See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258517226

Tragedy of Commons: The Kerala Experience in River Linking

Book · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

7 2,459

5 authors, including:

Sharan Pravin Ravi C. G. Madhusoodhanan

Sheffield Hallam University Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
1 PUBLICATION   7 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   170 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Inclusive Education and Indigeneous communities View project

Threatened status assessment and ecorestoration of endemic tree species and ecosystems in the Western Ghats View project

All content following this page was uploaded by C. G. Madhusoodhanan on 21 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tragedy of Commons

The Kerala Experience in

River Linking

S.P. Ravi
C.G. Madhusoodhanan
Dr. A. Latha
S. Unnikrishnan
K.H. Amita Bachan

RRC & SANDRP

 “When culture disintegrates …… River dies.
Only,
a culture rooted in Nature…
a life perspective that respects the divine ways of Nature........
a civilization where mountains, forests and rivers are integral
elements..............
can help dying rivers take birth again.”

c 2004 River Research Centre .................words, which could only flow from him
who had spent a lifetime trying to preserve a river and its culture…
Materials from this publication maybe used without prior permission only if
the source is properly acknowledged. In loving memory of our soulmate B.C. Sreedharan-
an Irula tribal who lived on the banks of the dying Bhavani River....
Cover Design : Amita Bachan

Layout : Mac World, Thrissur

Published by : River Research Centre,Kerala, South Asia

Network on Dams River and People
(SANDRP), Delhi.

Distributors : Alter Media, Thrissur.

Address : River Research Centre

C/o Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi
Karthika, Manalattil, Ollur.P.O.
Thrissur-680306.Kerala, India
Ph: 0487-2353021
E mail:chalakudyriver@rediffmail.com

Printed at : Kairali Offset Printers,

Thrissur, Kerala

Price : Rs.120/-

ISBN-81-87612-10-x

River Research Centre
Through campaigns and interactions with the people in the
Chalakudy river basin the Chalakudy River Protection Council
(Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi) is trying to convey
the reality that a river should flow to sustain life. The Samithi
has taken up actions against projects which otherwise would
affect the river flow and health adversely. The threats are
continuing. While critically analysing our river related
development projects, we realise that they have not been
planned based on the hydrological, geographical and
ecological characteristics and peculiarities of the river basin.
Hence the present dismal state of all our rivers.
In fact this thought process led to the evolution of the River
Research Centre- of like minded people - to generate the basic
details of the river basin as a first step towards the participatory
restoration of Chalakudy River basin by the people, the local
bodies and the Government.
Preface
Four years back, when we started our search on the problems faced
by Chalakudy River among the people, the various departments
and local bodies we never imagined that our search would bring us
to such a turning point. Our travels through the river basin over
the past years through the monsoons and summers enabled us to
observe the various ups and downs of the river at close quarters.
Our journey like that of a meandering river took us to different
people, different perceptions, stories, myths and personal
experiences. The peers among the Kadar tribals gave us an insight
into their displacement due to the Parambikulam group of dams.
Vijayan a Kadar tribal from Parambikulam guided us in this
endeavor. We also had our source of constant correction, inspiration
and insights in this journey in Dr.Sathis Chandran Nair.
We have been constantly documenting the newspaper clippings
and other study reports on issues relating to rivers including river
diversions. Two years back, the newspaper reports on the move to
implement the River Linking Plan made us sit back and think of
the parallels especially against the background of the Task Force
stating that the famous Parambikulam Aliyar Project and the
Mullaperiyar Project is a success story in river water sharing between
two states.
The National Workshop on Interlinking that was born out of this
stream of thought brought together many like-minded individuals,
farmers and voluntary organizations concerned about the plight of
our rivers. The trip to Parambikulam Aliyar Project (PAP) area
through the forests of the Indira Gandhi Wild Life Sanctuary and
the Parambikulam WLS was a natural culmination of the workshop.
To visualize and understand what happens to a river and its ecology
when it is diverted was the major objective of the visit. Discussions
and debates overnight, suddenly the suggestion came forward from
Himanshu Thakkar and Dr.Sudhirendar Sharma that it was necessary
to document the entire story of the historically famous Parambikulam
Aliyar Project and other diversions involving Kerala to forecast what
The field visits to Chittur became a pleasurable experience especially
was in store for the proposed Inter Linking of Rivers project based on
due to Shri. Chentamarakhshan and his family’s warm presence,
the experiences of PAP.
food, accommodation and precious insights on the issue. All our
The decision led to field trips in the entire river basin and collection family members especially Unni’s mother are fondly acknowledged
of relevant documents from August 2003. We thought that we here for their unlimited patience in bearing with our often-long
could complete the process in three to four months. But new stories periods of absence during this study.
and insights started pouring in. We came across the life story of a
This book is mainly divided into three sections, the first section
one-man crusader, Kunjukuttan, a retd. KSEB engineer who had
intends to address the river water diversions in general while the
spent a lifetime trying to collect all the available documents on the
second section highlights the experience of Kerala through the
issue. He had filed a vigilance case on corruption charges of the
existing links focusing in detail on PAP. The final section focuses
PAP officials in Kerala. Unfortunately death took him away a day
mainly on the issues involved in the grandiose Inter linking project
before the final hearing of the case. We had long discussions with
and the Kerala Link involved.
Sreedharan, a tribal and our soul mate living in Attappady, on the
plight of the Bhavani River and its links to the deterioration and The sketches by Radha R, our friend, and a professional artist
desiccation of Attappady. He knew the Bhavani and the Nilgiris made the book more graphic. The work of the entire team, at times
like the palm of his hand. Sreedharan too left us on the 16th of arguing, at times debating but always proceeding one step forward
February 2004.The entire account on Bhavani and Siruvani rivers afterwards was the real source of strength in the entire process. Suresh
is his inputs. and his team at Mac World DTP centre need special thanks for
meeting our impossible deadlines. We take the responsibility for any
The library and faculty of the Madras Institute of Development
errors or omissions that have crept into the book.
Studies, Chennai indeed became the starting point of our literature
review. Without the voluminous data that was made available to We are obliged to our Rivers – The final but constant source of
us by them, this study would have remained incomplete. Several inspiration, strength, peace and hope…
media persons helped us unearth several hidden and confidential
documents. We utilized the accommodation facilities provided by
the Kerala Forest Department in Vazhachal Forest Division and
Parambikulam Wild Life Sanctuary.
Though when we kept on extending the dead line for publication
of the report Himanshu Thakkar, from SANDRP was so patient
with us and supported our efforts unconditionally. We thank Global
Greengrants Fund and Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
for their generous financial support. YUVA, a large network based
in Mumbai working on various social issues, was also kind enough
to route the project assistance. We are indebted to them for their
willingness to support us. A lot of friends and well wishers like Dr.
Sudhirendar Sharma and Dr. Elizabeth Joseph helped us in many
stages of this document.
Contents
Preface
1. Introduction 1
2. Addressing River Water Diversions 5
What is a river?
What’s happening to our rivers?
What are the issues to be addressed?
3. Tragedy of Commons- Kerala Experience 16
Parambikulam - Aliyar Project: An Analysis 19
History of the Project
The Project
Engineering the River flow
The Agreement
Apportioning of waters
Daylight robbery legitimised
The Unquenched thirst
Violations in the agreement
Benefits of the Project- Hidden Impacts
Field Diary
The Periyar Project 78
Bhavani River Diversions 84
Neyyar Irrigation Scheme 89
Pandiyar - Punnampuzha Project 89
4. Linking Rivers De-linking India 92
Interlinking of Rivers
The Project- Promises and Realities
Unsaid Impacts
The Kerala Link: Pamba – Achankoil –Vaippar Project
Resolution of Kerala Legislative Assembly
5. Implications 121
6. Beyond Links, Dams and Conflicts 126
Appendix- PAP Agreement 131
References 142
 
Introduction
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

River basin development has been increasingly viewed and implemented

based on the assumption that rivers can be dammed, diverted and
exploited to any extent for human welfare. Even the concept of
international or inter state river has emerged from the socio-political
outlook of extent of river waters that can be utilized by each co-riparian
state or country. In the literature of International Water Law, rivers are
usually classified into ‘national’, ‘international’ and ‘internationalised’
rivers. According to this classification, a national river is one, the entire
course of which flows within the territory of a single country. An
international river is one, which flows through the territory of one or
more countries or forms an international boundary. An internationalised
river is a river, whether originally national or international which has
been subjected to special conventional regime between countries.
An inter state river is one which flows through more than one state, or
one which separates the territories of two states from one another.
Technically the former is referred to as a successive river and the latter
as a boundary or contiguous river. A large number of doctrines like the
doctrine of riparian rights, of equitable apportionment, of prior
appropriation etc.have been put forward by different nations in relation
to water disputes on the question of the rights of co-riparians to use the
waters of an inter state or international river.
In India it has been well recognised that no state can be given an entirely
free hand in respect of a common source of water such as an inter-state
river. Under the Constitution of India also, a co-riparian state is not free
to develop an inter state river regardless of the injury to other co-riparian
states. The dominant principle employed in the resolution of inter state
water disputes in the pre and post independent India has been the
equitable allocation of water among the coriparian states-each state
getting a fair share of the water of the common river. The famous never-
ending Cauvery river dispute involving the states of Tamil Nadu,
Tragedy of Commons
Karnataka, Kerala and Pondicherry is an inter state river water issue.
Kerala and Pondicherry have not been major contenders in this dispute
so far though the three tributaries of Cauvery namely Bhavani, Pambar
and Kabani originating in the Kerala part of the Western Ghats contribute
atleast 15 per cent of Cauvery waters.
As different from inter state river water sharing where the issue is of
allocation of water between the upstream and downstream river sharing
states, river water diversions involve transferring the water from one river
basin to another maybe within state or inter state for various uses. This
in turn is based on the concept that the river that is diverted has ‘surplus’
water in its basin and the river basin that receives water has ‘deficit’
water. The recent decision of the Central Government to link up 37 rivers
in India from Ganga to Cauvery through 30 links with a colossal investment
of Rs. 5,60,000 crores is based on this concept. Here again the primary
objective of river linking has been claimed as the transfer of water from
‘surplus’ river basins to ‘deficit’ river basins for expanding irrigation,
meeting drinking water needs and providing drought relief and flood relief.
Kerala has been projected as a water ‘surplus’ state by the Government
and water resources development departments both at the State and
Central Government level, - all these years. In fact starting from the
British era, one of the first Inter State Inter Basin river water transfer in
India- The Periyar Project-has taken place in Kerala-a testimony to this
projection. The impression of abundance was allowed to grow without
understanding the actual changes occurring to the catchments of these
rivers that later paved the way towards more such inter state river water
transfers from Kerala influenced by political pressure. The Siruvani Drinking
Water Agreement, the famous Parambikulam-Aliyar Inter State Inter Basin
water transfers Agreement etc. followed later on. In all the cases Tamil
Nadu is the recipient ‘deficit’ state and Kerala is the ‘surplus’ donor
basin state.
Perhaps the forest clad Western Ghats which give birth to the rivers of
Kerala coupled with the heavy rainfall of more than 3000 mm per annum
and the presence of numerous ponds, open wells and valley swamps
created by the peculiar geography and climate of Kerala gave this
impression of abundance. Not any more. Over years, the annually recurring
X
2
Introduction
droughts, the plunging reservoir levels in the various hydro- electric and
irrigation projects, the lowering water table, reduced stream flows of all
the rivers, saline ingress etc. have brought about a shift in this myth of
surplus. The changes in monsoon patterns have added to the scenario of
recurring drought. The burgeoning need for water with the increase in
consumers and consumption per person along with the changes in land
use, shift to intensive irrigation requiring crops, change in agricultural
practises, massive reclamation of rice fields, heavy and indiscriminate
sand mining from the rivers, etc. has further accentuated the circumstances
leading to drought.
Though the myth of surplus has been shattered, the underlying so far
unaddressed aspects that emerge are what is the basis for the classification
of some river basins as surplus and some as deficit based on which such
river diversions have been decided and carried out? River diversions are
visualized and planned based on the assumption that those rivers that
carry surplus water are going waste into the sea and that water can be
stored for human use in reservoirs or diverted into deficit river basins.
The raging debate over inter linking of rivers is also based on the very
same concept. Were the so-called ‘deficit’ basins naturally so? How did
they reach the status of ‘deficit’? What are the different factors that
decide how much water a river basin can carry? Can a river be ever
classified as ‘surplus’ or ‘deficit’? Finally, do rivers actually flow waste to
the sea?
Apart from this, several issues like the equitability of apportioning water,
the riparian rights, resource use by the recipient state, the social,
environmental and economic impacts of diversion, the impact on the
river itself, the various political and social undercurrents involved and the
implications for future water resources development are to be analysed
for a comprehensive understanding of the situation. Whether such inter
state and inter basin water diversions are the best options available,
whether such diversions really improve or decrease the water use efficiency,
whether these diversions actually solve water problems or create new
problems for the society and the river basin that gives water in the form
of unending disputes, ecological and social problems etc. are questions
to which answers will be sought through this study.
X3
Tragedy of Commons
The famous Parambikulam Aliyar Project (PAP) is considered as one of
the best models of Inter State Cooperation in water sharing in India. In
fact the Task Force on River Linking has cited the success of PAP along
with the historic Periyar Project (The Mullaperiyar Project) as examples
of successful inter linking projects. It is a well-known fact that state
boundaries often do not follow river basin boundaries. Hence inter state
or inter national river water sharing and diversions is always bound to
lead to disputes. The objective here is not to analyse the inter state disputes
over such treaties. It has been attempted in many forums and even books
have been written on that. Rather an in depth analysis of the
Parambikulam-Aliyar Project in terms of its background and history,
various socio-political dimensions involved, the type of river diversions in
the project, the inherent flaws in the Agreement, the impacts of diversion
on the two states and the river basins involved and the wider implications
is attempted. It is also intended here to try to understand the changes
that take place at river basin levels due to such diversions, the far-reaching
impacts and the lessons learnt.
An attempt has also been made to address other river diversions involving
Kerala rivers like the Mullaperiyar and Siruvani projects. A brief overview
and analysis of the proposed Inter Linking of Rivers project along with
the proposed Peninsular link involving Kerala viz, the Pamba Achankoil
Vaippar link is also carried out. It is hoped that the lessons learnt from
the existing river links involving Kerala can be used as an eye opener for
a better understanding of the wider and deeper ramifications involved in
the proposals to transfer water from ‘surplus’ to ‘deficit’ river basins as in
Inter Linking of Rivers Project.
X
4
Addressing River Water
Diversions
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Diverting rivers seems an easy and simple solution to solve all our water
related problems if one views it from an engineering point of view. What
is a river? Is it a mere drainage channel that carries water to the sea?
Perhaps the fundamentals of river water diversion have to be addressed
by trying to answer these simple but profound questions.
What is a river?
A river is one of the most dynamic and beautiful waterscapes on the
earth, which connects all the different ecosystems and lives, and
livelihoods in a never-ending cycle of energy transfer and flow.
A river is much more than mere water flowing and wasted into the sea,
as many believe.
Landscape writes a river’s course. Gravity decides the downward flow.
The valleys and mountains, the slope and gradient, the soil, in turn
designs the flow. The rains or snowmelt nourishes and maintains the
flow.
One can either have several entries into the magic, into the mystery, into
the enigma, into the dynamic entity that is a river or else one can just
describe it directly. Enter the rainforests of the western side of the Western
Ghats; one can start from the rain falling on the rich humus on the
tropical shola and rainforest floor - every leaf, tree trunk, lianas, the
moss and the lichen, the forest floor and the thin but humus rich top
soil, along with millions of creatures, big and small, the canopy of the
forest, the slope of the hills, the rock type, the shape of the trees and
their architecture among the thousands of interrelated integral components
receive the rains, decide how much water will percolate, be stored and
be allowed to flow through a hill slope when rain falls- thousands of
such hill streams, their downward flow designed by the gradient of the
X 5
Tragedy of Commons
land and its forest cover, merge to form tributaries and many such
tributaries merge to form the river. In other words, every forested hill
slope has the potential to create a perennial stream.
The river flows down along the line of maximum gradient. Water flowing
downward sketches and etches the landscape through which it flows.
Water- rain, mist and dew – dissolves, transports and deposits, chips,
scrapes and chisels, corrodes, erodes and erases, sieves and shifts,
compacts all substances within its reach, whether lover of water or a
hater, keeping the distance. Running water picks up grains of sand and
silt in this dance forward, this in turn increases its mass and slows down
the flow. As it slows down, the river leaves behind ‘sediments’. If too
much of sediment is shed, then it speeds up again, and the entire sequence
is repeated. This process of balancing energy, discharge, sediment load,
and gradient operates all along the course to the sea. And it is the effects
of these that we see as erosion or deposition all along the river’s profile.
These are the processes that cause problems of eroding banks and flooded
back swamps and siltation. But they are inseparable components of river
behaviour and have produced scenic valleys, fertile alluvial plains and
deltas.32
Rivers carry downhill not only water but also sediments, dissolved minerals
and nutrient rich detritus of plants and animals, both dead and alive.
The ever- shifting beds and banks and the groundwater below are all their
integral parts. By soaking the rain like a wet sponge, ‘communities’ of
plants manage to staunch some rain, encouraging it to seep through
crevices into underground aquifers. From here, it continues to flow
downstream; even long after monsoon is over. It is these aquifers that
supply our wells and feed our rivers.29
The diversity of a river lies not only in the variety of terrain it flows through.
Seasonal and annual variations in the quantity of water, sediment and
nutrients drained by a watershed can be substantial, especially in dry
areas where most of a year’s rain may fall in just a few individual storms.
All land is part of a watershed or river basin and the water, which flows
over it and through it, shapes all land. The characteristic of a watershed
is decided by the flow of the stream or river. Conversely, flowing water is
capable of changing the characteristics of a watershed over years. The
X6
Addressing River Water Diversions
diversity of the river basins or their watersheds has in turn moulded the
diverse culture of human populations who have adapted to the peculiar
characteristics of the river basins to which they belong knowingly or
unknowingly.
Human communities have learnt to thrive all along the journey of a
flowing river, adapting themselves to the rhythms of the diversity of
ecosystems within the river basin like forests, riparian ecosystems,
backwater ecosystems, wetlands, flood plains, mangrove ecosystems etc.
Over centuries, there has been a gradual shift in the way different human
communities view their rivers. We have at one extreme, tribal cultures
that still consider river as goddess or the giver of life. For them a river
personifies more than a source of livelihood. At the other extreme we
have the river being viewed as a service by engineers and bureaucrats
who tame the rivers for development of an anthropocentric society; in
other words, the maximum dams and diversions that can be built to
utilise river waters for human benefit alone. We also have the industrial
and sand mining lobbies and agencies that view the river as a commodity
that can be extracted indefinitely. We have also reached the stage wherein
river waters are increasingly viewed as a private property that can be
sold rather than a common resource to the extent of virtual water trade.
Rivers have also been routes for inland navigation and trade through
civilisations. Towns and cities have also been using (and misusing) rivers
to discharge their wastes. The major cities of the world have evolved and
developed along riverbanks. Parallel to this, misuse, mismanagement,
over extraction and alteration of the river basins through human
interventions for various reasons over centuries has led to flowing rivers
losing their dynamic quality and character. Many rivers all over the world
have been either fragmented, lost their way to the sea, stopped flowing
or simply disappeared into the depths.
What’s happening to our rivers?
Fresh water environments are deeply vulnerable to mankind’s exploitation,
with the world’s rivers and wetlands heading for calamitous and permanent
ecological degradation. Diminished flow in river deltas and estuaries is a
singular phenomenon in almost all the major rivers in the world. And the
reasons are many.
X 7
Tragedy of Commons
Most of the larger rivers like the Nile, the Ganges, the Amu Dar’ya and
Syr Dar’ye, the Huang He are each now so dammed, diverted or over
tapped that for parts of the year, little or none of their fresh water reaches
the sea. Worldwide, dams collectively store on the order of 6000 cu. km.
of water- equal to 15 per cent of the earth’s annual renewable water
supply. Thousands of kilometres of diversion canals siphon water out of
rivers and reservoirs and deliver it to where and when needed to expanding
cities and farming regions. Many rivers now resemble elaborate plumbing
works, with the timing and amount of flow completely controlled by
planners and engineers so as to maximize the river’s benefit to human
activity.30
Heavy deforestation of the river catchments through human interventions
along with the pressure of rising populations on water resources, increasing
water pollution, heavy sand mining, human encroachments into flood
plains, rapid urbanisation, tourism, polluting industries and dumping of
waste, are among the other important growing threats to the ecological
integrity of the world’s rivers. Dams are the main physical threat,
fragmenting and transforming rivers. Dams have been built across the
world’s rivers since thousands of years.
The last century witnessed the largest dam building activity. To date we
have more than 45,000 large dams over most of the major rivers of the
world. By building more than 4000 large dams, India is the third largest
dam builder on earth after China and the USA. At present India tops
the list of countries for dams under construction. As per the World
Commission on Dams findings the most important impact of dams is
the physical transformation of rivers. World Resources Institute estimates
that atleast one large dam modifies 46 per cent of world’s 106 primary
watersheds.45
The damming of rivers has brought a profound change to watersheds.
A wild river is dynamic, forever changing- eroding its bed, depositing silt,
seeking a new course, bursting its banks, drying up. It is the most active
element in a landscape, being the dominant factor shaping the landforms
and livelihoods. The domain of a river is effectively the same as its
catchment and any engineering changes in the regime affect the whole
catchment. A dam is static- it tries to bring a river under control, to
X
8
Addressing River Water Diversions
regulate its seasonal pattern of floods and low flows.24 Increasing salt
water ingress in the downstream areas due to reduced downstream flow,
the degradation of flood plains, the erosion of species diversity in the
river, estuary and deltaic systems due to reduced freshwater flow, the
reduction in nutrient flow into the sea etc. can be traced to the impact
of dams and other interventions in the upstream.
Studies world over show the disastrous impacts of blocking fresh water
flows into the sea. In Pakistan and India, diversions on the mighty Indus
river and its tributaries have reduced water outflows into the Arabian
sea by 80 per cent, destroying deltaic mangroves, which once stretched
over 2,50,000 ha and were spawning grounds for coastal and mangrove
fisheries. Dams in the US have reduced the sediment outflow along the
Californian coast by four fifths, destroying beaches, causing cliff collapses
and resulting in damage worth millions of dollars. Drying up of the mighty
Aral Sea in the erstwhile Soviet Union is a classic instance of what
tampering with rivers that drained into it has done to the sea and its
ecosystem. Already, the Yalu and Colorado rivers do not reach the ocean.
Only ten per cent of the Nile River reaches the Mediterranean.38 In the so
called ‘water surplus’ state of Kerala, the construction of so many dams
across the small rivers has resulted in increasing saline ingress upstream
over years due to the drastic reduction in the summer flow. Addressing
river water diversions also means trying to assess the ecological functions
of a river system that humans can never substitute by any ‘technology’
as the examples indicate.
The evolutionary purpose of a flowing river, that includes delivering
nutrients to the sea, with their complex food webs; sustaining
economically and culturally important fisheries; protecting wetlands, with
their capacity to filter out pollutants; providing habitat for a rich diversity
of aquatic life; safeguarding fertile deltas; protecting water quality;
maintaining salt and sediment balances; and offering some of the most
inspirational beauty of the planet seems to have been almost always
overlooked.30 The upstream downstream linkages of a river are also always
ignored. Probably, it will be too late when we as a race realize that a
river has to flow in its natural course for our own survival.
X9
Tragedy of Commons Addressing River Water Diversions

