table%20B-4.pdf

Surface Description	n
Dense Growth	0.4 - 0.5
Pasture	0.3 - 0.4
Lawns	0.2 - 0.3
Bluegrass Sod	0.2 - 0.5
Short Grass Prairie	0.1 - 0.2
Sparse Vegetation	0.05 - 0.1
Bare Clay-Loam Soil (eroded)	0.01 - 0.0
Concrete/Asphalt - very shallow depths (less than ¼ inch) - small depths  (1/4 inch to several inches)	0.10 - 0.1 0.05 - 0.1
Roughness Coefficients (Manning’s “n”) for Channel and Pipe Flow
Reach  Description	n
Natural stream, clean, straight, no rifts or pools	0.03
Natural stream, clean, winding, some pools or shoals	0.04
Natural stream, winding, pools, shoals, stoney with some weeds	0.05
Natural stream, sluggish deep pools and weeds	0.07
Natural stream or swale, very weedy or with timber underbrush	0.10
Concrete pipe, culvert or channel	0.013
Corrugated metal pipe	0.012 – 0.024*
Spiral rib metal pipe	0.012
Corrugated polyethylene pipe	0.020
Smooth-lined corrugated polyethylene pipe	0.012

* Based on pipe diameter and manufacturer’s design specifications

 Table-1: Back water calculations for Almatti FRL at 524.25m with  Almatti and Hippargi

(Discharge considered 31000 cumec at Almatti, 24609 cumec at Hippargi)

Cross-Sec No. As per data Supplied	Ch.U/S of Almatti dam (km) as per input data	Cn (km) as per MIKE  11 Set up	Manning’s “n” considered	Discharge considered (cumecs)	Bed  level (m)	Water level (m) without Almatti dam and Hippargi	Water level (m) with Almatti dam and Hippargi
14-14	250.64	0	0.0264	18785	524.33	543.97	543.97
13-13	246.64	4	0.0252	18808	523.92	543.31	543.31
12-12	229.84	20.8	0.0252	--	--	540.56	540.56
11-11	221.04	27.6	0.0268	21065	519.35	539.29	539.30
10-10	216.64	34.0	0.0242	21097	518.31	538.27	538.28
9-9	192.40	48.24	0.0242	22594	517.46	537.23	537.26
8-8	180.50	58.24	0.0242	22782	514.76	536.60	536.64
7-7	174.80	75.84	0.0242	23006	516.42	535.01	535.13
6-6	170.80	80.64	0.0259	23100	512.85	534.57	534.74
5-5	159.20	91.44	0.0257	23166	512.45	532.96	533.35
4-4	154.24	96.40	0.0245	23174	512.33	532.49	533.00
3-3	145.60	105.04	0.0245	24282	511.54	531.62	532.50
2-2	139.20	111.44	0.0245	24443	513.19	530.89	532.20
*A		126.00				529.24	531.75
*B	124.00	126.64	0.0245	24609	511.66	529.21	529.33
10B-10B	115.50	135.14	0.0245	24676	508.99	528.28	528.51
10A-10A	108.00	142.64	0.0245	24745	510.13	527.29	527.75
9A-9A	97.25	153.39	0.0245	25106	508.10	526.62	527.30
8A-8A	91.00	159.02	0.0245	25310	509.02	526.30	527.11
7B-7B	77.50	173.14	0.0245	25361	506.04	524.57	526.22
7A-7A	67.75	182.89	0.0245	25583	506.97	523.09	525.64
6A-6A	58.00	192.64	0.0241	25741	498.76	521.37	525.15
5A-5A	45.25	205.39	0.0244	25866	505.28	519.13	524.65
4A-4A	34.30	222.14	0.0239	25962	501.01	514.02	524.42
3A-3A	21.25	229.39	0.0257	26183	502.85	510.28	524.31
2A-2A	10.00	240.64	0.0283	30794	496.04	507.04	524.28
1-1	6.00	244.64	0.0267	30822	495.34	505.60	524.28
Almatti	0	250.64	0.0267	31000	489.12	502.95	524.25

*A -  C/S inserted for specifying Hipp.Barr

*B -  1-1 /11A-11A (Hippargi Barrage)