What are the issues to be addressed? The present dependence on the river basin is an important aspect often
overlooked while deciding that water from that river can be diverted to
Against the above backdrop of the need for a holistic understanding of
another. In other words, the quantum of water that is already used for
river systems, addressing river water diversions becomes a challenging
various needs by the downstream population, the minimum stream flow
task. Challenging because, on one side, it raises the larger question of a
required for the river to perform its ecological functions etc. When rivers
need for a mind shift in the perception about our rivers and their functions.
course their way through forests, cultivated and settled lands, they carry
On the other side, it demands an honest assessment of the complex
and deposit huge amounts of silt. They also gather more and more water
issues involved in river diversions. What has not been looked into so far
through the many tributaries finally discharging enormous quantities of
in the existing river diversions? What is the actual gain and actual loss in
fresh water into the deltas and river mouths. In doing so, they perform
these negotiations over water? Some of the important issues are discussed
atleast three critical functions: deposition of silt and sediments along the
here.
course, and finally in very large quantities into the river mouth and coastal
Accurate and adequate database on the hydrology of the river basin is or marine areas beyond the river mouth. The silt helps to form the coast,
the minimum prerequisite to plan any water resource project. Do we stave off sea coast-induced erosion, strengthen riverbanks, and enrich
have an accurate hydrological database of the river basins in India? The the water with nutrients critical for coastal life survival; continuous pushing
answer would be a big no! Most often, past experiences indicate that the out of the sea, which would otherwise invade deep into the land; infusion
hydrological database has been created to fit in the already planned of freshwater into the saline waters of the coast, helping to maintain a
and designed projects. The database is usually a far cry from the actual delicate balance of pH and other factors that are critical for marine
field level situations. The hydrological changes and factors influencing life.38 On the other side, an assessment of whether the existing water use
hydrology are never taken into consideration while planning and designing in the so called deficit river basin is judicious and optimum and not
a project. Since there are no actual or accurate data available, clearances wasteful or Polluting is seldom attempted while planning river diversions.
for many hydro or irrigation projects in the country are granted on the
Are river diversions decided more on the basis of a hidden political agenda
basis of false or fabricated database. The case of the Sardar Sarovar
than on the actual need of the receiving state? It is a well-known fact
Project across the river Narmada and the proposed Athirappilly Hydro
that assured water supply is the basis for assured votes in many states.
electric project in Chalakudy River in Kerala are classic examples of the
So making water available by any means often becomes the means for
same. In the case of Narmada, it was revealed after several years that
gaining political leverage. While so much hue and cry is raised by the so
the actual flow in the river is atleast 27 percent less than what was
called water deficit states, there is seldom any political attempt to make
projected. As for the proposed Athirappilly HEP, the project authorities
a realistic assessment of the existing local and regional water resources
fabricated the entire data base to show that sufficient water is available
that can be developed, utilized or managed more efficiently. There is no
for the project that is planned after six dams upstream out of which four
honest attempt to assess why and how these states have attained such a
are inter state and inter basin diversions. The reduction in flow after
dismal status of water scarcity. Given the increasing ecological degradation
diversion is not reflected in the database. To top it all, maximum stream
of the catchments that give birth to the rivers, will the diversions made
flow has been recorded in 1987-88 a drought year in India! Hence the
possible by such massive investments serve any purpose? In other words
larger issue that arises in this context is whether the inferences on ‘surplus’
is any attempt made to link up the degradation with the change in the
and ‘deficit’ river basins can be accepted based on such data base
hydrological regime? Existing river diversions and their performance may
provided by the authorities?
serve as an indicator to this change.

X
10
X11
Tragedy of Commons Addressing River Water Diversions
Any Inter basin transfer has associated with it three classes of costs.
individual riparian owners is the same as in England. But this doctrine
These include the direct construction costs, operating and maintenance
does not apply in the allocation of waters of an inter state river between
costs and the opportunity costs of both land involved at the project site
the different coriparian states. Under the Constitution of India also, a
or sites and the water in the area of origin, and the external costs imposed
coriparian state is not free to develop an inter state river regardless of
on parties removed from the project site. External costs may stem from
the injury to the other coriparian states. Though the Parliament has
water quality degradation, or they may take the form of a loss of income
provided the adjudicatory machinery in the Inter State Water Disputes
to immobile resources in regions, which ‘lose out’ competitively to those
Act, the statute is silent as to the principles to be followed in the settlement
receiving new water. Such methods of applying forward and backward
of inter state water disputes.17
linkages of water related activities are never estimated while planning
the cost of huge river water transfers. Many a times a river development project by one riparian state on an
interstate river may submerge the territory of another riparian state. So
The costs of irrigation or hydropower projects are mostly estimated based
it is reasonable that the state that uses the territory of another state for
on the direct cost of construction, operation and maintenance alone.
storage purposes pays compensation to the latter. Many international
The benefits are estimated based on either the area and production
treaties carry provisions for payment of compensation in such cases.
increase due to irrigation or the hydropower generated from the projects.
The treaty concluded in 1964 between the USA and Canada over
Irrigation water and hydropower cost being subsidized in the Indian
Columbia River, provides for payment of compensation to Canada.
scenario, the actual cost benefit estimation becomes further skewed.
Initially the USA did not want to pay compensation beyond the value of
Hence while addressing gigantic water transfers like the Inter Linking of
land and cost of resettling people dislocated owing to submergence of
Rivers as planned in India, the estimation of the ‘actual costs’ of water
Canadian land. However Canada insisted on the sharing of downstream
lost to the livelihoods of downstream areas of the links and the ‘actual
benefits and the principle of compensation was embodied in the treaty.
benefits’ remain to be visualized let alone worked out. The cost of
In India, the principle is well accepted that the coriparian state, whose
displacement of communities and livelihoods due to the dams and
river project floods the area of another coriparian state, should pay
diversion structures, reservoirs and canals is another aspect that goes
compensation to the latter. In addition to the monetary compensation
unaccounted for in the real cost of river diversions.
for the acquisition of land required for the project, and resettlement of
Another serious issue that arises in the case of Inter state or Inter basin oustees, certain benefits by way of irrigation or power maybe given to
diversions is whether a river/tributary can be completely diverted from the state whose lands are submerged by the river project. For instance,
the point of diversion without allowing a minimum flow below the point the construction of the Bajaj Sagar dam by Rajasthan and Gujarat on
of diversion? Or whether a river can be diverted into another river basin the Mahe River, in the territory of Rajasthan would flood some areas in
without ensuring minimum flow to fulfill the downstream needs? There Madhya Pradesh. Therefore it was agreed that Madhya Pradesh should
are several doctrines in relation to the rights of coriparians to use the be compensated by giving it a share of project benefits.6
waters of an inter state river. As per the doctrine of riparian rights, each
To what extent are these issues addressed and the various rights honored
coriparian has the right to have waters flow pass his lands undiminished
in the various cases of existing river water diversions involving Kerala?
in quantity and unimpaired in quality. In practice this amounts to denial
The ensuing analyses and discussions are intended to throw light on
of right to divert streams beyond the riparian lands or to consume water
such issues as well.
beyond the natural uses of human requirements and domestic needs.
Strict natural flow theory of riparian rights is followed in England with
regard to private proprietary rights of water. Law in India as between
X
12
X13
Tragedy of Commons
Tragedy of Commons
! the rivers, urban and industrial pollution has taken its toll as well. Rivers
Kerala Experience
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
“It is often stated that surplus water is available in Kerala
and this can be diverted to prevent water from joining
the sea and to feed the scarcity areas in Tamil Nadu. In
view of the fact that the rivers are very small and required
by Kerala, diversion is not possible.”
K.L. Rao, 198427
The State of Kerala is endowed with 44 short rivers originating from the
Western Ghats, out of which 41 flow to the west to drain into the
Lakshadweep Sea. Out of the total area of 38,600 sq.km, atleast 20,000
sq.km falls within the Western Ghats. The State receives highly intense
seasonal rainfall of more than 3000 mm, from the southwest (June –
September) and northeast (October - December) monsoons. Karnataka
and Tamil Nadu share the border in the east and Lakshadweep Sea in
the west. Three rivers viz. Bhavani, Kabani and Pambar flowing towards
the east form the tributaries of Cauvery River that finally drains into the
Bay of Bengal. All the 44 rivers were once perennial and sustained
livelihoods and agriculture in the midlands and plains. “The rivers of
Kerala are infact cradle of life, and 92.9 per cent of its population depends
on the rivers for its existence. About 11.5 per cent of Kerala’s labour is
employed in river navigation activities and river exploiting enterprises,
and 46.5 per cent of inland goods movement is through its rivers and
interconnected backwaters and canals which also account for 42.26 per
cent of the state’s total transport facilities and 97.34 per cent of Keralites
are fish eaters who get 37.7 per cent of their supplies from their
rivers”(Times of India, 1962).
The upper catchments of all these rivers, the Western Ghats has been
subjected to massive deforestation over the past one hundred and fifty
years in the name of industrial and agricultural plantations, dams, human
X
16
Kerala Experience
encroachments etc. In the downstream areas, massive sand mining in
like Bharathapuzha are breathing their last and Periyar, Pamba,
Chalakudypuzha etc. are following suit.
The history of dams in Kerala began with the Mullaperiyar dam in the
Periyar commissioned in 1895.This dam constructed by the erstwhile
Madras State in Travancore State diverts the west flowing river to the
east. The first dam in the State before state formation was Kundala
dam again in Periyar as a part of Pallivassal HEP built in the 1940’s.
The first irrigation project in the Kerala State, the Peechi Irrigation Project,
was built in the 1950’s in the tributary of the Karuvannur River. Since
50 years of independence, Kerala has already built about 60 large and
medium dams for irrigation and electricity concentrated on just 10 rivers
of the State. The four rivers namely, Periyar, Bharathapuzha,
Chalakudypuzha and Pamba have the maximum number of dams built
across them. The first three rivers are already part of Inter state- Inter
basin water transfer treaties. Presently, plans to divert the Pamba and
Achankoil Rivers are also afoot as a part of the Peninsular Link.
Kerala also has a long history in endeavors to transfer water from one
river basin to another for irrigation, power generation and drinking water.
One of the earliest instances of inter-basin transfers in the peninsular
region was from the upper reaches of the Periyar to another river basin
in Tamil Nadu across the Western Ghats. This was made possible by
constructing a dam on the Mullaperiyar River the tributary of Periyar
(The Periyar Project) more than a century ago. Two other major projects
that stand out in Kerala are the Parambikulam- Aliyar Project and the
Siruvani Drinking Water Project. The Parambikulam-Aliyar Project diverts
water from the upper reaches of the three major west flowing rivers-
Periyar, Chalakudypuzha and Bharathapuzha to the eastern state of
Tamil Nadu. The Siruvani Drinking Water Scheme in the Bhavani basin
diverts water from the upper reaches of the Siruvani River (tributary) in
the Bhavani basin to meet the drinking water needs of Coimbatore district
in Tamil Nadu. Water from Neyyar reservoir in South Kerala is utilised
by Tamil Nadu for irrigating parts of Kanyakumari District without any
formal agreements. Upper Bhavani, East and West Varahappallam in
the Bhavani River were also diverted to Tamil Nadu minus any agreement.
X17
Tragedy of Commons
If one briefly glances through the current status of all the three existing
Agreements involving river diversions in Kerala, viz; Mullaperiyar,
Parambikulam Aliyar and Siruvani, it is revealed that there has been
consistent demand for increase of the quantum of water diverted in all
the cases. There has also been consistent increase in either the ayacut or
drinking water needs of the state receiving the water. There has been
significant shifts in the cropping pattern in the ayacut of the receiving
state after the river diversions came into existence. Similarly the diversity
of water use has multiplied resulting in conflicts between new and old
consumers. The conflicts between the water giver and receiver state has
also been erupting time and again especially during summer and drought.
Drought has in turn become a recurrent phenomenon in both the states.
The disagreement over the allocation or release of due share of water to
the donor state to meet its riparian rights has become another burning
issue of contention in two of these cases. New schemes are being planned
for river valley development and to meet the ever-increasing demand for
irrigation and drinking water needs on both sides that will put further
pressure on water. In a nutshell, the above scenario presents the multitudes
of conflicts that are released as from a Pandora’s box once a river is
diverted. Conflicts within conflicts and conflicts leading to further conflicts
over water sharing and allocation assumes the nature of a never ending
political and legal imbroglio that neither is easy to solve nor intended to
be solved easily.
Three direct experiences of Kerala are presented here. Out of these an
indepth analysis of the Parambikulam Aliyar Project is carried out
explicitly because it is one of the most complex and complicated river
water diversions in India involving eight tributaries of three west flowing
peninsular rivers. The Mullaperiyar and Siruvani river diversion experiences
are also presented followed by Neyyar diversion to Tamil Nadu (with out
a formal agrement) and the proposed Pandiyar - Punnampuzha diversions
both tributaries of Chaliyar River.
X
18
Kerala Experience
 Parambikulam- Aliyar Project:
An Analysis
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
The Parambikulam - Aliyar Project (PAP), which is often wrongly quoted
by many as a shining example of inter state co-operation in river water
sharing, is a multi basin inter-state project. Three important west flowing
rivers in the peninsula, the Periyar, the Bharathapuzha and the
Chalakudypuzha are involved in this project. Water from Nirar- tributary
of Periyar, the Sholayar, Parambikulam Aar, Thunacadavu Aar and
Peruvarippallam Aar- tributaries of Chalakudypuzha, and Aliyar and
Palar- tributaries of Bharathapuzha are diverted in the Parambikulam -
Aliyar Project. Series of dams and related structures were constructed
across these three rivers. The project was conceived by the Government
of Tamil Nadu for it’s benefit and proposed to the state of Kerala. Even
though the project was, is and will be mainly to serve the interests of
Tamil Nadu, documents and official literature on the project claims this
to be mutually beneficial. One has to look at only a single aspect to find
out that this was not in the interest of the lower riparian state; Kerala.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, the upper riparian state does not have
basin needs in Periyar and Chalakudypuzha and they could have utilised
the water from these basins by trans-basin diversion only and the most
viable route for the same was through Kerala territories, whereas Kerala
already was utilising water from these rivers and had scope for further
utilisation. In this context if Kerala had refused permission for the project
and opted for apportioning of water in each basin separately, the state
would have gained more. But this was not to be and Kerala, it is said,
was forced to give its consent to the project. Before entering into the
details of the project, a brief overview of the river basins involved will
assist in better understanding. As already stated, the Parambikulam-
Aliyar project involves three river basins namely, Periyar, Chalakudypuzha
and the Bharathapuzha.
X19
Tragedy of Commons
Periyar River
Periyar River originating from the Sivagiri Hills of Tamil Nadu is the
longest river in Kerala. The total catchment of the river is 5398 sq.km
out of which 114-sq.km lies in Tamil Nadu. The river originates at an
elevation of about 1830 m above mean sea level (MSL) and traverses
through rock cliffs in a northerly direction. 5
The major tributaries of the river are: Mullayar, which joins the river at
an elevation of 854 m above MSL, Perumthurai Aar, Kattapanayar which
joins at an elevation of 640 m above MSL, Cheruthoni Aar, Chittar,
Perinjankutty Aar, Muthirapuzha, Thottiyar and Idamalayar. From
Bhoothathankettu the river flows through the plains along the historically
famous Kalady, the birthplace of Sri.Shankaracharya upto Aluva, where
it bifurcates into Mangalampuzha and Marthandavarma branches. The
Mangalampuzha branch, flowing in a north westerly direction is joined
by the Chalakudypuzha at Elanthikkara and then flows together into the
Lakshadweep Sea at Azhikode, the famous fishing township. The other
branch taking a southerly direction flows through the Industrial Belt of
Eloor, one of the ‘Global Toxic Hotspots’.
As per the ‘Water Resources of Kerala’, (1974), the total utilisable yield
of Periyar is estimated at 8230 Mcum (290.6 tmc ft) out of which 226
Mcum (8 tmc ft) is from Tamil Nadu. Atleast 30 lakh people depend on
the Periyar for their daily needs. Kochi, the largest metropolitan in Kerala,
almost entirely depends on this river for its water requirement. The Periyar
River has a total of 17 dams built across its various tributaries and the
main river in its 244 km long and precipitous journey to the Lakshadweep
Sea. The Mullaperiyar Project, one of the oldest Inter State River Water
Diversion Project in India is situated in this river basin. The largest Hydro
Electric Project (HEP) in Kerala the Idukki HEP with 780 MW installed
capacity, is situated downstream of Mullaperiyar project. The Eloor
industrial belt contains atleast 240 odd large and small industries that
directly depend on the river. Forming numerous deltas, the river finally
drains into the Vembanad Lake.
Massive deforestation for agricultural plantations in the High Ranges
starting from the British regime, dams across almost all the major
X
20
Kerala Experience
tributaries, heavy sand mining in midlands and pollution from industries
has severely reduced the river flow and quality.
Nirar, a tributary of Periyar is involved in the PAP Treaty. It flows through
the northeastern catchment of the river basin through Kallar Estate and
joins Idamalayar, a major tributary of Periyar. The Idamalayar River has
a multipurpose dam with 75 MW generation capacity and has an irrigation
component. Water from the Upper Nirar Weir and Lower Nirar dam of
the Nirar is diverted towards north into the Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam in
the Chalakudypuzha basin. (Map 1)
Chalakudypuzha
The 144 km long Chalakudypuzha, the fifth largest river in Kerala, having
a catchment area of 1704 sq.km flows north of Periyar. The major
tributaries of the river include the Kuriarkutty Aar originating from the
Chamannampathy hills, which has two sub-tributaries namely Veetiaar
and Thekkadiaar. South of Kuriarkutty valley is the Parambikulam plateau
located at an elevation of about 500m MSL. The Parambikulam Aar
(rivulet), Thunacadavu Aar and Peruvarippallam Aar originate from the
Parambikulam Plateau. The Sholayar River, one of the main tributaries
originating from the Anamalai Hills in the east joins the Parambikulam
Aar about two kms upstream of Orukombankooty. The Karappara River
originating from the Nelliampathy hills at an elevation of about 1400 m
MSL, in the northern part of the catchment, joins the main river at
Orukombankooty. From here the river is known as Chalakudypuzha. Out
of the total catchment of 1704 sq.km, 300-sq.km lies in Tamil Nadu.
Total utilisable yield of the river basin is estimated at 2033 Mcum (71.8
tmc ft) out of which 494Mcum (17.4 tmc ft) is expected from Tamil Nadu
(Water Resources of Kerala, 1974).
Chalakudypuzha is famous for its rich fish diversity; atleast 104 fish species
have been located from this river. The National Bureau of Fish Genetic
Resources has recommended the upstream areas of the river to be declared
as a fish sanctuary. The beautiful waterfalls at Vazhachal and Athirappilly
make this river a major tourist attraction.
Five dams constructed in this river namely Parambikulam, Thunacadavu,
Peruvarippallam, Tamil Nadu Sholayar and Kerala Sholayar are part of
X21
Tragedy of Commons
the Parambikulm Aliyar Project. Except for Kerala Sholayar dam, Tamil
Nadu owns all the others. The Poringalkuthu Hydro Electric Project the
second HEP in the State commissioned in 1957 and the Chalakudy
River Diversion Scheme (CRDS) both situated in the main
Chalakudypuzha were in operation even before the work on PAP began.
A population of about 10 lakh directly depend on the river for various
uses. Inter basin water transfers, degradation of the catchment, dams,
heavy sand mining, and saline ingress are taking their toll on the river.
Bharathapuzha
Bharathapuzha, originating from the Anamalai hills at an elevation of
1964 m MSL. is the largest river in Kerala with respect to catchment
area. The major tributaries of this river are Chitturpuzha, Gayathripuzha,
Kalpathypuzha and Thoothapuzha. The Chitturpuzha also called
Kannadipuzha originates from the eastern slopes of the Western Ghats
in Tamil Nadu; the Aliyar, Uppar and Palar being its sub tributaries.
Kalpathypuzha is formed by the confluence of four sub tributaries namely
Korayar, Varattayar, Walayar and Malampuzha. Thoothapuzha is formed
by the confluence of Kunthi- originating from the famous Silent Valley
National Park, the Kanjirapuzha and the Thuppanadupuzha. This joins
the main river at Pallipuram. From Pallipuram, Bharathapuzha flows
west draining into the Lakshadweep Sea at Ponnani.
The river has a total catchment area of 6186 sq.km, out of which 1786
sq.km lies in Tamil Nadu. The total length of the river is 209 km, second
longest after Periyar. The total annual utilisable yield of the river is
estimated as 4146 Mcum (146.4 tmc ft) out of which 797 Mcum (28
tmc ft) is expected from Tamil Nadu.18 Two streams the Palar and Aliyar
are involved in the Parambikulam Aliyar Project. All the major tributaries
of Bharathapuzha River have been dammed for irrigation purposes since
1950s. Human interference has depleted the river so much that
Bharathapuzha, once the cultural abode of the State is considered a
dead river.
History of the Project
The actual situations that led to Inter state or Inter basin water transfers
are often buried by the time the issue assumes the nature of a dispute.
X
22
Kerala Experience
Often, searching for immediate and immature solutions, which does not
resolve the core issue or may actually aggravate the conflict becomes
the only objective of the respective authorities involved, mainly due to
political compulsions.
The history of Parambikulam-Aliyar Project (PAP) dates back to 1921
when Sri. R.N. Arogyaswami Mudaliar, an engineer of Madras P.W.D,
envisaged the diversion of waters of Chalakudypuzha. But his proposal
did not receive any attention at that time. Later the farmers of
Vettaikkaranpudur and Anamalai villages in Coimbatore district pressed
for diversion of east flowing rivers to irrigate dry lands in the Coimbatore
plains. Based on the representation of the farmers of Pollachi Taluk, this
scheme was revived in 1947. The first feasibility report was prepared in
1952 by the then Chief Engineer, Irrigation of Madras State. In June
1955, Sri. U.Ananda Rao the then Chief Engineer, irrigation of Madras
State, submitted the report for the inter-basin multipurpose scheme to the
Government of Madras. That report contained storage and diversion
proposals for the Parambikulam group of rivers and Aliyar and Palar only.
Nirar and Sholayar were later added to the scheme. The proposal was
later submitted to the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin Government in 1955
for it’s approval. The two governments held talks on the issue on several
occasions at the instance of the Central Water and Power Commission
and Union Planning Commission. In 1958, the ministry of Kerala headed
by Sri. E.M.S. Namboothiripad finally agreed to the implementation of
the PAP and the first agreement between the states on the project was
signed on 9th November 1958. The work on the project started immediately
afterwards. Supplementary agreements on the project were signed on 4th
July 1960 and 10th May, 1969. A Comprehensive Agreement with
retrospective from 9th November 1958 was signed on 29th May 1970 between
the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments with a provision for review once
in every 30 years.
The work on the project started with the Parambikulam dam, the
foundation stone to which was laid by Sri. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime
Minister of India. The Aliyar dam was the first to be completed in 1962.
The Thunacadavu dam was completed in 1965 and Parambikulam in
1967. The Kerala Sholayar was commissioned during 1966 followed by
X23
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
both the Tamil Nadu Sholayar and Peruvarippallam in 1971. Other dams/ after all these years, there has neither been a consensus or single opinion
weirs were commissioned subsequently. among the different political parties in Kerala on the need to demand
the rightful allocation from the PAP treaty. On the contrary, the consensus
The proposal for PAP had initially met with stiff resistance from various
has been very strong on the Tamil Nadu side.
quarters in the state of Kerala. But the political climate in the country
was such that the voice of the state or its predecessor, the Travancore- The Project
Cochin state were not heard at the highest decision making bodies.
The Parambikulam Aliyar Project includes ten dams, its reservoirs, tunnels
The President’s rule, imposed on 23rd March 1956 in Travancore-Cochin and canal systems to divert water from the tributaries of the west flowing
state had also helped the project, as discussion on the project were river basins viz. Periyar, Chalakudypuzha and Bharathapuzha to Tamil
continued by the administrators in the absence of an elected government. Nadu. Details of the structures involved in the project are given below.
On 1 st November 1956, linguistic state of Kerala came into existence
with the union of Travancore- Cochin and Malabar. The first government
Periyar Basin
of the new state took office in 1957. Incidentally, the government headed Two structures namely Upper Nirar Weir and Lower Nirar Dam were
by Sri E.M.Sankaran Namboothiripad was the first ever-elected constructed as part of the PAP agreement in the Nirar tributary.
communist government in the whole world. Even the formation of an
Upper Nirar Weir
elected government in the state did not change the scenario. The Congress
led Kamaraj government of Tamil Nadu had a very strong influence on Salient features of the weir is as follows
the centre whereas the E.M.S ministry, led by the communist party, was Basin : Periyar
never a favourite of the centre. (In fact the political difference was so Tributary : Nirar
strong that the centre ultimately dismissed the communist government District : Coimbatore
in 1959). The opposition to the project from politicians, media, officials Max. Height : 25.91m
etc was overcome; it seems by the pressure tactics adopted by the Central Length : 132.59 m
Government. The adhoc committee of Kerala legislature, in its report on Full Reservoir Level : 1158 m above MSL
PAP and Mullaperiyar says that the Central Government had made Catchment : 75.11 sq.km.
consent to the PAP a pre-condition for sanctioning many development Storage Capacity : 1.10 Mcum
projects of the state. Construction period : 1970 – 75
Tunnel to Tamil Nadu Sholayar
The Parambikulam Aliyar Project has been one of the most discussed
Length : 4.267 km
Inter basin transfers in Kerala both at the media and government level.
Diameter : 6.09 m
There is not a single ministry in the State that has not made statements
Carrying capacity : 73.6 m3/sec
or claims or promises over the revision of the Agreement, which was
long due since 1988. In fact the complexity of the PAP Agreement, its The Upper Nirar weir is intended to divert the water in the river to the
vagueness, its terms and conditions and the very complicated system of Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam through a tunnel. Two river sluices (1.52m x
water transfer itself makes it difficult to comprehend the issue at a 1.83 m each) are provided to let water into the river from October 1st to
layman’s level. Hence, unlike Mullaperiyar or Cauvery disputes, PAP January 31st. The catchment, 60 percent of which is in Kerala and the
never assumed the form of a dispute at the common citizen’s level. Even rest in Tamil Nadu, receives high rainfall of about 4500 mm on an average.

X
24
X25
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Lower Nirar Dam weir and Lower Nirar dam. Two
Salient features of the dam is as follows powerhouses, Power House I diverts water
Basin : Periyar to the Parambikulam dam and Power
Tributary : Nirar House II into the river to reach Kerala
District : Coimbatore Sholayar Dam. In the first agreement in
Max. Height : 50.29 m 1958, only a weir to divert 2.5 tmc ft of
Length : 188 m water was envisaged at Upper Sholayar.
Full Reservoir Level : 1021 m above MSL Subsequently this was changed into a storage reservoir in the supplementary
Catchment : 37.2 sq.km. agreement of 1960.
Storage Capacity : 7.8 Mcum Salient features
Construction period : 1974 - 82
Tunnel to Tamil Nadu Sholayar Basin : Chalakudypuzha
Length : 8 km Tributary : Sholayar
Diameter : 6.7 m District : Coimbatore
Carrying capacity : 62.29 m3/sec Max. Height : 105.16 m
Length : 899 m (Earth) & 345 m (Masonary)
The Lower Nirar dam was constructed at a distance of just 8 km below Full Reservoir Level : 1004 m above MSL
the Upper Nirar Weir. This dam receives water from the free catchment Storage : 152.70 Mcum
of 37.2 sq. km that lies in Tamil Nadu. Water received from the Upper Catchment Area : 121.72 sq.km
Nirar Weir (from October to January) has been allotted to Kerala from Construction Period : 1961 - 71
the Lower Nirar Dam through a river sluice (1.52m x1.83m). As per the Power
agreement, water from the free catchment of the Lower Nirar Dam is Power House I : 2 x 35 MW
diverted through a partially lined 8 km long tunnel to Tamil Nadu Sholayar Head : 409 m
Dam in the Chalakudypuzha Basin. Max. Discharge from PH1 : 2 x 10.62 m3/sec
Chalakudypuzha Basin Power House II : 1 x 25 MW
Head : 155.5 m
As part of the project, Tamil Nadu has constructed four dams across the Max. Discharge from PH2 : 20.59 m3/sec
four tributaries of the Chalakudypuzha. They are Tamil Nadu Sholayar
dam, Parambikulam, Thunacadavu and Peruvarippallam dams. The last Kerala Sholayar Dam
three dams have been built in Kerala by Tamil Nadu and are owned and This is the only structure constructed by Kerala as part of the project.
operated by them. The Kerala Sholayar dam, built and operated by The basic features of this dam is as below:
Kerala, is also a part of PAP.
Basin : Chalakudypuzha
Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam Tributary : Sholayar
District : Thrissur
The Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam (Upper Sholayar), the highest dam in
Max. Height : 57.6 m
Tamil Nadu at 105.16 m serves to store and divert water from the
Length : 396.24 m
catchment of the Sholayar river and the water diverted from Upper Nirar
X
26
X27
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Full Reservoir Level : 811.7 m above MSL Thunacadavu Dam
Storage : 153.60 MCum
Tamil Nadu takes its share of water
Catchment Area : 64.7 sq.km
from the Periyar and Chalakudypuzha
Construction Period : 1961 - 66
basins through Thunacadavu dam.
Power : 54 MW
Water is diverted through a 3.85 km
Head : 320 m
long 3.66 m diameter horseshoe
Maxi. Discharge : 3 x 7.5 m3/sec
tunnel to Sarkarpathy Power House
As per the agreement 12.3-tmc ft of water should be available for power (30 MW) situated in Tamil Nadu.
generation at specific periods each year in this reservoir. The water after Thunacadavu reservoir and the
power generation is released into Chalakudypuzha through Anakayam Sarkarpathy tunnel were inaugurated by Dr.K.L Rao on 12 th January
thodu a small stream joining the Chalakudypuzha at Anakayam. 1967.
Parambikulam Dam The details of this storage and balancing reservoir are as follows.
Parambikulam dam has the largest reservoir in the PAP system. The Basin : Chalakudypuzha
details are as below. Tributary : Thunacadavu Aar
District : Palakkad
Basin : Chalakudypuzha
Max. Height : 25.91m
Tributary : Parambikulam Aar
Length : Earth dam: 579.12 m & Masonry: 318.21m
District : Palakkad
Full Reservoir Level : 539.50 m above MSL
Max. Height : 73.15 m
Storage : 15.8 Mcum
Length : Earth dam: 579.12 m & Masonry: 318.21m
Catchment Area : 43.2 sq.km
Full Reservoir Level : 557.35 m above MSL
Construction Period : 1963-65
Storage : 504.66 Mcum
Catchment Area : 228.41 sq.km Peruvarippallam Dam
Construction Period : 1959-67
A 571 m long open channel connects
Other than water from its own catchment, water from Tamil Nadu Peruvarippallam and Thunacadavu
Sholayar along with water dams. This along with Thunacadavu
diverted from the Upper and dam functions as twin balancing
Lower Nirar reaches reservoirs. Peruvarippallam reservoir has
Parambikulam reservoir after no river outlet. The details are as below:
power generation at Power
Basin : Chalakudypuzha
House No.I. The water from
Tributary : Peruvarippallam Aar
Parambikulam reser voir is
District : Palakkad
diverted to Thunacadavu
Max. Height : 27.74 m
reservoir through a 2 km long
Length : 466.34 m
tunnel.
Full Reservoir Level : 539.50 m above MSL
X
28
X29
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Storage : 2.90 Mcum District : Coimbatore
Catchment Area : 15.8 sq.km ( Kerala) Installed Capacity : 30 MW
Construction Period : 1965-71 Head : 99.40 m
Discharge : 40 m3 /sec
The Parambikulam, Peruvarippallam and Thunacadavu dams, also
known as the Parambikulam group dams, are situated in Kerala though Aliyar Dam
constructed by Tamil Nadu and the land is still under the control of
The Aliyar dam situated in Tamil Nadu has the following basic features;
Tamil Nadu. While in the Tamil Nadu Government reports and records
the three dams lie in Coimbatore district!3 Basin : Bharathapuzha
Tributary : Aliyar
Contour Canal
District : Coimbatore
The contour canal in the PAP system Height : 44.04 m
is a unique one. This canal carries
Length : 3.2 km
water from Sarkarpathy Power House
Full Reservoir Level : 320 m MSL
to the Aliyar and Thirumoorthy
reservoirs. Provision is also made in Catchment Area : 164.4 sq. km.
this canal to feed Aliyar reservoir, if Maximum storage : 109.43 Mcum
necessary. This canal cuts the natural Construction Period : 1959 - 1962
drains all along its path to The Aliyar dam along with Thirumoorthy dam is central to the scheme
Thirumoorthy and diverts water from several streams including the waters of things as far as Tamil Nadu is concerned. Water from the Periyar and
of Nallar, a tributary of Palar to Thirumoorthy reservoir. Chalakudypuzha basins is diverted to these dams before they are used
Total Length : 49.3 km for irrigation in Tamil Nadu. The Aliyar dam was inaugurated by Sri. K.
Tunnel length : 9.45 km Kamaraj, then Chief Minister of Madras on 2nd October 1962. A part of
Open canal : 39.85 km water from the Periyar and Chalakudy basins are fed into the Aliyar
Bed width : 4.3 m dam from the contour canal through Aliyar feeder canal after power
Full supply depth : 3.4 m generation at Sarkarpathy. The
Discharge : 32.57 m3/sec natural flow in the river is also
stored here and let down to
Bharathapuzha Basin own ayacuts in the state of
Tamil Nadu and to Kerala
Three dams have been constructed as a part of the PAP treaty involving
(Chittur basin). While
the tributaries Aliyar and Palar. Water diverted from Periyar and
Vettaikkaranpudur canal and
Chalakudypuzha is let into the Bharathapuzha basin through Sarkarpathi
Pollachi canal take off from the
powerhouse.
Aliyar dam, the Sethumadai
Sarkarpathi Power House canal branches off from the
Aliyar feeder canal itself.
The basic details of the Sarkarpathy Power House are;

X
30
X31
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Upper Aliyar dam

capacity

36.858
(tmcft)
FRL1 Gross

0.039
0.274
5.392

17.82
0.557

3.864
0.937
1.935
5.42

0.62
This dam is located upstream of the Aliyar dam. This is intended for
electricity generation using the natural flow in the river before water is
let into the Aliyar dam. Salient features of the project is as follows.

The only reservoir owned and operated by Kerala in PAP

3800
3350
3290
2663
1825
1770
1770
1050
2490
1337
ft
River : Bharathapuzha

Table.1 Details of reservoirs/ weirs in the Parambikulam-Aliyar Project.

Tributary : Aliyar
District : Coimbatore

Height

105.16
25.91
50.29

73.15
25.91
27.74
44.04

34.14
57.6
Height : 81 m

81
m
Full Reservoir Level : 761 m above MSL
Storage : 33.19 Mcum.

compl-
State Year of
Catchment : 122.79 sq.km

etion

1975
1982
1971
1966
1967
1965
1971
1962
1971
1967
Installed capacity : 60 MW
Peak Head : 432 m

Kerala
Kerala
Kerala
Kerala
Max. discharge : 17 m3/sec

TN
TN
TN

TN
TN
TN
Thirumoorthy Dam
The dam receives water from it’s own catchment and water from the

Coimbatore
Coimbatore
Coimbatore

Coimbatore
Coimbatore
Coimbatore
Sarkarpathy powerhouse through the contour canal. The project was

Loc ation
(District)

Palakkad
Palakkad
Palakkad
inaugurated by Sri.C.Subramaniam, then Union minister for Food and

Thrissur
Agriculture on 12th January 1967. Water from this dam is used for feeding
Parambikulam main canal and the existing old ayacut in the Palar. Water
stored in this dam is used to irrigate 80,826 ha. ayacut ( as per Tamil

Chalakudypuzha

Chalakudypuzha
Chalakudypuzha
Chalakudypuzha

Chalakudypuzha

2
Nadu Govt. reports) in the Coimbatore and Erode districts of Tamil Nadu.

Bharathapuzha

Bharathapuzha
Bharathapuzha

              Total storage capacity

FRL – Full Reservoir Level

River Basin
Salient features of the Project include;

River : Bharathapuzha

Periyar
Periyar
Tributary : Palar
District : Coimbatore
Height : 34.14m

Tamil Nadu Sholayar

Length : 2.63 km
Full Reservoir Level : 408 m above MSL

Kerala Sholayar2

Peruvarippallam
Parambikulam
Catchment area : 80.29 sq.km.

Thirumoorthy
Thunacadavu

1
Upper Aliyar
Lower Nirar
Upper Nirar
Storage : 54.80 Mcum. Reservoir
Construction Period : 1962 - 67

Aliyar
X
32
X33
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Apart from the agreement there are more dams and diversion weirs in Water from the Upper Nirar and Lower Nirar are first brought to the
the upper reaches of the river Aliyar in Tamil Nadu. One of the main Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam, from where it is taken to the Parambikulam
dams in this is the Kadamparai dam. Vandal dam, Akkamalai and dam along with water from Tamil Nadu Sholayar’s own catchment. From
Deviyar weirs were constructed to divert water to the Kadamparai dam. Parambikulam, the diverted waters along with water from it’s own
The water diverted from the Akkamalai weir is supplied and used in the catchment are diverted to Thunacadavu dam. The Peruvaripallam dam
Valparai town in Tamil Nadu. is linked with the Thunacadavu dam through an open canal so that when
water is drawn from Thunacadavu, water from Pervuaripallam also flows
Kadamparai Dam into it. It is from Thunacadavu that Tamil Nadu diverts water from the
This project is designed as a pumped storage hydel project using reversible Periyar and Chalakudy basins into its territory first into the Sarkarpathy
pump turbine, which uses the waters of its own catchment, water stored powerhouse and from there through the contour canal and Aliyar feeder
in the Upper Aliyar and other diversions in the upper regions. The dam is canal into the Aliyar and Thirumoorthy dams. Water from the Periyar
and Chalakudy basins are taken to the Aliyar and Thirumoorthy dams
constructed in the Kadamparai Aar, a tributary of Aliyar. The powerhouse
along a circuitous route. Water is released to Kerala from the Upper Nirar
of this project is located 204 m below ground level.
Weir, Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam and Aliyar dam. (Map 2)
Salient features
River : Bharathapuzha
The Agreement
Tributary : Kadamparai Aar The existing Parambikulam-Aliyar Agreement for sharing of water from
District : Coimbatore the rivers, the Bharathapuzha, Chalakudypuzha and Periyar was signed
Height : 50 m between Kerala and Tamil Nadu on twentyninth of May 1970. The
Full Reservoir Level : 1149 m above MSL agreement was given retrospective effect from ninth day of November
Storage capacity : 30.85 MCum 1958. Preliminary agreements signed on 9th November 1958, 4th July
Catchment : 22.72 sq.km 1960, 10th May 1969 prior to this ceased to exist with the signing of the
Power 1970 Agreement.
Installed capacity : 400 MW The Agreement, which deals with the tributaries involved, the structures,
Head : 341 m the apportioning of water, financial conditions, provisions for Joint Water
Max. discharge : 150 m3/sec Regulatory Board and miscellaneous provisions, interestingly does not
contain some crucial aspects.
Engineering the river flow ✦ The actual quantity of water available in each tributary is not
The engineering marvel that is the PAP project has to be seen to be specified in the Agreement even though there are some suggestive
believed! The complex system of water transfer, the numerous canals references about some sub basins.
and tunnels crossing the Western Ghats from the east to the west carrying ✦ The actual right or eligibility of the concerned states with respect
the water from the ten dams over long distances proves the incessant to the rivers was also not determined before entering into the
desire of the human race to conquer, rule and manipulate nature to his Agreement.
whims and fancies. The complex system of water diversion in this project
✦ The basin use prior to the Agreement was not even assessed in
is as follows.
some cases.
✦ The Agreement does not have a period either.
X
34
X35
Tragedy of Commons
The Agreement contains five schedules.
i. Schedule I deals with the rivers/tributaries involved in the project
and the works that can be carried out as per the Agreement.
ii. Schedule II, which is the most crucial part, deals with the
allocation of water for each state from the tributaries involved.
iii. Financial matters with respect to the construction and
maintenance of the different components of the project are dealt
with in Schedule III;
iv. Schedule IV includes several miscellaneous provisions like flood
warning, fishing rights, tourism etc.
v. Schedule V deals with the constitution, functions and powers
of Joint Water Regulatory Board (JWRB) for the Project.
The Agreement also includes two annexures, one dealing with the
fortnightly water requirement for irrigation in Chittur basin in Kerala and
the second dealing with the terms and conditions regarding land leased
to Tamil Nadu for the Project purpose.
The PAP agreement unfortunately cannot be said to have a balanced
view on the rights of the rivers, the people dependent on the rivers and
the concerned states. Many social and ecological aspects were ignored;
laws, norms and precedence regarding Inter-state River water sharing
were not considered and it was not even based on sound database. With
the upper riparian state, which incidentally owns only about 10 per cent
of the total catchment of the three basins combined together, being the
proponent of the scheme it is but understandable to expect that state to
claim a major chunk of the benefits of the project. But reaching an
agreement on such terms that one state (Kerala) has almost forfeited
many of its lawful rights was surprising.
An analysis of some of the clauses in the agreement can substantiate
the point.
1. ‘’Construction of a dam in the Nirar below the diversion weir specified
in item (i) above to store and divert the water to the extent
specified in Schedule II in the catchment between the Nirar weir
X
36
Kerala Experience
and the Nirar dam (hereinafter referred to as the Lower Nirar
catchment) to the Tamil Nadu Sholayar reservoir. This is in lieu of
the Thekkady dam and reservoir originally proposed as part
of Parambikulam-Aliyar project and subsequently given up’’
(Schedule I.2. (vi)).
The portion in bold italics would suggest that Tamil Nadu has a
rightful claim on the Thekkady Aar and were compensated for giving
up the claim. But the entire catchment of Thekkady Aar, a tributary
of Chalakudypuzha is inside Kerala and Tamil Nadu has no rightful
claim on this. The only claim they have on the river is that they
proposed (a dam)! But Tamil Nadu was duly compensated!!
The portion in bold (to the extent specified in Schedule II)
suggests diversion to the extent specified in Schedule II, but the second
schedule permits entire diversion from here.
2. Schedule II.1. (ii). —’’The government of Tamil Nadu shall be entitled
to divert all waters of the river Nirar at the site of the weir mentioned
in paragraph 2(i) in Schedule I and utilise the waters for the benefit
of the state of Tamil Nadu provided the entire natural flows in the
river during the period 1st October to 31st January every year are let
down the river for the benefit of the state of Kerala. ……………When
the storage reservoirs contemplated by the Government of Kerala in
Periyar valley begin to function the entire natural flows of Nirar river
can be diverted in full every year at the weir site by the Government
of Tamil Nadu.’’ The original provision that allots more than 80per
cent of the yield to Tamil Nadu, even though majority of catchment
is in Kerala, is itself biased against Kerala: the provision for total
diversion at a later stage was totally unwarranted.
The case of Parambikulam group of rivers is also similar. Here the
dams were constructed by Tamil Nadu inside the state of Kerala and
almost 40 per cent of the catchment falls in the lower riparian state
of Kerala (see Table 2). But while apportioning major share of water
as well as first charge was given to Tamil Nadu (by virtue of incorrect
data provided by the project proponent and clever drafting of the
Agreement, the entire yield from these rivers, including that from the
lower riparian state are now utilised by the upper riparian state).
X 37
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience

Expected yield
The most important part of the Agreement, apart from the rivers

Not mentioned
involved and the structures, which have already been discussed, is

(tmc ft.)