 Table-2: Back water calculations for Almatti FRL at 524.25m with  Almatti

(Discharge considered 31000 cumec at Almatti, 24609 cumec at Hippargi)

Cross-Sec No. As per data Supplied	Ch.U/S of Almatti dam (km) as per input data	Cn (km) as per MIKE  11 Set up	Manning’s “n” considered	Discharge considered (cumecs)	Bed  level (m)	Water level (m) without Almatti dam and Hippargi	Water level (m) with Almatti dam and Hippargi
14-14	250.64	0	0.0264	18785	524.33	543.97	543.97
13-13	246.64	4	0.0252	18808	523.92	543.31	543.31
12-12	229.84	20.8	0.0252	--	--	540.56	540.56
11-11	221.04	27.6	0.0268	21065	519.35	539.29	539.29
10-10	216.64	34.0	0.0242	21097	518.31	538.27	538.27
9-9	192.40	48.24	0.0242	22594	517.46	537.23	537.23
8-8	180.50	58.24	0.0242	22782	514.76	536.60	536.60
7-7	174.80	75.84	0.0242	23006	516.42	535.01	535.01
6-6	170.80	80.64	0.0259	23100	512.85	534.57	534.57
5-5	159.20	91.44	0.0257	23166	512.45	532.96	533.96
4-4	154.24	96.40	0.0245	23174	512.33	532.49	532.49
3-3	145.60	105.04	0.0245	24282	511.54	531.62	531.63
2-2	139.20	111.44	0.0245	24443	513.19	530.89	530.92
C/S inserted		126.00				529.24	529.36
1-1/11A-11A	124.00	126.64	0.0245	24609	511.66	529.21	529.33
10B-10B	115.50	135.14	0.0245	24676	508.99	528.28	528.51
10A-10A	108.00	142.64	0.0245	24745	510.13	527.29	527.76
9A-9A	97.25	153.39	0.0245	25106	508.10	526.62	527.31
8A-8A	91.00	159.02	0.0245	25310	509.02	526.30	527.13
7B-7B	77.50	173.14	0.0245	25361	506.04	524.57	526.25
7A-7A	67.75	182.89	0.0245	25583	506.97	523.09	525.67
6A-6A	58.00	192.64	0.0241	25741	498.76	521.37	525.19
5A-5A	45.25	205.39	0.0244	25866	505.28	519.13	524.69
4A-4A	34.30	222.14	0.0239	25962	501.01	514.02	524.46
3A-3A	21.25	229.39	0.0257	26183	502.85	510.28	524.36
2A-2A	10.00	240.64	0.0283	30794	496.04	507.04	524.33
1-1	6.00	244.64	0.0267	30822	495.34	505.60	524.33
Almatti	0	250.64	0.0267	31000	489.12	502.95	524.25

 Table-3: Back water calculations for Almatti FRL at 519.6 with  Almatti

(Discharge considered 31000 cumec at Almatti, 25485 cumec at Hippargi)