Exclusive of catchment intercepted by contour canal 2 Yield from the intercepted catchment is not included
46.20

0.65
7.65
10.40
2.50

18.50
14. 80

7.00
the second schedule that deals with the apportioning of waters. Even
though there was no official assessment based on stream flow data,

2
of the availability of water, the apportioning was made based on the
Table.2 Catchment area and expected yield in each river basin under PAP

figures provided by the project proponent. But it was later proved

that these figures were not accurate. With hindsight it can even be
assumed that deliberate distortion of figures had taken place to serve
the interest of one party. In fact some dams (Aliyar, Thirumoorthy,
Total area
(sq. km)

570.26
15.80

661.50
64.72

43.25
75.11
21.24

228.41

121.70
121.73

164.40

286.10

inclusive of the catchment area intercepted by Contour canal

Parambikulam, Thunacadavu and Kerala Sholayar dam) of the
project started functioning before the signing of the Treaty and the
actual inflow data in these dams were available. But surprisingly
these data were not considered in the Agreement. The anticipated
yield in each river basin at the time of Agreement is given in the
Table 2
Kerala

0
0.00
0.00

15.80
64.72

221.65
23.31

0.00
46.62
0.00

71.20

0.00
Catchment area (sq.km.)

A total amount of 10.4 tmc ft of water was expected annually from the
Upper Nirar weir and 2.5-tmc ft of water was expected from the free
catchment of Lower Nirar Dam below the Upper Nirar weir, tributary of
the Periyar river basin. Total annual yield expected from Nirar was 12.9
tmc ft. Total yield expected from Chalakudypuzha basin was 33.30 tmc
Tamil Nadu

ft.; 14.80-tmc ft. from Sholayar sub basin and 18.50-tmc ft from
-

121.70
0.00

19.94

348.61

661.50
28.49
21.24

157.21
121.73

164.40

286.10

Parambikulam group of rivers. In the upper reaches of Bharathapuzha,

which lies entirely in Tamil Nadu, total yield expected was not mentioned
3

in the Agreement. The expected yield from Aliyar dam and Thirumoorthy
dam was 7 tmc ft and 0.65 tmc ft respectively. The yield from the
uncontrolled catchment above Manacadavu was also not mentioned in
the Agreement.
Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam

b. Parambikulam Sub Basin

Apportioning of waters
Thirumoorthy dam (Palar)

above Manacadavu weir

Peruvarippallam dam
Kerala Sholayar dam

Chitturpuzha Sub Basin

Uncontrolled catchment
a. Sholayar Sub Basin

Parambikulam dam
Thunacadavu dam

The allocation of water from the three river basins as per the Agreement,
is as follows,
Lower Nirar dam

Bharathapuzha
Upper Nirar weir

Periyar River Basin

River Basin

Aliyar dam 1
Chalakudy

Upper Nirar: Tamil Nadu can divert entire waters at Nirar Weir provided
Periyar

the entire river flow from 1st Oct - 31st Jan is let down the river to Kerala.
1
Total

Total

It was expected that Kerala would receive about 1.4 tmc ft annually

X
38
X39
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
while Tamil Nadu was expected to get about 9 tmc ft. There is a provision Table.3 Allocation of water as per the agreement
in the Agreement for Tamil Nadu to divert the entire flow from Nirar after to respective states
commissioning of all contemplated storage reservoirs by Kerala in Periyar
River. River Basin Allocation Allocation
to Tamil Nadu to Kerala
Lower Nirar : Tamil Nadu can divert the entire waters from lower Nirar (tmc ft) (tmc ft)
dam to Upper Sholayar dam. No allocation is offered to Kerala. Periyar
Chalakudypuzha Basin a. Upper Nirar Divert entire water Natural flow between
except 1st Oct - 31st 1st Oct - 31st Jan. -
Sholayar :The yield from Tamil Nadu Sholayar Dam and Kerala Sholayar Jan - 9.00 tmc ft 1.4 tmc ft approx.
Dam are combined together for apportioning. Tamil Nadu should release expected expected
water to Kerala Sholayar dam from Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam from 1 st b. Lower Nirar Divert entire water No allocation
of July to 1 st of February in specified manner so as to make sure that -2.50 tmc ft expected
Kerala Sholayar dam receives 12.3 tmc ft. annually apart from flood Chalakudy
discharge including the water available from the free catchment of 64.72
a.Sholayar Any surplus over 1
12.30
sq.km area of Kerala Sholayar and water level in the Kerala Sholayar
Sub basin 12.3 tmc ft - 2.50
dam is maintained at specified heights. Tamil Nadu can divert the surplus tmc ft expected
available from the Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam into the Parambikulam
b.Parambikulam 14 tmc ft Any Surplus over
dam (2.5 tmc ft. of water expected annually).
Sub basin 16.5 tmc ft. (inclusive
The schedule for the release of water into the Kerala Sholayar from the of 2.5 tmc ft. of water
Tamil Nadu Sholayar is as follows. from Lower Nirar )-
4.5 tmc ft. approx.
July 1 st Tamil Nadu shall commence filling Kerala Sholayar
Bharathapuzha
Reservoir from 1st July and fill it upto 5 ft below FRL
a.Aliyar Entire flow after 7.25
(ie.2658ft) as soon as possible.
b.Thirumoorthy meeting the Kerala
September 1st Kerala Sholayar reservoir shall be kept at the full requirement
reservoir level of plus 2663ft. Uncontrolled flow Not mentioned Unutilisable
above Manacadavu Flood water
September 2 nd
The level in Kerala Sholayar shall be maintained at
weir
to January 31st 5ft below FRL.
Total 28.00 tmc ft + 20.95 tmc ft +
February1st The Kerala Sholayar shall be kept at FRL Surplus water from yield above 16.5 tmc
February 2nd No releases shall be provided to Kerala Sholayar if a Sholayar + yield ft from Parambikulam
from Bharatha- group + Unutilisable
to June total quantity of 12.3-tmcft.of water has been
puzha Flood water
received from the free catchment and rest from Tamil
Nadu Sholayar.

X
40
X41
Tragedy of Commons
Parambikulam group of dams: According to the Agreement Tamil Nadu
can store and divert a quantity not exceeding 16.5 tmc ft, including 2.5
tmc ft from Lower Nirar Dam. Any surplus over 16.5 tmc ft. of water
from Parambikulam including 2.5 tmc ft from Lower Nirar dam belongs
to Kerala. Out of the surplus, 2.5 tmc ft. of water can be diverted to
Chittur Taluk annually. Any quantity more than 19 tmc ft. (16.5 + 2.5
tmc ft) should be let down into the Chalakudypuzha.
Bharathapuzha Basin
Aliyar & Palar: 7.25 tmcft of water has to be released annually at
Manacadavu weir from Aliyar dam for assured irrigation in Chittur Taluk
in Kerala excluding unutilisable floodwater. The quantity of water that
can be utilised by Tamil Nadu from the two reservoirs namely Aliyar and
Thirumoorthy is not mentioned in the Agreement. The fortnightly
allocation to Kerala at Manacadavu is specified in the Annexure I of the
Agreement.
Schedule III: Financial Terms
Cost sharing by the respective States is dealt with in this Schedule. The
Schedule (cl.1. (ii)) says that the following works will benefit the State of
Kerala.
a. Aliyar Reservoir
b. Nirar Reservoir
c. Tunnel from Nirar Reservoir to Tamil Nadu Sholayar Reservoir
d. Parambikulam Reservoir
e. Tunnel from Parambikulam Reservoir to Thunacadavu reservoir
f. Thunacadavu Reservoir
g. Peruvarippallam reservoir
h. Water conductor system from Thunacadavu Reservoir to
Sarkarpathi powerhouse
i. High-level canal branching off from Sethumadai canal or
Sarkarpathi powerhouse for irrigating lands in Kerala.
X
42
Kerala Experience
The statement in the Agreement that the Nirar reservoir and tunnel to
Tamil Nadu Sholayar are beneficial to Kerala is outrageous. The only
(temporary) allotment to Kerala from Nirar is the natural flow in the
river from October 1st to January 31st, for which no construction is needed.
As for the Parambikulam group of reservoirs and allied works, the expected
benefit to Kerala was diversion of 2.5-tmc ft. to the Chittur basin and in
the bargain; the flow into Chalakudypuzha will reduce by 16.5 tmc ft.
Some benefit indeed to Kerala!!
The work (a) to (h) will be executed by the Government of Tamil Nadu at
their cost in the first instance. The proportionate cost of the works
beneficial to Kerala will be borne by the Government of Kerala. Work
(i) will be executed as a deposit work by the Government of Tamil
Nadu at the cost of the Government of Kerala.- (Sch.III.1.(ii))
As per the above, any work regarding the project, that is beneficial to
Kerala if the area is in Tamil Nadu, is to be executed by the state of
Tamil Nadu as a deposit work for Kerala. Applying the same yardstick,
the work of the Parambikulam group of dams should have been executed
by the Government of Kerala at the cost of Tamil Nadu Government.
But this was not to be.
The cost sharing as per the Agreement is as follows,
The benefit to Tamil Nadu from Aliyar reservoir is computable at a
quantity of 5.5 tmc ft of water per year while the benefit to Kerala is by
the way of stabilisation of the existing wet ayacut assessable at 1 tmc ft
per year. Capital cost of Aliyar dam shall therefore be shared between
Tamil Nadu and Kerala in the ratio of 11:2.
The capital and maintenance cost of all works mentioned in (b) to (h)
shall first be allocated in the ratio of 50:50 between power and irrigation
and the cost allocated to power shall be met entirely by Tamil Nadu.
The portion of the capital and maintenance costs of these works allocated
to irrigation shall be shared between Government of Tamil Nadu and
Kerala in the ratio of 305:25 or 61:5.
Suggestive references about the quantity of water intended to be diverted
in Periyar and Chalakudy basins is also given in this schedule. But these
X43
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
figures were provided in the schedule just for the purpose of arriving at Table. 4 Comparison of yield from Upper and
the cost sharing. The total quantity in the PAP system, which is incorrectly Lower Nirar (tmc ft.)
given as 33-tmc ft annually is as follows:
Year Upper Nirar Lower Nirar
Water diverted from the Anamalyar : 2.5 tmc ft.
Actual Deviation Actual Deviation
Diverted from the Nirar weir : 9.0 tmc ft. yield from yield from
Diverted from Tamil Nadu Sholayar : 2.5 tmc ft. Average Average
1984-85 6.867 -1.767 3.959 1.031
Diverted from Nirar reservoir,
1989-90 7.275 -1.359 4.630 1.702
Parambikulam Dam, Thunacadavu Dam, : 19.0 tmc ft.
1991-92 7.117 -1.517 3.673 0.745
Peruvarippallam Dam 1992-93 6.257 -2.377 4.687 1.759
This is the quantity of water diverted through Sarkarpathy powerhouse 1993-94 7.172 -1.462 3.531 0.603
only. These figures have excluded the quantity of water utilised from 1994-95 7.039 -1.595 4.587 1.659
Bharathapuzha Basin.
Schedule V: Joint Water Regulation Board
The yield at the Upper Nirar weir and Lower Nirar Dam as per the JWRB
The Joint Water Regulation Board constituted with effect from 1 st data from 1974-75 to 2001-02 is given in Fig. 1.
June 1970 is a positive step provided it functions according to the letter
and spirit of the provisions. But experience since it’s constitution has left
much to be desired. Constitution and powers of the JWRB is detailed in Fig. 1 Water Availability in Nirar Basin
Schedule V. 13

12
The reading of JWRB in the Nirar sub basin casts some doubts in the 11

reliability of the data. The average yield from the upper Nirar weir before 10

Quantity of Water (tmc. ft)

the commissioning of lower Nirar Dam (excluding the the figure 1982-83, 9

which was a drought year) is 9.51-tmc ft. The average yield from upper 8

Nirar weir since the commissioning of Lower Nirar Dam (excluding the 7

the figure 1987-88, which was a drought year) is 6.65-tmc ft. The
6

5
comparative yield of the Upper Nirar weir and Lower Nirar dam in some 4
years is given in Table 4. 3

The catchment for both Lower and Upper Nirar is contiguous. Hence it is 2

1
highly unlikely that there will be drastic difference in rainfall in the two 0
catchments. But as per the table above in many years when the yield in 1970-71

1972-73

1974-75

1976-77

1978-79

1980-81

1982-83

1984-85

1986-87

1988-89

1990-91

1992-93

1994-95

1996-97

1998-99

2000-01
Lower Nirar was more than the average value of 2.928 tmc ft. by 25 to 55
Year
per cent, the yield from Upper Nirar was less by 15 to 25 per cent than the Upper Nirar Lower Nirar

average value of 8.634 tmc ft.