Cross-Sec No. As per data Supplied	Ch.U/S of Almatti dam (km) as per input data	Cn (km) as per MIKE  11 Set up	Manning’s “n” considered	Discharge considered (cumecs)	Bed  level (m)	Water level (m) without Almatti dam and Hippargi	Water level (m) with Almatti dam and Hippargi
14-14	250.64	0	0.0264	18785	524.33	543.98	543.98
13-13	246.64	4	0.0252	18906	523.92	543.32	543.32
12-12	229.84	20.8	0.0252	--	--	540.59	540.59
11-11	221.04	27.6	0.0268	21261	519.35	539.34	539.35
10-10	216.64	34.0	0.0242	21391	518.31	538.34	538.35
9-9	192.40	48.24	0.0242	22986	517.46	537.30	537.33
8-8	180.50	58.24	0.0242	23272	514.76	536.67	536.71
7-7	174.80	75.84	0.0242	23594	516.42	535.11	535.25
6-6	170.80	80.64	0.0259	23786	512.85	534.68	534.87
5-5	159.20	91.44	0.0257	23950	512.45	533.06	533.52
4-4	154.24	96.40	0.0245	24056	512.33	532.58	533.17
3-3	145.60	105.04	0.0245	25262	511.54	531.72	532.69
2-2	139.20	111.44	0.0245		513.19	531.00	532.40
*A		126.00		25485		529.35	531.97
*B	124.00	126.64	0.0245	25581	511.66	529.32	529.33
10B-10B	115.50	135.14	0.0245	25648	508.99	528.40	528.43
10A-10A	108.00	142.64	0.0245	25717	510.13	527.42	527.49
9A-9A	97.25	153.39	0.0245	26008	508.10	526.77	526.87
8A-8A	91.00	159.02	0.0245	26212	509.02	526.46	526.58
7B-7B	77.50	173.14	0.0245	26263	506.04	524.74	525.05
7A-7A	67.75	182.89	0.0245	26485	506.97	523.27	523.88
6A-6A	58.00	192.64	0.0241	26573	498.76	521.56	522.62
5A-5A	45.25	205.39	0.0244	26698	505.28	519.29	521.13
4A-4A	34.30	222.14	0.0239	26794	501.01	514.99	520.16
3A-3A	21.25	229.39	0.0257	26945	502.85	511.26	519.79
2A-2A	10.00	240.64	0.0283	30864	496.04	507.84	519.71
1-1	6.00	244.64	0.0267	30892	495.34	506.24	519.68
Almatti	0	250.64	0.0267	31000	489.12	502.95	519.60

*A -  C/S inserted for specifying Hipp.Barr

*B -  1-1 /11A-11A (Hippargi Barrage)

 Table-4: Back water calculations for Almatti FRL at 519.6 with  Almatti

(Discharge considered 31000 cumec at Almatti, 25485 cumec at Hippargi)

Cross-Sec No. As per data Supplied	Ch.U/S of Almatti dam (km) as per input data	Cn (km) as per MIKE  11 Set up	Manning’s “n” considered	Discharge considered (cumecs)	Bed  level (m)	Water level (m) without Almatti dam and Hippargi	Water level (m) with Almatti dam and Hippargi
14-14	250.64	0	0.0264	18785	524.33	543.98	543.98
13-13	246.64	4	0.0252	18906	523.92	543.32	543.32
12-12	229.84	20.8	0.0252	--	--	540.59	540.59
11-11	221.04	27.6	0.0268	21261	519.35	539.34	539.34
10-10	216.64	34.0	0.0242	21391	518.31	538.34	538.34
9-9	192.40	48.24	0.0242	22986	517.46	537.30	537.30
8-8	180.50	58.24	0.0242	23272	514.76	536.67	536.67
7-7	174.80	75.84	0.0242	23594	516.42	535.11	535.11
6-6	170.80	80.64	0.0259	23786	512.85	534.68	534.68
5-5	159.20	91.44	0.0257	23950	512.45	533.06	533.06
4-4	154.24	96.40	0.0245	24056	512.33	532.58	532.58
3-3	145.60	105.04	0.0245	25262	511.54	531.72	531.72
2-2	139.20	111.44	0.0245		513.19	531.00	531.00
*A		126.00		25485		529.35	529.36
*B	124.00	126.64	0.0245	25581	511.66	529.32	529.33
10B-10B	115.50	135.14	0.0245	25648	508.99	528.40	528.43
10A-10A	108.00	142.64	0.0245	25717	510.13	527.42	527.49
9A-9A	97.25	153.39	0.0245	26008	508.10	526.77	526.87
8A-8A	91.00	159.02	0.0245	26212	509.02	526.46	526.58
7B-7B	77.50	173.14	0.0245	26263	506.04	524.74	525.05
7A-7A	67.75	182.89	0.0245	26485	506.97	523.27	523.88
6A-6A	58.00	192.64	0.0241	26573	498.76	521.56	522.62
5A-5A	45.25	205.39	0.0244	26698	505.28	519.29	521.13
4A-4A	34.30	222.14	0.0239	26794	501.01	514.99	520.16
3A-3A	21.25	229.39	0.0257	26945	502.85	511.26	519.79
2A-2A	10.00	240.64	0.0283	30864	496.04	507.84	519.71
1-1	6.00	244.64	0.0267	30892	495.34	506.24	519.68
Almatti	0	250.64	0.0267	31000	489.12	502.95	519.60