X
44
X45
Tragedy of Commons
Annexure II of the Agreement deals with some miscellaneous provisions.
Annexure II. 4. States that “The Government of Tamil Nadu shall, in
respect of all the lands made available to them, pay as licence fees, land
revenue at the rate prevailing in Kerala State from time to time subject
to a minimum of Rs. 2 per acre.”
More than 6000 acres of Kerala land was released to Tamil Nadu for the
project. One cannot but travel down the history lane. In a similar situation
in 1886, the Periyar Lease Deed dealing with the Mullaperiyar dam, had
provided for a lease amount of Rs.5 per acre to be paid to the then
Travancore state. Considering the value of rupee in those times, it can
be seen that even though the Travancore Rajah had to give water to the
then Madras Government under the British, he ensured that the state
received the value of water by way of lease for land. After independence
a fresh agreement was signed for Mullaperiyar also on the next day of
the signing of PAP accord. The lease was revised to just Rs. 30 in this
case. Even that much amount was not provided in the PAP Agreement,
signed on the same day.
Daylight robbery legitimised
One of the most intelligent ways of robbing the river waters has another
name; Parambikulam-Aliyar Project Agreement. The different schedules
and clauses in the Agreement are so carefully and intelligently drafted
that the project proponent is getting a lion’s share of water from the
project and is still lamenting that it is suffering a lot due to non-availability
of it’s rightful share of water. In fact over the last sixteen years when
discussions for review of the agreement were on, Tamil Nadu has been
asking for more water saying that they are not getting their due share
and indications are such that the Government of Kerala is actually going
to yield to the demand.
We have already seen many clauses in the agreement intended at
misleading people. Let’s examine some more aspects of the agreement.
Altogether seven tributaries or three river basins are part of this project.
But terms for water sharing are not governed by common principles.
The river Nirar originates in Kerala, flows through a small distance in
Tamil Nadu and re-enters Kerala to join with Idamalayar and finally
X
46
Kerala Experience
with the main river Periyar. In Nirar the quantity of water for either party
is not specified. While Tamil Nadu is entitled to divert the entire quantity
at Lower Nirar and the entire quantity from February 1st to September
30th every year at Upper Nirar, Kerala gets the natural flow at the Upper
Nirar weir site from October 1st to January 31st. A 2:1 sharing of flow
period may not seem to be highly biased. But a couple of points, which
the agreement does not say, are to be noted. The prominent monsoon in
the catchments of Nirar is the southwest monsoon, from June to
September, which contributes almost 2/3 rd of the total yield; the rest
being from the northeast monsoon and summer rains. More than 60per
cent of the catchment of Upper Nirar is in the state of Kerala. Even
though the agreement does not give the figures of water, the quantity
expected by Kerala was just 1.4-tmc ft. out of a total anticipated quantity
of over 10-tmc ft (ie. hardly 15 per cent).
The most striking is the case of Lower Nirar. As we have already seen,
the dam was included as compensation magic. If that in itself was genius,
linking of it’s yield with that of the Parambikulam group of dams was the
master stroke. It took just one argument and a false statement for Tamil
Nadu to count the yield from Lower Nirar twice! It was said that as this
dam was in lieu of the abandoned Thekkady dam, (which is in the
Parambikulam area in Kerala) its yield, expected at 2.5 tmc ft. was tied
up with the Parambikulam group. The Government of Tamil Nadu will be
entitled to draw and utilise a quantity not exceeding 16.5-tmc ft. every
year (including evaporation losses) from the yield of Parambikulam Aar.
Thunadadavu Aar, Peruvarippallam Aar, and the water diverted from the
yield of Lower Nirar catchment. Sch.II.1.(b). The beginning sentence of
this clause states that ‘’Subject to the provision of sub clause (a) above,
the entire yield of the Lower Nirar catchment (referred to in paragraph 2
(vi) of Schedule-I) shall be diverted into the Parambikulam system.”
But water from Lower Nirar dam is diverted to the Tamil Nadu Sholayar
dam and not into the Parambikulam system as in the second schedule of
the agreement. ( Sch.I clearly states this ).
The entitlement for Tamil Nadu at Sarkarpathy powerhouse through which
water from Periyar and Chalakudy basins are diverted eastwards, is
calculated as
X47
Tragedy of Commons
Quantity of water drawn through
Sarkarpathy PH (tmc ft.) = X – 0.186 tmc ft +16.35 tmc ft. (1)
Where
X = the water released from the powerhouse No. I of Tamil
Nadu Sholayar in tmc ft. 0.186 is the evaporation loss of the Nirar and
Sholayar water in Parambikulam reservoir and 16.35 is the Parambikulam
water including water diverted from Lower Nirar excluding evaporation
losses (0.15 tmc ft).
But X, water from first powerhouse in Tamil Nadu Sholayar includes
water diverted from Lower Nirar also. Hence the formula should have
been X – 0.186 tmc ft. + 13.85 tmc ft. only, excluding 2.5 tmc ft. of
Lower Nirar catchment which had already been accounted for in X.
An impression is sought to be created that Kerala is alloted 12.3-tmc ft.
of water from the Sholayar River as part of PAP. But the fact is that 55
per cent of this (6.6 Tmc ft. according to Technical Committee report,
2003) is the yield from the own catchment of Kerala Sholayar which
almost entirely falls in Kerala and there is no need to tie up the Kerala
Sholayar dam which was built by Kerala Government with it’s own fund,
with PAP. The only argument, from Kerala’s point of view, in favour of
this tying up is that the Kerala Sholayar will get an assured supply of
12.3 tmc ft. even in lean years as the agreement provides for assured
supply at Kerala Sholayar powerhouse. But experience in the last 32
years (up to 2002) shows that even this benefit did not materialise. It is
only during three years that the yield in Sholayar fell below 12.3 tmc ft.
but in none of these years did Kerala get 12.3-tmc ft. In fact even the
average realisation at Kerala Sholayar since 1970 is only 11.967 tmc ft
(Technical Committee Report, 2003) while the actual yield in the basin
was 19per cent more than anticipated. Let us examine this in another
way; if the Kerala Sholayar was not part of PAP and Tamil Nadu was
allotted 2.5 tmc ft. from Upper Sholayar which was the expected quantity
for Tamil Nadu from the tributary with first charge to Tamil Nadu, Kerala
would have got about 7.5 tmc ft. less over a period of six years and
gained about 100 tmc ft. from the remaining 26 years. The expected
and actual realisation for the respective states from Sholayar is given in
the Table 5, which is self-explanatory.
X
48
Kerala Experience
Table.5 Realisation of yield from Sholayar
Particulars Kerala TN Total
Total Expected Realisation (32 years) 393.600 80.000 473.600
Actual Realisation 382.941 179.307 562.248
Difference -10.659 +99.307 88.648
There is a provision to construct a saddle spillway at Tamil Nadu Sholayar
reservoir to divert water to the Parambikulam dam (and the upper riparian
state has constructed two saddle spillways instead of one). But this defies
logic as, according to the agreement, Tamil Nadu is entitled to draw
water flowing out of the first powerhouse only and not the water diverted
through the spillways (refer equation 1). Eligibility at Sarkarpathy for
Tamil Nadu is given as water from the Parambikulam group including
Lower Nirar plus water coming through the first powerhouse only. Hence
even if water is diverted through the saddle spillways, they will have to
be let down the Chalakudypuzha itself. It would have made a lot more
sense if the spill were let into the original river itself. But in reality, Tamil
Nadu has diverted water from the Upper Sholayar reservoir through the
saddle spillways and used it too and Kerala never considered this as a
violation! Only construction of additional saddle spillway and not diversion
of water was considered by Kerala as violation of the agreement. Here
also it was the wrong projection about the yield from the Parambikulam
system that came to Tamil Nadu’s aid. With the realisation at
Parambikulam falling short of even Tamil Nadu’s entitlement, it was
easy to count the water through the saddle spillways with that of
Parambikulam system.
Kerala was allocated 7.25 tmc ft. at Manacadavu as first charge for
assured irrigation of existing ayacut of 20,000 acres of paddy lands in
Chittur sub basin from the tributaries of Bharathapuzha. One may note
that Kerala got only what was needed to maintain the existing ayacut
and no additional benefit was allowed to it. This is against the
conventional practice of apportioning where the existing use is catered
to first before apportioning the rest.
While the first charge was given to Kerala at Sholayar and Aliyar, Tamil
Nadu was given the first charge at the Parambikulam system. Again this
X49
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
will have to be considered as a clever and calculated move to deny even if we account the uncontrolled flood water. This means that the
water to Kerala. As we have already seen, the data about expected yield lower riparian state, which used to get about 90per cent of the flow
in each basin was provided by Tamil Nadu only. In places where first before the project and had existing use for a large portion of that, is left
charge was given to Kerala and Tamil Nadu’s share was given as the with about 10-12per cent only.
balance, the yield was more than anticipated, whereas at the
Parambikulam system where Kerala is entitled to water after meeting Table.6 Allocation of water to the lower riparian state
Tamil Nadu’s quota only, the yield was less by a huge quantity. The River Catchment Percentage Expected Allocation Realisation
yield expected from the Parambikulam group was 18.5 tmc ft. and Tamil Basin area in of total yield from TN by Kerala
Nadu’s share from here was fixed at 14 tmc ft. (plus 2.5 tmc ft. on TN catchment from TN1 catchment from TN
account of tying up Lower Nirar with Parambikulam group makes Tamil in PAP to Kerala catchment
Nadu’s share 16.5 tmc ft which means that Kerala will get only 2 tmc ft. sq.km tmc ft tmc ft tmc ft
even if the yield was as anticipated.) But as it turned out, the actual Nirar 49.73 51.6 6.65 - 4.85 2 - 3.54 2
average yield from Parambikulam group is only 10.135 tmc ft. and Kerala Upper Sholayar 121.73 65.3 9.66 7.16 5.347
never got a single drop from here except during floods on a couple of Parambikulam Group 177.15 61.6 11.39 - 2.61 - 3.89
occasions. (Even in some years when the yield was more than 16.5 tmc Bharathapuzha 1786 100 28.00 7.25 7.366
ft., they did not release water to Kerala.) The cruellest joke is the fact
Total 55.70 6.95 5.283
that the said dams are built and operated by Tamil Nadu inside Kerala
territory and the water diverted includes that from the catchment inside
1
Calculated based on extent of catchment area
Kerala, which constitutes 38per cent of the total catchment for these
2
Negative sign indicates that part of the actual yield from Kerala is also being
used by Tamil Nadu.
dams. On account of this project these tributaries, the Parambikulam
Aar, Thunacadavu Aar and Peruvaripallam Aar have stopped flowing If the existing norms for sharing water in Inter State Rivers were followed,
below the dams, which is against natural justice. the right of the upper riparian state would not have been more than 50
percentage of the yield in that state. The upper riparian state does not
The story of the robbery reaches it’s (ill) logical conclusion with the
have basin use in Periyar and Chalakudypuzhas and the lower riparian
robbed being entitled to pay to the robber for the robbery as prescribed
state already was using a large portion of its water in the downstream
in Schedule III.
stretches. If the existing use was considered, the share of the upper riparian
The unquenched thirst state should have been still less. Since the existing norms were not
The continuously raised hue and cry for more from the thirsty neighbour considered, the net gain for the upper riparian state was more than 20
is reverberating inspite of a readily yielding state on the western side of tmc ft. over and above its rightful claim.
the Ghats. The PAP, the Mullaperiyar, the Pandiyar- Punnapuzha, the The upper riparian state still cries foul and demands more.
Pamba-Achankovil-Vaipar the list goes on….
“ Based on 32 years of experience of the PA Project, Tamil Nadu feels
The catchments in Tamil Nadu in the whole PAP was expected to have that the agreement is heavily tilted in Kerala’s favour and is detrimental to
a yield of about 55 tmc ft, more than 90per cent of which used to flow the interest of Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu desires to correct the imbalances
down into Kerala before the project and the yield from Kerala catchment that are inadvertently incorporated in the agreement at the time of Review
was expected to be about 20 tmc ft. The present situation is that Kerala of the Agreement.”4
is getting less than 25 tmc ft, inclusive of yield from it’s own catchment,
X
50
X51
Tragedy of Commons
The Eventful Project years
1955: Proposal for sharing waters of Parambikulam - Aliyar first taken
up by Madras Government with erstwhile Travancore -Cochin Govt.
1957: Concern over river water diversions from Kerala.
November 9,1958: First Agreement signed between Kerala and Tamil
Nadu.
1958: The project inaugurated by Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, The
Prime Minister of India
July 4, 1960, May 10,1969: Supplementary Agreements signed
on PAP.
1967: Sri. K.L.Rao, Irrigation Minister of India inaugurates
Thunacadavu dam
May 29, 1970: Kerala and Tamil Nadu sign a comprehensive
agreement with retrospective from 1958.
1989: Kerala State renews PAP Agreement and later cancels it due
to contradictory report of Legislative Committee.
21st September 1988: Memorandums prepared by each state and
exchanged for review during minister level meeting.
18th August 1990: Ministerial level discussions held at Trivandrum
but inconclusive.
11th November 1992: Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Kerala during ministry level meeting due to inadequacy of earlier one.
November 13, 1992: Moolathara Regulator heavily damaged due
to the sudden release of floodwater from Aliyar Dam.
1992: Estimate Committee of the Kerala Legislative Assembly submits
report related to PAP in Assembly.
March 1993: Kerala-Tamil Nadu official level meetings at Trivandrum,
Kerala
March 13,1993: K.Krishnankutty MLA through a resolution demands
discussion on disadvantages of PAP and Mullaperiyar Agreements in
Kerala Assembly.
X
52
Kerala Experience
April 1993: Official level meeting at Attaikkatti, Tamil Nadu
May 25,1993: The speaker constitutes Assembly Committee with
Irrigation Minister Sri.T.M.Jacob, as Chairman.
September 18, 1993: Legislative Committee hears grievances of
farmers under PAP in Kerala.
October 17, 18, 1993: JWRB meeting held at Ootty approves that
Kerala State is not getting its due share from PAP. The decision taken
on the basis of report of sub-committee appointed by JWRB to study
the matter.
1994: Kerala Legislative Committee report on the PAP and
Mullaperiyar Agreement.
1996: Ministry level meeting at Chennai on long pending review.
2002: Ministry level meeting at Chennai decides to constitute a
technical committee and submit its report within three months on
areas, where amendments to the 1970 Agreement are considered
necessary duly supported with facts and figures.
May 2003: Technical Committee tables report.
2003: Representatives of local bodies in Chalakudypuzha basin submit
memorandum to Chief Minister demanding protection of Kerala’s
interests in PAP Agreement.
2004 January 4th: Ministry level meeting of Kerala and Tamil Nadu
decides to review the Agreement in March bypassing all earlier
demands put forward by Kerala. The final signing of Review Agreement
postponed due to Parliament elections in May.
2004 January: Media and concerned citizens lash out against
decision of Kerala Government to agree to a Review that does not
protect interests of Kerala. Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi
along with Grama Panchayath presidents in Chalakudypuzha basin
hold press conference questioning stance of Kerala Government.
2004 March: Farmers of Chittur Taluk go on hunger strike protesting
against non-release of water from Aliyar reservoir to Chitturpuzha.
2004, November 6th: Chief Ministerial level discussions at Chennai.
Decided to hold further dicussions
X53
Tragedy of Commons
Tamil Nadu government has been continuously demanding for additional
schemes.
Anamalayar Scheme
There was a provision in the 1970 agreement that 2.5 tmc ft. of water
can be diverted from Anamalayar, a tributary of Idamalayar which in
turn joins Periyar River, through Lower Nirar dam for the use of Tamil
Nadu after the completion of Idamalayar Project in Kerala. The proposal
sent by Tamil Nadu is for the construction of a 20 m high dam higher up
in the Italiar tributary of Anamalayar. Water will be taken through a
tunnel of 5 m diameter and about 5 km in length to fall into Lower Nirar
Dam at FRL.The cost of the diversion is estimated as Rs.24.86 crores.
Nallar Scheme
Tamil Nadu proposes the Nallar Scheme with the objective of bypassing
the Sholayar, Parambikulam and Aliyar dams from where the Kerala’s
share has to be given. It contemplates diversion of water from the Upper
Nirar weir through another tunnel of length 14.4 km and creating reservoir
of 7 tmc ft capacity across Nallar, a tributary of Palar. It is also proposed
to construct a powerhouse with a capacity of 120 MW. Tailrace water
from the Nallar powerhouse will be carried through another contour canal
parallel to the existing one to Thirumoorthy reservoir.
Dam above Manacadavu weir
Tamil Nadu government also proposes a dam at the existing site of
Military anicut with a storage capacity of 0.5-tmc ft. According to Tamil
Nadu, the water from the catchment of 40 km stretch from Aliyar dam
to Manacadavu weir is not fully utilised and the supply to Kerala ie.
7.25 tmc ft cannot be strictly adhered to.
Dam across Solasulahalli River
Tamil Nadu also proposes a 17.4 m high dam across Solasulahalli River
near Puraripalayam village of Pollachi Taluk for irrigating 1045.7 ha of
dry 47.3 ha of wetlands. The reservoir will have a capacity of 0.162-tmc
ft and is planning for two yearly fillings. The catchment area of the dam
is 270.39 sq. km. The riparian rights of an extent of 478 ha under 17
anicuts and tanks in Tamil Nadu will also be protected.
X
54
Kerala Experience
Violations in the Agreement
A number of violations of the agreement by the upper riparian state has
been detected even after that state gained much more than what it
deserved. The adhoc Committee on Parambikulam – Mullaperiyar River
Water Agreements Report by the Legislative Committee of Kerala
Assembly had, in its report, cited many cases of violations.13
1. According to the Agreement Schedule II para 4 (a) Tamil Nadu
shall supply 7.25-tmc ft of water exclusive of unutilisable floodwater
for assured irrigation of 20,000 acres in Kerala. The Committee
understood that the water measured at Manacadavu from 1970
onwards also includes the unutilisable floodwater.
2. Tamil Nadu constructed Kadampara dam (400 MW pumped storage
system), Vandal Dam, Deviyar weir and Akkamalai weir without
the consent from Kerala State. These dams and weirs store water,
which resulted in the reduction in the quantity of floodwater during
monsoon period to Kerala.
3. The contour canal is constructed to carry the tailrace water of
Sarkarpathi powerhouse. The committee found that water is being
diverted from numerous streams including Nallar. All these streams
used to flow into Chitturpuzha before commencement of canal
construction. Tamil Nadu also diverts water from the Uppiliyar which
otherwise would have flowed into Aliyar and Chitturpuzha. Apart
from this, water is being diverted using shutters in 9 places and
about 100 interceptions along the 52 km long contour canal between
Sarkarpathi and Thirumoorthy reservoir.
4. Tamil Nadu constructed two saddle spillways in Tamil Nadu
Sholayar dam and diverted more water to Parambikulam instead
of one allowed in the Agreement, resulting in the loss of flood water
which otherwise would flow to Kerala Sholayar.
5. According to the Agreement, the water that can be used in the
Sarkarpathi powerhouse is termed as 16.5 tmc ft from
Parambikulam group dams including 2.5-tmc ft from Lower Nirar
and the water release from the Manamppilly powerhouse (No.I) of
Tamil Nadu Sholayar. The Committee found that Tamil Nadu also
X55
Tragedy of Commons
diverts floodwater from the two saddle spillways to Sarkarpathy
through Parambikulam.
6. Tamil Nadu also diverts water without generating power through
the surge shaft of Sarkarpathi powerhouse, which is not measured.
7. According to the agreement, Tamil Nadu should maintain the level
at 2658 ft between September 2 nd and January 31st at Kerala
Sholayar. Due to non-release of water to maintain the water level
Kerala lost crores of rupees worth electricity generation.
Apart from what the Committee found out there are other organised
violations also.
There are numerous unaccounted lift irrigation schemes below
Manacadavu weir.
A new pipeline was constructed in 2002 that diverts water directly from
contour canal near Thirumoorthy to Udumalpet to irrigate 2477 ha
ayacut.
A powerhouse each was constructed at Aliyar (2.5 MW) and Thirumoorthy
(1.95 MW).
The Violations still continue.
‘Benefits’ of the Project -
Hidden Impacts!
A comparison of the actual benefits to the respective states, both as
envisaged in the agreement and as actually materialised will be interesting.
The ‘Benefits’- Actual experience
The Parambikulam Aliyar Project was intended to irrigate 97,128 ha.in
Pollachi, Udumalpet, Dharmapuram, Palladam and Kangeyam taluks
in the Coimbatore and Periyar Districts of Tamil Nadu, 80 percent of
this ayacut being dry crops. Generation of 185 MW of electricity in Tamil
Nadu was also intended. In addition, the project also envisaged
stabilisation of old ayacut of 2428.20 ha (6000 acres) in Aliyar. The
benefit to the lower riparian state was limited to stabilisation of existing
ayacut of 8094 ha (20,000 acres) in Chittur taluk and generation of
54 MW of electricity at Sholayar.
X
56
Kerala Experience
Table. 7 Comparative benefit of the project as per the agreement
Name of the State Irrigation (ha.) Power
old Additional MW
Tamil Nadu 2428.2 97,128 185
Kerala 8094.01 Nil 54
1
old ayacut in Chittur Taluk only.
Here it may be noted that, the lower riparian state, which used to enjoy
the benefits of natural flow in the basins before the project had actually
got nothing in the bargain. Only water for irrigating old ayacut in Chittur
Taluk was provided to the state from Aliyar and Palar. No provision for
future expansion in utilization was provided. As for electricity generation,
the state of Kerala could have established the Sholayar HEP
independently even without PAP. On the contrary, both irrigation and
electricity generation in the existing schemes in the Chalakudy basin
(The Poringalkuthu left bank HEP and Chalakudy River Diversion scheme)
suffered due to the project. Reduction in flow in Periyar had affected
irrigation as well as Industries.
The actual experience has only increased the disparity.
The Parambikulam- Aliyar project agreement was finalised, as already
mentioned, without having the proper hydrological data of the respective
sub basins. But the allocation was based on the figures given by the
project proponent. The anticipated yield at the time of agreement and
the actual realisation as per JWRB is given in Table 8 and the total
utilisation in each sub basins is given in Table 9. It may be noted here
that the actual yield from the catchments of Bharathapuzha basin in
Tamil Nadu was not given at the time of the agreement and it is not
available even now. Out of the total catchment of 6186 sq.kms for
Bharathapuzha, 1786 sq.kms lies in Tamil Nadu as per the “Water
Resources of Kerala”(1974-PWD Govt. of Kerala) the yield expected from
that catchment was 938 Mm3 out of which 797Mm3 (about 28 tmc ft.) is
utilisable. But the PAP documents tell about 956 sq. kms of catchment
only. The average yield in the TN catchments of the basin is less than 15
tmc ft. as per JWRB. Hence the figures below may not be reflective of
the true picture.
X57
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Table.8 Yield from river basins involved and utilisation in Table. 9 Total water utilised from each river basin by Kerala
PAP and Tamil Nadu from 1970 -2001

River Basin Expected Yield Utilisation River Basin Kerala Tamil Nadu Total
yield as per TN Kerala Upper Nirar 38.35 203.39 241.74
JWRB Lower Nirar 0.00 55.63 55.64
Periyar Tamil Nadu Sholayar 171.32 179.59 350.91
Parambikulam 0.00 324.33 324.33
Upper Nirar weir 9.00 8.634 7.264 1.370
Bharathapuazha Basin 1
235.72 2
86.78 322.50
Lower Nirar dam 2.50 2.928 2.928 0.000 (Tamil Nadu)
Chalakudy
Total 445.39 849.73 1295.12
Sholayar Sub Basin 1
Excluding unutilisable flood water
Tamil Nadu Sholayar dam 14.80 10.951 5.603 5.348 2
Yield from 286 sq.kms. catchment only accounted for.
Kerala Sholayar dam 6.619 1
6.619
Irrigation: Upper vs Lower riparian state
Parambikulam Sub Basin
Upper riparian state gains
Parambikulam dam 18.50 10.135 10.135 0.000
Thunacadavu dam Water from Aliyar was being used to irrigate about 6000 acres through
five anicuts in Tamil Nadu before the project and the rest used to flow
Peruvarippallam dam naturally to the Kerala side. In the Palar basin an old ayacut of about
Total 44.80 39.267 25.93 13.337 1214 ha (3000 acres) existed. The old ayacut of Aliyar includes five
anicuts namely, Pallivalangal (265.50 ha), Ariyapuram (502.91ha.),
Bharathapuzha
Karapatti (316.31ha.), Peranai (770 ha) and Vadakkalur (720.37 ha.)
Chitturpuzha Sub Basin2 totalling to 2575.09 ha.
Aliyar dam 7.00 7.900 1.583 3
7.366 Apart from the existing ayacuts, new ayacuts for 18,098 ha. from Aliyar
Thirumoorthy dam (Palar) 0.65 1.049 3.980 and 82,275 ha. from Thirumoorthy were developed as part of the project.
The irrigation in the new ayacuts is managed by dividing them into different
Total 52.45 48.216 31.493 20.703
zones. At Aliyar, zone one consists of Pollachi canal and a part of
Uncontrolled catchment Vettaikaranpudur canal and the second zone consist of the Sethumadai
above Manakadavu weir Unknown Unknown Unknown 3.764 canal and the remaining part of Vettaikaranpudur canal. The irrigation
1 The yield from Kerala catchment season for the first zone is from 15th May to December 30th and that for
2 Yield from 286 sq.kms. catchment only accounted for. the second zone is from 16th October to end of February15.
3 The actual water available as per the agreement was less than 7.25 tmc ft, the
agreed share in 8 years.
In the Palar basin, water for the new ayacut of 82,275 ha is drawn from
the Thirumoorthy dam with the water from the Parambikulam group of
reservoirs, coming through the 49 km long contour canal and the yield

X
58
X59
Tragedy of Commons
from it’s own catchment. The ayacut under this canal is divided into
three zones and water allotted once in 18 months to each zone. The
season of irrigation is from 1st July to 15 th November and from 17th
November to the end of March. Two zones were covered in one year.
Irrigation with the PAP waters was mainly intended for dry crops. The
ratio between dry and wet crops as originally intended was 80:20. But
once water started to flow the ratio began to change in favour of wet
crops increasing the water demand. Table 10 shows the extent of wet
crops in the ayacut area.
Table.10 Cropping pattern in the PAP basin -Tamil Nadu15
Kerala Experience
whole ayacut under the Parambikulam Main Canal was changed to four-
zone irrigation pattern so that the entire ayacut will be covered in two
irrigation years. The Zones I and II will be covered in one year and Zone
III and IV in the subsequent year. One zone will be covered from 1 st
August to December and the next zone from 16th December to 30th April.
In 2002, Tamil Nadu constructed a pipeline directly from contour canal
near Thirumoorthy to irrigate 2,477 ha additionally in Udumalpet. At
present the total area under irrigation from PAP has increased to more
than 4,35,000 acres.
Table.11 Extent of irrigated lands in Tamil Nadu under PAP (ha.)

Crop Area Percentage River Old New Extension Total

Wet crops Aliyar 2,575 18,098 - 20,673
Paddy double crop 3789 Palar 1,214 82,275 70,358 1,53,847
Paddy single crop 23690 Total (ha.) 3,789 1,00,373 70, 358 1,74,520
Sugarcane 17113 Total (ac.) 9,363 2,48,019 1,73,784 4,31,064
Coconut 7500
Apart from this an additional 2, 477 ha (6118 ac) irrigated at Udumalpet
Cotton 39703
Total 91795 48.6 per cent Lower riparian state loses
Dry Crops Water from the three river basins viz. Bharathapuzha, Chalakudypuzha
Maize 16921 and Periyar was being used in the downstream for various purposes from
Ragi 12386 ancient times. Navigation, fishing, agriculture, domestic purposes, cultural
Groundnut 52214 activities etc. formed part of the water utilisation.
Dry crops under Aliyar 15658
With the geographic peculiarity of Kerala, a state with an average width
Total 97179 51.4 per cent
of only about 65 km and a steep drop in altitude, often a fall between
Grand Total 188974 1000 to 2000 meters in about 40 km, the hydrologic regime of the state
Never ending area expansion is entirely dependent on the flow in it’s numerous small rivers. Hence
reduction in flow in these rivers will have much more negative impacts
The area under irrigation from PAP keeps on increasing in the upper than major basins elsewhere.
riparian state even though that state complains that it is not getting the
expected quantity of water. In August 1975, the Government of Tamil Chitturpuzha, a major tributary of Bharathapuzha also called
Nadu approved a proposal for extension of the command area of PAP ‘Shokanashini’ meaning ‘that which annihilates sorrows’, flows from
by 1.15 lakh acres. This in fact has created some conflicts even between Tamil Nadu to the state through the middle of the Palakkad gap, the
the farmers of Tamil Nadu. The expansion of the ayacut necessitated widest gap (32kms) in the Western Ghats stretching from Tapi in the
redesigning of the whole irrigation system under Thirumoorthy dam. The north to Kanyakumari. Regional climate in the area under the influence

X
60
X61
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
of the gap is different from the rest of the state. The rainfall here ranges 16,940 ha. There are also link canals to provide water to tributaries
14

from about 1000 mm to 2300 mm against a state average of 3000 mm. namely Varattayar in Vadakarapathy region in North and Meenkara dam
Chittur taluk, adjacent to the gap, is the most affected with very low in the South in Govindapuram region, both tributaries of Bharathapuzha.
rainfall and high wind velocity. Chittur area has a long history of irrigation
some of which is narrated in the Cochin State Manual. The inadequacy in water
supply in the canals of the Fig. 2 Extent of Irrigated Area in PAP
“ The irrigation works at Chittur owe their origin to General Cullen, who project has resulted in the
found by his barometrical observation in the forties of the last century collapse of even the age-old 9%

that the river there had a fall of about 200 feet between the eastern and irrigation practices that has
western frontier and that it formed therefore an excellent basis for irrigation resulted in conflicts between
operations. On his suggestion Darbar started the construction of an anicut farmers under the same
at Mulattara in 1849,together with the necessary canals for the distribution irrigation system. The
of water. The system, was originally designed, was however so faulty that situation has turned so worse
the work had to be re-done partially or wholly more than once, so that it that at times police had to
got into regular working order only about twenty-five years ago. A few be called to regulate the
years after the Mulattara works were started, Tottil Pitchu Iyer, an water allocation in the
enterprising Brahman from Coimbatore, constructed a small anicut at Tamil Nadu
ayacut of the project. The
Nurni. This anicut was however acquired by the Government in 1858, comparison of the extent of 91%
Kerala
when Pitchu Iyer began the construction of a larger anicut higher up the irrigated area in the two
streams at Tembaramadakku. A similar anicut was constructed still higher states is depicted in Fig. 2
up at Kunnankattupati by another enterprising land holder, Kittu Pillai by
name, a few years subsequently. Both these anicuts, together with the The pumping from the Chittur – Thathamangalam drinking water supply
main and subsidiary canals connected with them, were acquired by the scheme commissioned in 1978 had to be stopped continuously for 10
Government within the last few years, so that all the irrigation works in days due to water scarcity between April and May 2003. Drinking Water
Chittur, except a few minor ones, are now the property of Government. is also supplied from this scheme via tanker lorries to the acute water
The area served by these irrigation works is nearly eighteen thousand shortage areas especially Uzhalapathy, Eruthempathi, Moolathara,
acres ……… There are also several reservoirs in the taluk for the storage Vadakarapathi, Kozhipathi, Muthalamada regions of Chittur taluk during
of water where natural facilities exist for the same. Nine small irrigation summer months.
systems are still owned by private individuals: they irrigate between them In Chalakudy and Periyar river basins the existing downstream uses were
2,000 acres of land.”1 never considered during apportioning. The functioning of Chalakudy River
Stabilisation of existing ayacut in the Chittur taluk to the tune of 20,000 Diversion Scheme at Thumboormuzhi with an ayacut area of 14,000 ha
acres was the only irrigation benefit provided to the lower riparian state commissioned before PAP is being affected due to scarcity of water.
as per the agreement. In 1974,the Moolathara weir was reconstructed. The Chalakudypuzha now discharges only meagre quantity of less than
The Moolathara weir along with the four anicuts namely, 2 m3/sec. to the sea during summer months. The agriculture, even after
Kunnamkattupathi (1970 ha.), Thembaramadakku (3321 ha.), Naruni- shifting into less water intensive crops, in the downstream areas of the
Alenkadavu (74 ha), Naruni (431 ha.) are included in the Chittur Valley Chalakudypuzha is seriously affected due to saline water ingression in
Irrigation Project. The present total ayacut area under the scheme is the river on account of reduced flow as well as indiscriminate sand mining.

X
62
X63
Tragedy of Commons
The 85 major and 615 minor lift irrigation schemes and 30 odd drinking
water schemes in the Chalakudypuzha basin are also reeling under the
pressure of water scarcity. The condition of the longest river of the state,
Periyar is no better either. Newspapers on the 23rd December 2002 carried
the headlines that the people of Kochi Corporation depending on this
river for their drinking water tasted salt in their morning cup of tea! A
clear indication of the saline ingress in the Periyar. Some of the 240 odd
industries depending on the river Periyar had to be shutdown due to the
saline ingress in April 2002.
The Fig 3,4&5 on water utilisation by the respective states, it is hoped,
will assist in better understanding of the whole scenario.
Fig. 5 River basin wise share of water utilisation by each state in PAP
Tamil Nadu Kerala
6%
22%
31%
45%
49%
47%
Periyar Chalakudy River Bharathapuzha
The actual yield in Bharathapuzha basin in Tamil Nadu is not known.
Only yield as per the JWRB data, which does not cover the entire
catchment or yield, is included here.
Power Generation; Upper vs Lower riparian state
Power gained
In the upper riparian state, three powerhouses were installed in the main
PAP system, two in the Tamil Nadu Sholyar dam and one at Sarkarpathy.
At Upper Sholayar, Powerhouse No.I with an installed capacity of 70
MW diverts water to Parambikulam reservoir after power generation and
the tailrace water from powerhouse No.II with an installed capacity of
X
64
Kerala Experience
25 MW reaches the Kerala Sholayar reservoir. The powerhouse at
Sarkarpathi with an installed capacity of 30 MW utilises the entire diverted
waters from Periyar and Chalakudypuzha. In addition, that state
constructed Upper Aliyar dam with a 60 MW powerhouse at Navamalai.
Thus the total installed capacity for Tamil Nadu as part of the project
was 185 MW.
Apart from this Tamil Nadu constructed Kadamparai Pumped Storage
Hydro Electric Project, with an installed capacity of 400 MW. The dam
was constructed in the tributary of Aliyar with a live storage capacity of
26.80 Mm3 at 1114 m FRL. The catchment area of this stream is so
small that more diversions were planned. Accordingly the Vandal dam,
Deviyar weir etc. were constructed to divert more water to Kadamparai
reservoir. The water released from the Kadamparai powerhouse, which
is located 204m below ground level will be let into the Upper Aliyar
Reservoir. This powerhouse is intended to operate as a peaking station,
which will produce electricity during the peak hours of the day. The
4x100 MW, reversible pump turbine units are planned to operate daily
six hours in generation mode and eight hours in pumping mode. Water
from the Upper Aliyar reservoir is pumped up back to the Kadamparai
reservoir during the daytime using the thermal power in Tamil Nadu grid.
As water, after electricity generation does not reach the (Lower) Aliyar
reservoir, this scheme contradicts the conditions of PAP agreement.
In addition, two mini hydel stations, one at Aliyar with an installed
capacity of 2.5 MW and another at Thirumoorthy with installed capacity
1.95 MW were constructed recently by Tamilnadu in violation of the
agreement.
Power lost
Power generation benefit to the lower riparian state, as already seen is
through the Kerala Sholayar HEP. Even though the installed capacity of
the scheme is 54 MW, the average discharge from the powerhouse is fixed
at 390 cusecs, which is 50per cent of its capacity. Incidentally, 55per cent
of the water utilised by this project is from the own catchment in the lower
riparian state. Also, this scheme is not part of the main links of the PAP.
X65
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Table. 12 Power generation in PAP population etc. Nevertheless an attempt has been made to provide a
framework within which to understand the various issues and dimensions.
Power Houses Installed capacity (MW)
In most cases the impact on Chalakudy river is highlighted due to the
Tamil Nadu Kerala lack of sufficient information and access to other river basin data.
Tamil Nadu Sholayar PH1 70.00 Impact on the forests and river
Tamil Nadu Sholayar PH2 25.00
Total diversion of water at some structures has resulted in the degradation
Sarkarpathy PH 30.00
of the riparian forests all along the tributaries below the dams. Highly
Upper Aliyar PH 60.00
niche specific riparian forests can survive only in flowing river systems.
Punachi PH (Upper Aliyar) 2.00
The Parambikulam group of dams have submerged numerous fresh water
Kadampara PH* 400.00
swamps in the Parambikulam Plateau that were frequented by Gaurs,
Aliyar PH* 2.50
spotted deer, sambar deer etc. The dams have also affected the Elephant
Thirumoorthy PH* 1.95
movement in the area, which is part of the Parambikulam Wild Life
Kerala Sholayar PH 54.00
Sanctuary. The species diversity and distribution of fishes in the entire
Total 591.45 54.00 river system has also declined due to these interventions. The excerpt
*Outside the purview of Agreement below gives the true picture of environmental degradation in the
It is said that the installed capacity of the Poringalkuthu left bank HEP Parambikulam area.
was reduced to 32 MW from the originally proposed 48 MW in
The Parambikulam Plateau along the southern margin of the Palghat
anticipation of reduced flow due to PAP (later the installed capacity
Gap forms a large natural amphitheatre draining towards the Southwest,
here was increased to 48 MW with the installation of a 16 MW generator
with the backdrop of the Nelliyampathies towards the Northwest and north,
in 1998 to utilise the high flows during the monsoons). As Tamil Nadu’s
and the Anamalais to the northeast and east. It was one of the best wildlife
share of water from Nirar and Upper Sholayar, had to be brought into
habitats along with Wayanad in the whole of Southern Western Ghats. It
the Kerala territory first for the exclusive use of TN before diverting it
had a variety of habitats, extensive ecotone areas, and safety for animals,
again to TN, it will have been natural justice only if the electricity generated
as human habitations were far away, plenty of water and forage. Although
due to these diversions was at least shared between the states. But this
the area had been heavily worked using the tramway linking it with
was not to be. Table12 gives the comparative benefits in power generation
Chalakudy, the wildlife had not been drastically decimated. Deforestation
to the two states.
gradually reduced the contiguous extensive forest tracts around the
Hidden impacts Parambikulam valley; in particular the large scale tea plantations of Valparai
and Anamalais along its southeastern border and more recent coffee and
There has not been any honest attempt to address or understand or cardamom plantations along the Karappara Valley towards the northwest.
assess the various social, economic and ecological impacts of dams and This denudation resulted in an exceptional concentration of wildlife being
diversions in the PAP system so far. It has been easier to delve into the driven into the central basin of Parambikulam. Starting from the late fifties,
inherent lacunae in the PAP Agreement and the apportioning of waters three dams came up in the heart of the valley- the Parambikulam,
based on the data available. It has also been easier to analyse the Thunacadavu and Peruvarippallam, and 10 other dams immediately outside
underlying political issues in the project. Unfortunately there is a dearth the enclosing hill ranges. Simultaneously, the remaining forests around
of quantitative and qualitative analysis of the impact of such diversions the dams were all clear felled and converted to monoculture of teak
and dams on the river ecology, on the wildlife, on the downstream plantations extending over 10,000 hectares, mostly in Kerala and some in
X
66
X 67
Tragedy of Commons
Tamil Nadu. The massive destruction of wildlife this entailed indirectly
through habitat destruction and directly through poaching was on a scale
till then or never again to be matched. In particular the taungya contractors,
using crop protection guns, undertook a massive slaughter. Soon the best
wildlife area and congregation of the entire spectrum of Peninsular Indian
wildlife was destroyed. The aftermath of this destruction was that in 1973,
the Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary now extending over 285 sq.km, was
constituted.33
If one takes the case of just the Chalakudypuzha, due to the total diversion
of the Parambikulam, Peruvarippallam and Thunacadavu tributaries for
the PAP project, there is no river for atleast 5 km downstream of the
Parambikulam dam, 2 km downstream of Peruvarippallam dam and 3
km downstream of Thunacadavu dam. Between the upper and lower
Sholayar dam for a distance of 4 km and downstream of the Kerala
Sholayar dam for a distance of 12 km also there is no river. Downstream
of the Poringalkuthu dam for a distance of 2 km again there is no river
flow. The Edamalayar Augmentation Scheme, which is another, Inter
basin diversion to the Periyar river basin, carries the monsoon waters of
the river through a 7 km canal to the Idamalayar reservoir from the
Poringalkuthu Reservoir.
Due to the series of dams and reservoirs and diversions the river has
been broken up into a few unconnected segments with drastically
fluctuating water levels in between downstream of the dams. In these
dry stretches once in a few decades or so, when the rains are heavy, and
when the dam shutters are opened for a few days, there is extremely
violent discharge of floodwaters. The occasional flushing with unnatural
flow velocity damages the entire riparian vegetation and destroys the
inhabitants of the river even in far downstream stretches.
As for the Kadamparai HEP, continuous underground drilling, blasting
of rocks for over seven to eight years resulted in disastrous loss to wildlife
like Gaur, Sambar, Nilgiri langur that once occupied the area.15
Impact on river hydrology
The major hurdle in understanding the behavioural change due to dams
and diversions in any river basin is the lack of reliable and sufficient
database apart from the lack of access to Government data. There are
X
68
Kerala Experience
no continuous river discharge data prior to dams in most cases. Even
then, it has been attempted to gain an understanding of what happens
to river hydrology taking the example of Chalakudy River. As far as our
search takes us, in the pre dam years just the three yearly river discharge
data is available for the period from 1951-54 compared to the monthly
discharge data that is available in the post dam years from 1970. The
available data shows that the yearly discharge at Poringalkuthu was in
between 1800 to 2125 Mm3 between 1951- 1954 (Table 13).
Table. 13 River flow at Poringalkuthu before dams and
diversions
Year Annual Discharge
tmc. ft Mm3
1951-52 75.032 2124.91
1952-53 63.919 1810.19
1953-54 66.386 1880.14
Source: Water Resources of Kerala 1957, PWD, GoK.
Annual Flow Variation: The period from 1970-1992 for which data was
available, shows the water discharges at Poringalkuthu after the
completion of the above said dams in the basin. Poringalkuthu being the
downstream dam, the hydrological changes of all the dams upstream
can be estimated. Fig.7 shows the discharge details of Poringalkuthu
dam. The lowest water discharge at Poringalkuthu was recorded in 1983,
which was a drought year. The average river discharge at Poringalkuthu
between 1970-1992 is 1036 Mm3 a difference of atleast 800 Mm3 annually
revealing the significant change in the river flow pattern after the
commissioning of dams and diversions upstream. The reduction in the
reservoir spill in the last 22 years is evident from the fig.6. Even then,
the yearly reduction in the quantum of water will not be sufficient to give
a clear picture of the changes in the behaviour of the river flow.
Monthly Flow Variation: As far as the memories of the senior citizens
take them, floods were a natural phenomenon in the Chalakudy River.
They remember the times during annual monsoon when farmers used to
wait for the floods that bring rich nutrients and alluvium to enrich their
soils for the next crop. These floods that were spread throughout the
X 69
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Fig 6. River Discharge at Poringalkuthu The reduction in the river flow during summer months due to diversions
1500
in turn adversely affects the operation of the CRDS, hundreds of lift
1400
1300 irrigation and drinking water schemes downstream. In effect, the
1200 downstream population cannot rely on the river due to the highly fluctuating
Water Discharge in M.Cum

1100 discharge and reduction of flow since the commissioning of the six dams.
1000
900 Displacement of tribal communities
800
The hundreds of ‘Kadar’ tribal families that were displaced by the
700
600
Parambikulam group of dams have neither been properly rehabilitated
500 nor given any compensation till date. They are a primitive hunter-gatherer
400 tribe found only in the Chalakudypuzha basin and are on the verge of
300
extinction. The Government of Kerala and Tamil Nadu has not even
200
100 recommended for their proper rehabilitation even after thirty four years
0 of Agreement.
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
The Kadar communities of Parambikulam area gave us an account of
Year the displacement due to the PAP group of dams. According to the older
generation Kadars, the British engaged the tribals of the river basin in the
Power House Release Spill from the Reservoir
operation of the tramway. Atleast 300 Kadar families used to stay in the
monsoon season from June to November also helped to transport wood present Parambikulam dam area. Five miles west of Parambikulam at
and reeds from the forests to downstream township at Chalakudy. The Kuriarkutty there was another settlement of 250 families and five miles
presence of open wells, the most common drinking water source in Kerala further, at Orukombankootty there were 150 families all settled near to the
and the presence of flood plains and rice fields in the midlands and tramway path. Again five miles to the west there was the Muthuvarachal
plains on either side of the river helped to receive the floods and in the settlement with 200 families. It is a mystery as to where all of them have
recharge of water into the river during summer seasons. disappeared now, says, a Kadar youth. Once the construction of the
After the dams and diversions upstream, the annual flooding spread Parambikulam group dams started, all these tribal settlements got scattered
over six months was changed into flash floods creating incalculable from their original dwelling places. Many of them were forced to migrate
damages to the river downstream in the form of erosion of the banks, downstream. They remember that some of the Kadar families had to settle
crop damages etc. In other words floods became dam induced and in the area near to the Poringalkuthu HEP area.
regulated. Out of the total average annual flow of 1036 Mm3, 36 per There is no mention of tribal displacement or rehabilitation in the
cent flows as reservoir spill in just ten days! Just 20per cent (236 Mm3) Parambikulam Aliyar Project related documents though it resulted in the
of the annual river flow is available to the downstream population in displacement and migration of considerable tribal population from the
summer months (December to May) to meet their drinking and irrigation project areas. The present Parambikulam settlement is a dismal site with
water needs. The river does not enjoy natural floods anymore. The heavy the houses clustered together with little living space in them and cattle
sand mining going on in the river for the past twenty years has further crammed in between.
reduced the riverbed level to below MSL in some places thus reducing Actually it is necessary to delve deeper into the issue of displacement of
the water table further on either banks. Kadar tribals in the Parambikulam area that has been left unrecorded