*A -  C/S inserted for specifying Hipp.Barr

*B -  1-1 /11A-11A (Hippargi Barrage)

 Table-5: Back water calculations for Almatti FRL at 519.6 with  Almatti

(Discharge considered 10100 cumec at Almatti, 9000 cumec at Hippargi upstream)

Cross-Sec No. As per data Supplied	Ch.U/S of Almatti dam (km) as per input data	Cn (km) as per MIKE  11 Set up	Manning’s “n” considered	Discharge considered (cumecs)	Bed  level (m)	Water level (m) without Almatti dam and Hippargi	Water level (m) with Almatti dam and Hippargi
14-14	250.64	0	0.0264	9000	524.33	541.52	541.52
13-13	246.64	4	0.0252		523.92	540.83	540.83
12-12	229.84	20.8	0.0252			536.95	536.95
11-11	221.04	27.6	0.0268		519.35	535.18	535.18
10-10	216.64	34.0	0.0242		518.31	534.26	534.27
9-9	192.40	48.24	0.0242		517.46	533.48	533.48
8-8	180.50	58.24	0.0242		514.76	532.89	532.89
7-7	174.80	75.84	0.0242		516.42	531.00	531.00
6-6	170.80	80.64	0.0259		512.85	530.39	530.39
5-5	159.20	91.44	0.0257		512.45	529.50	529.53
4-4	154.24	96.40	0.0245		512.33	529.10	529.11
3-3	145.60	105.04	0.0245		511.54	528.24	528.29
2-2	139.20	111.44	0.0245		513.19	527.61	527.69
C/S inserted		126.00				525.96	526.10
1-1/11A-11A	124.00	126.64	0.0245	10100	511.66	525.91	526.05
10B-10B	115.50	135.14	0.0245		508.99	524.91	525.12
10A-10A	108.00	142.64	0.0245		510.13	523.88	524.20
9A-9A	97.25	153.39	0.0245		508.10	522.62	523.29
8A-8A	91.00	159.02	0.0245		509.02	521.92	522.78
7B-7B	77.50	173.14	0.0245		506.04	519.71	521.41
7A-7A	67.75	182.89	0.0245		506.97	518.24	520.71
6A-6A	58.00	192.64	0.0241		498.76	516.77	520.20
5A-5A	45.25	205.39	0.0244		505.28	515.29	519.86
4A-4A	34.30	222.14	0.0239		501.01	512.04	519.68
3A-3A	21.25	229.39	0.0257		502.85	508.37	519.62
2A-2A	10.00	240.64	0.0283		496.04	503.27	519.61
1-1	6.00	244.64	0.0267		495.34	501.64	519.61
Almatti	0	250.64	0.0267		489.12	497.45	519.60

BACKWATER CALCULATION MADE INDEPENDENT EXPERTS.  SEE http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/02/alamatti-back-water-curve-at_4653.html ALMATTI Back water profile Calculations 15-01-2011 (for n=0.05, 50,000 cumecs, 524.25 m  stage near Alamatti dam widths 1500 m)
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Station	No. Trail	Elv. BL	depth,m	Elv.stage	Width	Area	Discharge	Velocity	Vel.Head	Total H	R	Sf term1	Sf term2	Sf
ALMATTI	0	489	35.25	524.25	1500	52875	50000	0.945626	0.045576	524.2956	33.66762	6250000	3.00395E+11	2.08059E-05
NH218	3	491	34.08388	525.0839	1500	51125.82	50000	0.977979	0.048748	525.1326	32.60226	6250000	2.69092E+11	2.32263E-05
N to Res Approach	1	494	31.13	525.13	1500	46695	50000	1.070778	0.058439	525.1884	29.88939	6250000	1.99976E+11	3.12537E-05
N to Res Approach	2	494	32.2211	526.2211	1500	48331.66	50000	1.034519	0.054548	526.2757	30.89386	6250000	2.23869E+11	2.79182E-05
A Res approach	3	494	32.2292	526.2292	1500	48343.8	50000	1.034259	0.05452	526.2837	30.9013	6250000	2.24053E+11	2.78952E-05
Res App to Algur	1	498	28.28	526.28	1500	42420	50000	1.178689	0.070811	526.3508	27.2524	6250000	1.45959E+11	4.28204E-05
Algur	4	498	30.39464	528.3946	1500	45591.96	50000	1.096685	0.061301	528.4559	29.21084	6250000	1.84906E+11	3.3801E-05
Al to Hippargi	1	508	20.45	528.45	1500	30675	50000	1.629992	0.135417	528.5854	19.9072	6250000	50263485051	0.000124345
Hippargi	4	508	24.35977	532.3598	1500	36539.66	50000	1.368376	0.095436	532.4552	23.59347	6250000	89400931672	6.99098E-05
Hi to Halyal	1	513	19.45	532.45	1500	29175	50000	1.713796	0.149699	532.5997	18.95835	6250000	42608510058	0.000146684
Halyal	4	513	23.90094	536.9009	1500	35851.42	50000	1.394645	0.099135	537.0001	23.16279	6250000	83981691905	7.4421E-05
Ha to Kudichi	1	514	23	537	1500	34500	50000	1.449275	0.107054	537.1071	22.31565	6250000	74009754815	8.44483E-05
Kudichi	4	514	25.91604	539.916	1500	38874.06	50000	1.286205	0.084318	540.0004	25.05043	6250000	1.09583E+11	5.70343E-05
Ku to Diggerwadi	1	515	25	540	1500	37500	50000	1.333333	0.09061	540.0906	24.19355	6250000	97360537527	6.41944E-05
Ku to Diggerwadi	2	515	23.96622	538.9662	1500	35949.34	50000	1.390846	0.098596	539.0648	23.2241	6250000	84738443941	7.37564E-05
Old Diggerwadi	3	515	26.56713	541.5671	1500	39850.69	50000	1.254683	0.080236	541.6474	25.65824	6250000	1.18889E+11	5.25698E-05
Odigg to Shaharpur	1	518	23.64	541.64	1500	35460	50000	1.410039	0.101336	541.7413	22.91764	6250000	81003413824	7.71572E-05
Shaharpur	7	518	28.1521	546.1521	1500	42228.15	50000	1.184044	0.071456	546.2236	27.13361	6250000	1.43803E+11	4.34621E-05
Shr to Narsobawadi	1	520	26.22	546.22	1500	39330	50000	1.271294	0.082375	546.3024	25.33431	6250000	1.13863E+11	5.48907E-05
Narsobawadi	3	520	27.28208	547.2821	1500	40923.12	50000	1.221803	0.076086	547.3582	26.3245	6250000	1.29723E+11	4.81797E-05
Nar to Ankali	1	525	22.35	547.35	1500	33525	50000	1.491424	0.113371	547.4634	21.70324	6250000	67346548672	9.28036E-05
Nar to Ankali	2	525	23.8858	548.8858	1500	35828.7	50000	1.395529	0.099261	548.9851	23.14857	6250000	83806770070	7.45763E-05
Ankali	3	525	25.8827	550.8827	1500	38824.04	50000	1.287862	0.084536	550.9672	25.01927	6250000	1.09121E+11	5.72761E-05
Ank to Sangli	1	528	22.96	550.96	1500	34440	50000	1.4518	0.107427	551.0674	22.278	6250000	73587073961	8.49334E-05
Ank to Sangli	2	528	21.14007	549.1401	1500	31710.11	50000	1.576784	0.12672	549.2668	20.56054	6250000	56070098083	0.000111468
Sangli	3	528	24.25576	552.2558	1500	36383.65	50000	1.374244	0.096256	552.352	23.49588	6250000	88151855212	7.09004E-05

Comments :The information in this table clearly shows that Sangli city will experience floods due to backwater curve upto an elevation 552.25m while the backwater levels presented by the CWC experts show an elevation of flood only upto 544.0m . This difference is due to differences in the input data used by the different authors. The calculations made by the independent authors show that Sangli and Kolhapur will be submerged under the depth of more than 8m of floods due to backwater curve. Consequently hundreds of villages all along the course of the river between Kolhapur, Sangli and Karad districts and Alamatti dam will be submerged resulting in great losses.