X
70
X71
Tragedy of Commons
and uncared all these fifty years. It is necessary to know how the dams
have affected their livelihoods and consequently their dependence on
forests through a detailed settlement wise survey. It is also equally
important to find out how they cope up with the changed situation.
Impact on the dams downstream
A hydro dam (Poringalkuthu HEP) with 48 MW capacity and a Major
Irrigation scheme (Chalakudy River Diversion Scheme, CRDS) with an
ayacut of 35,000 acres was commissioned in the Chalakudy River in the
early 1950s before the PAP dams were built. The diversion has drastically
reduced the stream flow into the river affecting the power generation
and irrigation capacity and efficiency of these two Projects downstream
as well as the Kerala Sholayar HEP (54 MW) that was commissioned in
1966.The almost complete diversion of the Nirar tributary has reduced
the stream flow into the Periyar river in Kerala.
Due to massive diversion for PAP from the tributaries of the Chalakudy
River coupled with the degradation of the catchment, the water
availability in the river has reduced drastically, which in turn has affected
the drinking and irrigation water availability in the down stream
panchayaths.
Water logging and soil degradation
Reports suggest that continuous irrigation in the ayacut of Parambikulam
-Aliyar project in the Coimbatore district has created acute water logging
in places like Poosaripatti in Pollachi North Block, Anamalai in Anamalai
Block, Ammapatti in Gudimangalam Block and Kongalnagar, Salayur
and C.P.Konar in Udumalpet Block. Apart from this the rotational system
of water supply and capillary rise of salts during non-supply period brought
the black soil regions in and around Adivalli village in the second zone
creating water logging and salinity. The contamination of ground water
from Nitrate (application of fertiliser) is a common phenomenon all over
the command area of the PAP. 15
Saline ingress
The reduction in downstream flow is creating problems of saline ingress
in the downstream panchayaths leading to drinking water in open wells
getting saline and even rice crops getting damaged due to saline ingress.
The 250 odd industries dependent on the Periyar are also affected by
saline ingress.
X
72
Kerala Experience
Field Diary
The contrasting scenario at Aliyar and Thirumoorthy
It was in the first week of December 2003, the two important dams in
the PAP system, Aliyar and Thirumoorthy presented contrasting pictures.
While the Thirumoorthy Dam was almost full at that time, the Aliyar
Dam presented a sorry picture with practically no water available to be
released down (to Kerala). The water diverted from the Periyar and
Chalakudypuzha are fed into these dams through the contour canal and
Aliyar feeder canal before it is used to irrigate more than four lakh acres
of land in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu. The dams are situated in
the upper reaches of the tributaries of Bharathapuzha – Aliyar and Palar.
A nearby dam, the Amaravathi, constructed across Amaravathi River, a
tributary of Cauvery, originating from Kerala and flowing to Tamil Nadu
was at its full capacity and spillway gates of the dam were opened a
little. Standing by the man made hurdle (for the river) it was felt that the
beautiful river was trying hard to free itself from the shackles and flow
down freely. The period of visit being just after the northwest monsoon
the dams in the area must be having a fair quantity of water. While the
picture at Thirumoorthy and Amaravathy were in accordance with the
norms, Aliyar presented a totally different picture, which was quite
unnatural. The subsequent controversy regarding non-release of water
into the Chittur basin (in early 2004) by Tamil Nadu citing non-availability
of water in the Aliyar dam makes one suspect a deep-rooted conspiracy
with regards to maintenance of water level in various dams.
The visuals of prosperity (or lack of it) also made interesting observations.
Beyond Vandithavalam, the Kerala –Tamil Nadu Border, extensive
sugarcane fields and coconut plantations could be observed. Water from
sugarcane fields was seen draining out into the roadside Nalla.. The
river Aliyar at Amrampalayam had only a meagre flow. From Pollachi to
Udumalpet, the area served by PAP, the fields green. The journey from
Udumalpet to Manupatti, the area served by Thirumoorthy dam, also
presented similar picture. The fields flourished with sugarcane, paddy,
bajra, macca, coconut etc.
X73
Tragedy of Commons
Viewing from the top of the Aliyar dam, coconut plantations were spread
into infinity; the plantations being irrigated from Aliyar. The new powerhouse
constructed just below the dam to utilise the water released to the river
was also observed. A weir, just below the discharge point of the dam toe
powerhouse downstream could be seen to take water to the fields.
The experience of Thirumoorthy visit was surprising. The reservoir was
full but the contour canal was dry. The local residents told that the
water through the contour canal was just stopped because the reservoir
became full. The main river, as viewed near the Thirumoorthy Koil,
emptying into the dam was having a decent flow. The river with it’s cool
and crystal clear water was a refreshing experience. Monkeys were trying
to snatch away prasadams from devotees. On a walk along the contour
canal above the dam for about 2 km, all the small and big rivulets
originating from the mountains are seen draining into the canal. In other
words, the contour canal obstructed the natural drainage. Even with a
full reservoir and continued flow upstream the river Palar (means river of
milk) was stone dry below the dam. The insensitivity of man towards
nature was most appalling. A pipeline recently (2002) constructed to
carry water directly from the contour canal (before it reaches the reservoir)
to Udumalpet to cultivate more than 2000 ha. was seen across this
stone dry Palar. The scenes from atop the dam were no different from
that of Aliyar.Coconut palms dominated everywhere. Here also Tamil
Nadu has constructed a dam toe powerhouse with an installed capacity
of 1.95 MW. (It is said that the machine was installed by SILK, a Kerala
Government undertaking after pressures from a Kerala minister; the
ironical part being that the Kerala Government treats the construction
of this powerhouse as a violation of the PAP agreement conditions). A
major portion of the ayacut in Tamil Nadu under the PAP is fed from
this dam. The Parambikulam Main Canal takes off from this reservoir.
Sugarcane is extensively raised near the dam where Udumalpet Canal
takes off from the Parambikulam Main Canal. The maintenance of the
canal was poor. The sides of the gigantic canal were wrecked. The expert
opinion was that the overall efficiency of the system was well below 40
percent. The experience revealed that the water diverted to the semi
desert area, is not used judicially. (While this canal is in a state of utter
disrepair, the TN Government is engaged in the repair of the contour
canal against the objection of the state of Kerala)
X
74
Kerala Experience
The dried up and dying Chitturpuzha
According to a resident farmer in his 80s “There was enough water in
the river even in the summer months before the commencement of the
PAP. The Chittur region is completely dependent on agriculture. Earlier,
paddy cultivation in the region was limited to lower areas where there
was assured irrigation and dry crops like cotton, peanut etc. in the upper
lands. After the commissioning of the canal in 1970s there was plenty of
water in the region and people even bought more land in the upper
regions under paddy cultivation. Traditionally, Chittur taluk had lots of
ponds, which supported agriculture before the canal era. For extending
paddy cultivation, people filled up several existing ponds and chiras like
Perumkulam, Edayarkulam, kacherrykulam etc. with the feeling that there
is enough water in the canals and there is no need to maintain the
ponds. They have also shifted to more water loving crops like sugarcane.
The ayacut of the Chittur Irrigation Project was under more than 4000
acres of sugarcane in some years. The scarcity of water is more in
downstream areas of the anicuts than in the ayacut areas. For the last
two years, the ayacut is also facing water scarcity and from this year
people started agitation demanding release of water from the Aliyar
reservoir in Tamil Nadu. Moreover Tamil Nadu farmers lift water below
the Manacadavu weir by using numerous pumps.
The search for Nirar dams amidst tea plantations and forest fires
It was March 2004; the peak of one of the worst drought ever to have
affected the region. Near the famous Athirappilly waterfalls, 30 kms to
the east of Chalakudy along the state highway to Valparai, the Vana
Samrakshana Samithi members narrated the tale of the ravaging forest
fire that had already consumed vast tracts of forest and was still going
strong. In fact the visuals of the devastating fire that we had to encounter
all along the trip still haunts the memory. The official apathy towards
the fire was very much evident. A Kadar tribe whom we met about 20
kms further upstream told us that this was the worst fire in his memory.
He was telling us that the area where we met him had not caught fire for
the last twenty years.
The destination for the day was Nirar. Along the Chalakudy-Valparai
state highway, one could see the almost empty reservoirs of Poringalkuthu
X75
Tragedy of Commons
and Sholayar hydroelectric projects. It is the water released from the
Poringalkuthu dam that feeds the Chalakudypuzha in the summer. But
the project, with an installed capacity of 48MW(4x8MW+1x16MW),
works at less than 25per cent of it’s installed capacity during summer as
sufficient water is not available. It is the tailrace water from the Kerala
Sholayar dam and some flow from the Karappara river, the only
undammed major tributary of the river, that feeds the Poringalkuthu
project in the summer. (The storage capacity of Poringalkuthu is only
just above 1 tmc ft.) The provision for maintaining the water level in
Kerala Sholayar reservoir at FRL (+2663 ft.) on February 1st is aimed,
besides helping electricity generation, at ensuring at least minimum water
availability in the Chalakudypuzha in summer. But dishonouring of this
provision continuously by the upper riparian state is causing immense
hardships to the communities dependent on the Chalakudypuzha. In
fact it is only once, in 1972 that the reservoir was full on 1st of February
despite the sub basin receiving 19per cent excess flow than anticipated.
The situation this year, owing to the severe drought, was still worse.
Above the fire ravaged forest tracts, coffee and tea plantations began at
about 2800ft. above MSL. After crossing the state border at Malakkapara,
88 kms upstream of Chalakudy town, we proceeded along the Valparai
road upto Iyerpady estate and from there to Nirar.
The two dams namely Upper Nirar weir and Lower Nirar dam are in the
Kallar Estate area in Tamil Nadu. Tea and cinchona plantations occupy
most of the hill slopes in this region since 1930s. The Nirar river, a
tributary of Periyar, originates from the Eravikulam National Park in
Kerala. The 25m high Upper Nirar weir diverts the entire flow in this
tributary from February to September end through a tunnel to the Upper
Sholayar Reservoir. The stream, even at this time, had a decent flow.
Smoke emanating form the charred forest floor could be seen from a
couple of places on the high mountains beyond the weir. The water
allocated to Kerala from Upper Nirar Weir is let down into the river
through two small rectangular openings near the base (1.2 m width and
0.6 m depth approx.). These were completely closed at the time of the
visit, making the river totally dry below the weir.
The Lower Nirar Dam, located about 8 km downstream of the Upper
Nirar weir was about half full. Water from this reservoir is also diverted to
X
76
Kerala Experience
Upper Sholayar Reservoir through a tunnel. The River below the Dam was
totally dry. Details of the Parambikulam- Aliyar project, including schematic
diagrams, were displayed near the dam. The catchments of Nirar and
Upper Sholayar receive maximum rainfall in the whole PAP system;
4500mm on an average. Journey for the day ended on return to Valparai.
Valparai is one of the highest ridges separating Chalakudypuzha and
Bharathapuzha Basins. On day two we started along the Valparai –
Attakkati Road. A board, after a few kilometres, indicating that Kadamparai
dam is 13 kms into the forest road deviating from the main road was so
enticing that, ignoring the no entry sign, we parked the vehicle and walked
past the iron bar across the forest road. On entering, it was obvious that
the area is very rich in flora and fauna. The Nilgiri Langurs vociferously
protested the invasion into their privacy. We walked for about 3kms into
the forest. It was disappointing that we could not get permission to visit
the dam. The richness of the forest is a testimony to the commitment of
the TN forest officials who are engaged in its conservation.
After resuming the journey, we saw the huge arch entrance of Kadamparai
Power House further ahead. The Upper Aliyar dam and the Aliyar Reservior
could be seen at a long distance from the road. The contour canal was
also visible near some of the sharply curving hairpin bends to Pollachi.
Water level in Aliyar Reservoir was very low. Some of the extensive
plantations served by Aliyar dam could also be observed at a distance.
The return journey from Valparai to Malakkapara was along a different
route; this time along the Upper Sholayar reservoir. The Tamil Nadu
Sholayar dam is the highest in that State (105.16m). The reservoir was
about half full. The two saddle spillways, constructed to divert surplus
water into the Parambikulam valley were seen along the route. As
mentioned in the main text, the agreement has provision for one saddle
spillway only.
By the time we left Malakkapara for Chalakudy, it was already dark.
Clearing of a roadblock on account of a fallen tree also consumed some
time. Against the heart rending visuals of the devastating fire, the only
minor consolation was the sight of thousands of dancing glowworms,
illuminating the forest in the darkness.
X77
Tragedy of Commons
The Periyar Project
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
The River Periyar is involved in two interstate river water transfer
Agreements viz. The Periyar Lease Deed signed on the 29th October 1886
and the Parambikulam- Aliyar Agreement in 1970
The Periyar Lease Deed is one of the earliest formal agreements on water
diversion in India. During the last decades of nineteenth century European
explorers identified the abundance of water in the upper Periyar reaches
available for easy diversion to the eastern desiccated Maduari district.34
The Madras Presidency, of which Madurai was part, was directly under
British rule. Hence the Travancore State was forced to lease its land for
a reservoir and also part with the waters; that too for a period of 999
years!
Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed between 1887 and ‘95 at a cost of
42.26 lakhs of British Rupees. H. E. Lord Wenlock G.C.I.E., the Governor
of Madras inaugurated the dam on the 11th of October 1895. Length of
main dam is 360 metres and baby dam 73 metres. The 47.24 m high
dam with a catchment area of 648 km² has a water spread of about 29
km². The reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 15.6 tmc ft. (443.55
Mcum) feeds an ayacut of 2,20,000 acres in Tamil Nadu.23
In 1932, the proposal put forward by the erstwhile Madras Government to
produce electricity using the waters from the Periyar Lake was opposed by the
erstwhile Travancore State. The case was submitted for arbitration. The
arbitrators differed in their opinions and passed different awards in January
1937. Under the agreement the matter went before Sir Nalini Ranjan Chatterjee,
the umpire who gave his judgment on the 12th May 1941 that the lessee has no
right to use the water for any purpose other than irrigation. The Madras
Government violated the ruling and proceeded with arrangements for power
generation. After the improvement of the carrying capacity of the irrigation
tunnel they commissioned the powerhouse with four units each of 35 MW fully
in a phased manner by 1965.20
X
78
Kerala Experience
After independence, the leaders of the two states agreed informally on
the continued use of the Mullaperiyar water by Tamil Nadu. From 1959,
upto 1970, Tamil Nadu used it for power generation too without any
formal agreement with Kerala.
The Agreement, amendments and conflicts
The Agreement signed on the 1st January 1886 for 999years, stipulated
the release of about 8000acres of land in Kerala for lease to Tamil Nadu.
Not only the land but also all the waters (flowing into, through, over or
from the said tract) in this area, the right to passage and the fishing rights
were totally granted to the lessee. Additional 100 acres was to be leased
out for execution and preservation of the irrigation works. All timber and
other trees, woods, under woods and saplings which now are or shall during
the continuance of this demise be growing or standing upon any of the said
demised lands could be used by the lessee to fell, grub up and use free of
all charge. The lessor could reduce yearly rent of 40,000 Rupees of British
India from the tribute payable to the British Government of India (acreage
rent of 5 Rupees of British India for the 8,000 acres). Finally there was
permission in the lease document to execute a renewed lease for a further
term of 999 years at the same yearly and acreage rents. The disputes if any
were to be referred to the arbitrators or their umpire.
The amended agreement on 29th may 1970 deleted some of the provisions
and added new clauses to the Principal Deed in 1886. As per the amended
agreement Kerala was given the fishing rights by deleting clause 6. The
clause for further renewal of the agreement for 999 years was also removed.
The annual lease rent was increased from Rs.5/- to Rs.30/- per acre of
land given out to Tamil Nadu (i.e. Rs.2, 40,000 per year).  It was specified
that the lease rent alone should be subjected to revision once in every 30
years commencing from 29th May1970. The validity of the present
agreement is for 999 years !
On the same day another agreement was also made between the same
Secretaries of Governments on the Periyar Hydro-electric Scheme.
According to it Kerala ratified the works already done by Tamil Nadu
with effect from the 13th November, 1944. Tamil Nadu agreed to pay at
the rate of Rs.12/- per K.W. year if the power generated is below 350
million units in a year. If it exceeds 350 million units, the rates shall be
X 79
Tragedy of Commons
Rs.12/- per K.W. year up to 350 million units and Rs.18/- for the electrical
energy generated in excess of 350 million units.  (K.W. year   means
8,760 units of electrical energy for the purpose of this clause).
The problem acquired new dimensions in 1979 when leaks were detected
in the Periyar dam, which caused great concern to Kerala about the safety
of the century old masonry dam.
Following the detection of leaks, the team appointed by the Central Water
Commission recommended the lowering of the reservoir level to 136 ft.
from 142.40 ft. along with leak proofing as a precautionary measure
against a possible dam failure. The team suggested keeping the height at
136 ft. until completion of the dam strengthening work by Tamil Nadu
after which it may later be raised to 152 ft. in three stages.
The two governments have remained at dispute over the issue of whether or
not to increase the water level maintained all these years hence at +136 ft.
It may seem strange that while the two states are debating over raising of
the reservoir level, there were only a few occasions since 1961 when the
water in the reservoir touched the full reservoir level (FRL). Similarly,
even at 136 ft the spill into Kerala has been very meagre or nil all these
years (Table 14).
Table.14 Water release from the Mullaperiyar dam (tmc ft)
Particulars 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average
Tamil Nadu 30.61 20.28 22.67 19.04 28.44 22.43 23.91
Kerala 1.32 0 0 1.46 1.97 0 0.793
While Tamil Nadu is keen on raising the height of the dam, Kerala is
concerned about the failure of the dam which would wash away three
districts of the state, threat of seismic hazards and impact on the Periyar
Tiger Reserve etc. related to increase of height of water level. Periyar
Tiger Reserve (Thekkady Lake) is world renown for wildlife tourism and
research. In fact Thekkady Lake is the reservoir of the Mullaperiyar dam.
Many meetings and negotiations later the argument on raising the water
level in the reservoir is still continuing. Presently, the case is in front of
the Supreme Court.
X
80
Kerala Experience
Addressing the issue
Though the issue projected with regards to the Periyar Project is the debate
over the raising of dam height, the real loss to the donor state is that of
the river that should have flowed west. Mullaperiyar is the main tributary
of Periyar, the longest river in Kerala. The entire tributary was diverted,
violating the basic riparian rights and the right of the river to maintain a
minimum flow. More than 25 km downstream of the Mullaperiyar dam,
upto the Idukki reservoir practically remains dry due to the complete
diversion upstream and the destruction of the catchment. The Idukki
HEP was commissioned in 1975.
The Periyar has the maximum number of dams among the rivers of Kerala.
There are 16 big and small dams as part of 9 Projects for electricity
generation and one irrigation dam at Bhoothathankettu including the
controversial 109 year old Mullaperiyar dam. A list of the dams is given
below
◗ Mullaperiyar dam and reservoir in Kerala diverting water to Tamil
Nadu for Power generation and irrigation.
◗ Kundala, Mattuppettey dams in the Pallivasal Hydro Electric Project
(37.5 MW).
◗ Sengulam dam in the Sengulam Hydro Electric Project (48 MW)
◗ Kallarkutty reservoir in the Neriamangalm HEP (45 MW)
◗ Anayirangal and Ponmudi reservoirs of the Panniayar HEP (30
MW)
◗ Idukki reservoir formed by constructing Idukki, Cheruthoni and
Kulamavu dams in the Idukki HEP (780 MW), which releases water
(1440 Mcum annually) into the adjacent Muvattupuzha River after
Power Generation.
◗ Kallar and Erattayar dams constructed in the Perinjankutty to divert
water to the Idukki reservoir as part of Idukki Augmentation Stage III.
◗ The Upper Nirar weir and Lower Nirar dam in the upper reaches of
Idamalayar to diver water to Tamil Nadu as part of Parambikulam-
Aliyar Project.
X81
Tragedy of Commons
◗ Idamala reservoir of the Idamalayar HEP (75 MW)
◗ Lower Periyar dam of the Lower Periyar HEP (180 MW)
◗ Boothathankettu irrigation reservoir in the Periyar valley Irrigation
Project
The story of the destruction of forests for the Mullaperiyar Project was
only a beginning of the destruction to follow in the catchment of Periyar
in the name of dams, powerhouses, colonies, penstock pipes, HT power
lines, quarries etc. The enhanced accessibility to the area and incipient
project settlements that develop gradually into large permanent townships,
greater employment opportunities in and around dam sites encouraged
people to move into the area and settle down. The rapid pace of
development of settlements culminated in the formation of a new district,
Idukki district, and subsequent township development adding to
deforestation and ecological destabilization.34
Till the beginning of twentieth century there was no human habitation in
the entire Idukki high altitude region except for a few scattered tribal
settlements. The entire region was thickly forested. Presently, mere 800
sq.km of the forests remain in the 5396-sq.km catchment of the Periyar
River. Out of 800 sq.km of the forests, 300-sq.km lies in the south eastern
portion; water (about 640 Mcum) from this area is diverted to Vaigai
basin in Tamil Nadu. The largest hydroelectric project in Kerala, the Idukki
HEP with a total installed capacity of 780 MW diverts about 1440 Mcum
of water annually after power generation into the Muvattupuzha River
basin. The upper Nirar weir and Lower Nirar dam constructed in the
upper reaches of Idamalayar as part of the Parambikulam Aliyar Project
also diverts 280 Mcum of water annually. These three diversions carrying
a total of 2360 Mcum of water along with extensive deforestation of the
entire catchment has disrupted the hydrological cycle of the river basin.
Presently except for Pooyamkutty Aar, most of the other tributaries of
the Periyar are in a highly ecologically degraded state.
Atleast 28 lakh people depend on this river for their drinking water
requirements. The Periyar also has the largest number of industries along
its riverbank in downstream Eloor – Edayar area as the river branches
out and reaches the backwaters. Atleast six major industries and 1000
X
82
Kerala Experience
odd medium, small and tiny units utilize about 300-350 million litres of
water per day apart from the 350 million litres of water pumped for
drinking purposes. Due to the severe pollution from the industrial belt
directly discharging toxic effluents into the river, the Eloor- Edayar zone
has been identified as a ‘Global Toxic Hotspot’.
The saline ingress into the river is also on the increase every year. During
the third week of December 2002, the salinity level in the river touched a
very high of 1000 ppm while the water supplied from the pump house
had a salinity level of 550 ppm (The Hindu, Dec.21.2002). The Kochi
Corporation almost entirely depends on this river for its drinking water
requirements.
The Mullaperiyar dam has already crossed the safe life span of a dam.
Seismicity has already been recorded in this area. The saddest part of
the event is that though Tamil Nadu is not a coriparian state it is
consistently insisting at raising the height of the dam inspite of the self-
evident problem of dam safety and seismicity factor. The right of the
river to flow are totally denied to the donor state by completely diverting
the waters from Mullaperiyar, the main tributary of Periyar. Not only has
Tamil Nadu violated the rules by generating power using Kerala waters,
but also has not shown the willingness so far to share the power thus
generated as per the rules and doctrines on inter state water diversions or
sharing. Meanwhile, compare the trivial 0.13 paise per unit that Tamil
Nadu gives in return for the water used for power generation while there
are times when Kerala has been charged more than Rs. 2 per unit for
availing power from Tamil Nadu.
This maybe the ultimate tragedy.
The tragedy of human attitude towards each other which in turn reflects
our attitude towards the most precious life resource ‘water’ that should
have been shared and used peacefully, but that which has reached a
stage wherein greed, selfishness, lack of concern for those who provided
the water, becomes the dominant compulsion.
X83
Tragedy of Commons Kerala Experience
Table.15 Dams in the Bhavani Basin

Name of the dam Year River Design Hei Gross

Bhavani River Diversions of com- Purpose ght Capacity
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW pletion m Mm 3

The Nilgiris and Bhavani river basin- a tale of destruction Glanmorgan 1930 Glanmorgan st. H 16 0.74
Pykara 1935 Pykara H 56 -
The 217 km long Bhavani River a major tributary of Cauvery originates
Mukurthi 1938 Mukurthi H 34 50.98
at about 2500m altitude near Bhavaniaar Betta (also called Koyilumalai
Maravakandi 1947 Aravarihalla H 22 0.82
by Kurumbas, a tribal community) in the Kundah hills of Nilgiris, a part
Moyar Forbay 1951 Moyar H 22 0.17
of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (NBR). Spread across three states Tamil
Bhavani Sagar 1955 Bhavani I 62 929
Nadu (2,537.60 sq.km), Karnataka (1,527.40 sq.km) and Kerala
(1,455.40 sq.km), the NBR is the first global biodiversity hotspot in India Emerald 1961 Emerald H 65 156.2
identified by the UNESCO under the Man and Biosphere Programme Avalanche 1961 Avalanche st. H 57 156.2
(MAB). A total area of 2,195 sq.km under the six protected areas in the Kundah Pallam 1961 Kundah H 32 1.76
NBR is an indication of the rich biodiversity of the Biosphere Reserve. Of Sandnahalla 1963 Sandnahalla st. H 36 26.62
these six, two, Mukurthi National Park (80 sq.km) and Mudumalai Wild Upper Bhavani 1965 Bhavani H 80 101.2
Life Sanctuary (321 sq.km) are in the Bhavani river basin. Almost all the Pegumbahallah 1965 Pegumbahalla H 55 1.07
tributaries of Bhavani River have been dammed or diverted, altering the Western Catchment No.1 1966 Arickyampuzha H 18 0.13
hydrological cycle of the entire ecosystem. -do- No.2 1966 Karampuzha H 30 0.55
The Bhavani, after originating in Tamil Nadu flows in a south- west -do- No.3 1966 Karampuzha H 26 -
direction into Kerala. At Mukkali, the gateway to the famous Silent Valley Porthimund 1966 Porthimund st H 56 60
National Park, the river takes a near U turn and flows northeast through Parson’s Valley 1966 Parson’s valley H 43 19.25
Attappady before re-entering Tamil Nadu at Koodappatti. The total East Varahapallam 1967 E.V.Pallam H 35 1.36
drainage area of the river in Kerala is 529 sq.km. Kundah, the northern West Varahapallam 1967 W.V.Pallam H 18 0.4
tributary of the Bhavani River, which almost entirely lies in Tamil Nadu, Pillur 1967 Bhavani H 88 44.4
joins the main river at a place called Anthikadavu. The Siruvani River, Siruvani 1973 Siruvani DW 54 18.41
another tributary, originates from the southwestern corner of the Attappady Pykara new forbay 1976 Pykara H 45 5.85
plateau from Palamalai evergreen forests and Chennattu Reserve forest. Varattupallam 1978 Varattupallam I 15 3.94
It descends rapidly and flows north east to join Kodungarappallam near Upper Bhavani
the Tamil Nadu boundary and empties into Bhavani at Koodapatti. The Pumping Weir - Bhavani H 19 0.65
entire course of the Siruvani River, which is about 40 km long, is through
Bangihalla Bund - Bhavani H 23 -
Kerala. The Kodungarappallam tributary of Bhavani River originating from
NiralaPallam Diversion
Perumal Mudi (1641 m) in the southeastern corner of Attappady flows
Weir - Niralapallam H 18 -
along the State boundary in the eastern Attappady region. This stream
source : National register of large dams: Tamil Nadu, CWC, Dam safety organization,
has now almost ceased to exist. More than 1000 tribal families who used New delhi 1994

X
84
X85
Tragedy of Commons
to depend on this stream are now forced to dig bore wells even for meeting
their drinking water requirements. The Varahapallam tributary originates
from the southern slopes of Koyilumalai.
Dams and diversions in the Bhavani river basin
The history of dams in the Bhavani River dates back to 1930s with the
construction of Glanmorgan dam. Presently there are 26 big and small
dams/weirs in this small river. Except three, all are meant for power
generation. Almost all the main tributaries and sub tributaries have been
dammed (Siruvani, Kundah, Varahapallam,Moyar,Pykara etc.).
The most intricate project in the Bhavani Basin is the Kundah complex
Power Project with a total installed capacity of 555 MW. The project is
inclusive of series of dams and its thirteen big and small reservoirs with
five powerhouses.
The main Bhavani River is dammed just before it enters Kerala and the
total quantity of water upto that point is diverted to the Kundah HEP
complex. Water from the East and West Varahappallam, which joins the
River Bhavani in Kerala, are also diverted into the Kundah Project before
it enters Kerala. Water from these three reservoirs is diverted without any
formal agreements with Kerala.
These numerous dams and diversions have created serious impacts on
the hydrological behavior of the river and have resulted in drastic reduction
in the water availability in the Bhavani River. A glance into the table
would reveal the complexity of the scenario.
The Siruvani Drinking Water Project
The city of Coimbatore and Siruvani water are inseparable. The history
of the Siruvani drinking water scheme dates back to 1880s when the first
proposal to construct a multi purpose dam across the Bhavani at its
junction with Siruvani River was first considered. But this proposal was
dropped for two reasons- diversions during the low flow periods would
affect the large irrigation channels, which take off from the river between
the towns of Mettupalayam and Bhavani, and the investment for
excavating and tunneling would be exorbitant.42
X
86
Kerala Experience
In 1919, independent plans and estimates for the Siruvani water supply
scheme, this time consisting of a weir across Siruvani near its origin, was
submitted. The proposal envisioned irrigation of 2000 acres in the Noyyal
river basin, continuous water supply to 1 lakh people at the rate of 20
gallons per head per day and 375 gallons per minute per day for industrial
concerns. The work began in 1924 and was completed in 1931 with a
total expenditure of Rs.41 lakh. Later the farmers of Palladam and
Coimbatore demanded more diversion from Siruvani, which in turn resulted
in raising the height of the Siruvani weir in 1949. Subsequently, in
September 1950 and June 1951, 25 to 40 cusecs of water was released
for irrigation. This was mainly used by the ayacuts under the Chitrachavadi
channel. In July 1951, following damage in the tunnel, the municipality
stopped supply of water for the Noyyal basin irrigation.
After the reorganisation of the states in 1956, Tamil Nadu approached
Kerala Government to divert more water from the Siruvani for drinking
water purposes and also for extending irrigation in the downstream villages.
The Kerala Government however refused permission. The subject was
then included in the agenda for the meeting of the Southern Zonal Council
held in April 1960, where it was decided that the Chief Ministers of both
states should settle the matter.
Subsequently, Tamil Nadu came up with a new proposal to replace the
existing weir with a dam. In1973, the two states signed an agreement on
the project. Accordingly the Government of Kerala built the Siruvani dam
with a live storage of 650 M cft. at the cost of Government of Tamil
Nadu. The dam is to be maintained by the Kerala Government at the
cost of Tamil Nadu. As per the agreement, Kerala has to provide 1,300
M cft of water per year to Tamil Nadu for the drinking water supply
requirements of Coimbatore municipal town and neighbouring areas. In
this agreement Kerala has been allotted 2.5 tmc.ft. from the Bhavani
basin. The agreement also provides for maintaining minimum flow in the
river. Clause V of the Agreement states that “Schedule I shall be
constructed to make available a regulated flow of not exceeding 5 cusecs
of water downstream in order to meet the riparian requirement in
Kerala.”42 A recent newspaper report that, Tamil Nadu has permanently
X87
Tragedy of Commons
sealed the shutters of the Siruvani dam, obstructing downstream flow is
highly disturbing.
This agreement, at a glance seems to be a balanced one. Unlike in PAP
agreement the construction and maintenance of structures inside Kerala
territory is entrusted to Kerala. A minimum stream flow is ensured below
the structure. The agreement has got a specific period; 99 years. But one
condition in the agreement, which actually is unwarranted, negates the
positive aspects. The agreement, as already mentioned, stipulates that
Kerala can utilise 2.5 tmc ft. in the Bhavani basin. This in fact was not
intended to allow water to Kerala, rather it was actually meant to restrict
Kerala’s possible future claim on Bhavani waters.
The actual water available in the Kerala part of Bhavani basin is many
times higher than 2.5 tmc ft. The Kerala catchment of Bhavani mostly
includes the eastern sloping Attappady plateau. Attappady, a
predominantly tribal area has a long history of extensive degradation of
the catchment forests of Bhavani and Siruvani coupled with encroachment
of non-tribals from Mannarkkad plains and Coimbatore district in search
of new land. Over years, the traditional tribal agriculture was replaced by
the intensive agriculture of the non-tribal settlers, which later added to
the severity of the degradation through soil erosion and loss of fertility of
the land. Presently severe drought, desiccation and poverty have become
the landmark of this once rich but fragile forested area. The accumulated
impact of all this reflects in the summer flow of Siruvani and Bhavani
that gets fragmented at many places. Hence, it would be suicidal to the
severely drought ridden Attappady region, if any more efforts are made
to divert any amount of these remaining waters. It has to be noted that
from January to May, the flow in the Kerala part of Bhavani River is less
than 1 tmc ft. The Bhavani and what remains of Siruvani River in the
Attappady region is the main stay of more than 25,000 populations of
tribals in the region.
X
88
Kerala Experience
Neyyar Irrigation Scheme
The Neyyar irrigation scheme was conceived by the Princely state of
Travancore. With the formation of Travancore-Cochin State in 1949, it
was taken up for implementation in 1951 and commissioned in 1959.
The project was commenced with the full belief that the four taluks of
south Travancore would remain as an integral part of Travancore- Cochin.
The 56 km long Neyyar River, southern most river in Kerala, has a
catchment area of 497 sq.km. The Neyyar dam has right and left bank
canal systems. It is aimed to irrigate 11,740 ha of land in Neyyattinkara,
Nedumangad and Trivandrum taluk of Trivandrum District in Kerala and
3780 ha in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu. There has not been any
formal agreement between the two states on the release of waters from
this scheme to Tamil Nadu.
Pandiyar-Punnampuzha Project
The river Chaliyar is an inter state river, the tributaries Pandiyar and
Punnampuzha originating from Tamil Nadu. The west flowing rivers of
Pandiyar and Punnampuzha originating in the high peaks of Nilgiris join
at about 5 km west of Guddalore Town and the river beyond the confluence
is called Punnampuzha, This joins Chaliyar river in Kerala State near
Nilambur. Ultimately, this drains into Arabian Sea near Beypore. This
project area is located in the Udagamandalam-Mysore road.
As per 1965 understanding between Tamil Nadu and Kerala, Pandiyar-
Punnampuzha hydro electric project envisages utilisation of the west
flowing waters of Pandiyar and Punnampuzha rivers from a total
catchment area of 171.38 sq. km. (66.20 sq. miles) with an average
annual yield of 14 tmc ft for power generation with a gross head of
500.60 m (1642 ft) and with an installed capacity of 100 MW (2x50
MW) for the first stage and 150 MW as ultimate. The average annual
generation would be 409 MU. The Planning Commission approved the
proposal in 1969.
Subsequently, on representation from the farmers of Coimbatore district,
the possibility of diverting the waters of Pandiar-Punnampuzha lying within
Tamil Nadu to Moyar arm of Bhavani River for use by Tamil Nadu was
X89
Tragedy of Commons
investigated and this was also found feasible. Tamil Nadu wanted diversion
of at least 7 tmc ft of water eastward to Tamil Nadu.
The concurrence of the Government of Kerala is essential for diversion of
water eastward. The Government of Tamil Nadu is actively pursuing with
the Govt. of Kerala for attaining its concurrence for the implementation
Linking Rivers
of this project.
De-linking India

X
90
X93
Tragedy of Commons
Interlinking of Rivers
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
The Mullaperiyar diversion, the Parambikulam-Aliyar Project and the
Siruvani diversion are living testimonies to the inherent problems underlying
linking of rivers/diversion of rivers/ river water transfers from its natural
course. The various political, socio-economic and ecological dimensions
of these diversions, the impacts thereof have been discussed in the first
two sections. The proposal for the linking up of major rivers in the country
in the name of drought relief, irrigation, power and flood mitigation is a
quite well known live issue. Debates, discussions, open forums, workshops,
demonstrations etc. both for and against the project have been galore
since the Hon. Supreme Court of India suggested the Government of
India to take up the project without delay. The feasibility, sustainability,
the lack of transparency of the project and its process etc have been
questioned in many forums.
A compilation of excerpts of reports, viewpoints and analysis of various
concerned people across the country on the Inter Linking of Rivers Project
is attempted here in its various dimensions against the background of the
longest experience of Kerala in mass transfer of river waters. The aim is
also to analyse the parallels and implication therein.
The Project- An Outline
The Inter Linking of Rivers Project envisages additional benefits of 25
mha of irrigation from surfacewaters, 10 mha by increased use of ground
water, totaling to 35mha which will be over and above the ultimate
irrigation potential of 140 mha and 34,000 MW of hydro-power apart
from the benefits of flood control, mitigation of drought, navigation,
domestic and industrial watersupply, fisheries, recreational facilities,
salinity and pollution control etc.The project claims that it will also translate
into higher food grains production of 380 million tonnes by 2025. The
other spin-offs would be socio-economic development and employment
generation, among others.
X
92
Interlinking of Revers
This plan seeks to end the flood problems of the Ganges and the
Brahmaputra while at the same time solving the drought in Southern
India by diverting the excess waters in these Himalayan Rivers to the
monsoon fed peninsular ones.
The National Perspective Plan formulated by the Ministry in 1980 divided
the project into two components – the Himalayan and the Peninsular.There
are 14 links envisaged in the Himalayan component and 16 links in the
Peninsular component involving a total of 30 rivers with a total projected
investment of Rs. 5,60,000 crores.
As the storage sites are limited on account of topographical and other
resources, the plan is based on optimum development of available storage
sites including development of new storages, big and small, wherever
feasible. It would require construction of more than 1000 km of new link
canals, 10,000 MW of electricity for lifting water over highlands and over
200 storage reservoirs to enable this water transfer.
The proposal appears to be perfect with claims that all the aspects will
be looked after. When one reads between the lines, it becomes evident
that many vital aspects about the proposal are not clear; some are not
even mentioned in the proposal. Basic information on the status of each
river basin, the quantum of water that is proposed to be transferred from
or received by each basin, the existing water use in the recepient river
basin, area which will be benefited and irrigated by each link, power
generation potential of each link, the actual displacement and the type
of land that would be required and acquired, the wild life habitats that
would be lost etc. remain unwritten.
The various basin states have expressed divergent views about the studies
and feasibility reports prepared by the National Water Development Agency
(NWDA). The Ministry admits that there could be a number of
impediments, the most crucial being the lack of consensus amongst the
co-basin States for transfer of surplus water. The NWDA claims that it
has completed the pre feasibility studies of all the links and feasibility
studies of eight links altogether with one in the Himalayan component
and seven in the Peninsular component. It is estimated that all the
feasibility reports for the Peninsular Component will be completed by
2004 while that of the Himalayan Component will be over by 2008.
X 93
Tragedy of Commons
The Project - Promises and
Realities
In its proper time, rain becomes stream
Stream becomes river, river becomes sea
But divide stream from river,
Even rain from sea and trouble begins…( Tao)
More irrigation, larger food production, flood control, drought relief and
more power generation: these are the major claims laid down by the
Government with regard to the benefits of Inter Linking Project. These
claims, we have heard before, throughout the five-year plans in the past.
Given the past experiences in these areas of development, what are the
new or additional benefits that the people of India can expect? An honest
attempt to understand the claims has been attempted.
Irrigating more land
The Government says that it is necessary to increase irrigation potential
to 160 mha for all crops by the year 2050 while the maximum irrigation
potential that could be created through conventional sources has been
estimated at 140 mha. Interlinking of rivers will provide the requisite
solution to the goal of attaining an irrigation potential of 160 mha. The
project claims to irrigate an additional 35 mha of land.
Irrigation is the single human activity, which makes maximum demand on
water. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, agriculture is the dominant water
user accounting for 85per cent of all the water used.45
The major increase in irrigated agriculture has been due to groundwater
irrigation development and also due to minor surface potential (GOI,
1999: 477). Comprehensive planning at river basin level has not been
done in the case of any river basin in India. Most of the time what is
passed out as river basin wide planning is really a collection of few large
X
94
Interlinking of Revers
projects, whose sites are first identified on the basis of suitable dam sites,
along with a few other projects thrown in the name of minor projects. In
reality, what is passed off as minor has actually become major irrigation
source in India today.16
India also has the largest irrigation infrastructure in the world. This existing
system is hardly performing near optimum levels. Irrigation efficiencies
are not more than 35per cent at best. As the 9th Plan pointed out, even
10per cent increase in irrigation efficiency could lead to additional irrigation
potential of 14 mha.31
The failure of large-scale irrigation
“…since 1951, 246 big surface irrigation projects have been initiated.
Only 65 out of these have been completed; 181 are still under
construction…Perhaps we can safely say (about projects started after
1970) that for 16 years we have poured money out. The people have got
nothing back, no irrigation, no water, no increase in production, no help
in their daily life.”
Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, 198624,
Irrigation is an ancient technology. Though irrigation developed as an
insurance against drought in low rainfall areas and for extension of crop
periods and cropped areas in rainfed areas, the rate of irrigated area
expansion accelerated since the big dam boom in the 1950s.The Green
Revolution Technology in the 1960s assisted in bringing more area under
irrigation especially in the fertile parts of India and other Asian countries.
Since the late 1970s the spread of irrigation has slowed down.
Even though more than Rs 50,000 crores has been spent on 550 major
and medium irrigation projects in India, these could cover only 60 mha
of land under irrigation. Further, 25 to 35 percent of the area irrigated
under such projects turned saline and alkaline and became prone to water
logging due to scientific failure of cropping patterns. Nearly 40 percent of
water stored in dams is wasted. There is a reason why modern engineers
adopted only canals among the indigenous techniques while others were
not. Canal irrigation allows centralised management, which goes well enough
with bureaucratic control. (Sengupta, 1993) 16
X95
Tragedy of Commons
Modern canal irrigation systems are also plagued by poor design and
construction, poor capacity utilisation, mismanagement, erratic and
unreliable supply of water to farmers, head and tail end conflicts due to
unequal water distribution, canal losses and leaks, over sizing of benefits
and under sizing of adverse impacts, lower water use efficiency to name
a few apart from the huge increase in the investment cost per hectare.
The best instance of poor performance of irrigation systems can be found
in Kerala. Out of the 14 completed major irrigation schemes in Kerala,
five, namely Cheerakuzhi, Pamba, Periyar Valley, Chitturpuzha and
Kuttiadi took almost 30 years for completion. The cumulative cost of
infrastructure development was Rs.1.39 lakh/ha. on an average and it
was more than Rs.3lakhs in the case of Pamba and Kuttiadi Irrigation
Projects. The status of the ongoing schemes is no different as the rate of
achievement was only 22 percent resulting in a cost escalation of 1633
percent in absolute terms.43 The Indian Accounts Committee reported in
1983 that since independence not a single large irrigation project in the
country had been completed on time and within stated cost estimates.24
The latest instance of the failure of large-scale irrigation systems is evident
from the Bargi Dam on the Narmada River.The dam submerged nearly
81,000 ha of farmland and forest to irrigate a projected area of 4,
40,000ha. Seven years after the dam was completed in 1986, just
12,000ha were receiving irrigation waters (3 percent of the planned area).24
All these indicators point towards the inherent unsustainability of large-
scale irrigation systems. The cost of investment and running of the irrigation
systems is simply becoming unaffordable. Governments can no longer
afford the massive subsidies in such large-scale irrigation projects.
Agricultural prices of food and non-food crops are falling in world market
making irrigated farming no more economically viable without huge
subsidies. Farmers are entering into deeper and deeper debt traps due to
increasing degradation of the soils, due to over irrigation, fertilizer and
pesticide application and due to the increasing cost of agricultural
production.
An economic, social and ecological evaluationof the fertile and productive
land already lost to irrigation canals and related infrastructure, water
logging, salinisation and alkalinisation become imperative in this context.
X
96
Interlinking of Revers
Flooding the land
On the one side, we carry out irrigation work and put more and more
water for fresh areas, while on the other side land goes out of cultivation
due to water logging. This is a curious state of affairs and it is far better
to stop every irrigation work than allow water logging.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, 1958 24
The Bhakra project on Sutlej is the most frequently quoted success story
of a large dam based irrigation project in India, even in the present context
of the interlinking plan. Irrigation was not new to Punjab. Inundated
Irrigation canals since the time of Greek invasions have irrigated millions
of hectares. They did not cause water logging. They flowed for four to
five months and for the remaining part of the year, they served as drainage
channels. The Bhakra system covering a length of over 3000 km of channels
was different from older canal systems because it was fed by a high dam,
and included a network of cross country canals which ran against the
natural drainage to irrigate 23, 72,100 ha.40 This did bring water to
some of the very arid lands in south west Punjab and West Haryana.
Ironically, these are some of the very areas in India that are experiencing
the worst impacts in terms of water logging and salinisation.
The Rajasthan Canal Project (Indira Gandhi Canal) has caused water
logging in 0.170 mha of the irrigation command area according to an
estimate. In two separate estimates, the extent of waterlogged area in
India has been calculated as 1.339mha (Rao, 1984) and 1.014 mha.
(Joshi and Agnihotri, 1984).35 In the Tungabhadra project in Karnataka,
33, 000 ha have been waterlogged (Shiva, 1989: 149). In large parts of
Haryana, the impact of irrigation over many decades has caused the
groundwater table to rise, resulting in severe water logging and salinisation.
Crop yields have declined significantly. Already, water logging problems
have developed on about 2, 50, 000 ha of land in northwest India, and
it is foreseen that some 3 mha maybe in jeopardy over the next 30 to 50
years. The incidence of flooding also increases as the water table
approaches land surface (World Bank, 1994: 3).
About 1.2 mha in UP (7per cent of net cultivable area) are not used
because of high concentration of exchangeable sodium, which is also
97
X
Tragedy of Commons
described as alkaline conditions (World Bank, 1998: 80. 7). In Tamil
Nadu saline and alkaline soils are spread over in 0.41 mha and acidic
soils occur in 0.12 mha (World Bank, 1995 Vol. 2: 299). In Orissa, water
logging is a major problem of the irrigated delta of the coastal zones:
about 85,000 ha of the Mahanadi delta is affected (World Bank, 1995b:
5).16
Water logging does not recognize farm boundaries. Usually, it is the fertile
deltas and low lying areas that are adversely and irrevocably affected by
water logging. Once, these areas would have enabled the farmers to raise
good crops without much dependence on external inputs and irrigation.
Intensive irrigation
Intensive irrigation on arid and semi arid lands has more serious
repercussions than we imagine.
All irrigation waters, whether from rivers or groundwater, contains dissolved
salts washed out of rocks and soils. Evaporation from reservoirs, canals
and fields increases the concentration of salts in irrigation water. When
the water reaches the crops, the roots absorb water but leave in the soil
most of the toxic salts. Compounding irrigated agriculture’s salt problem
is that soils in arid and semi arid areas naturally tend to have high salt
levels. To prevent the salinity of irrigated soils from reaching levels, which
would stunt plant growth, farmers apply more water to wash salts from
root zone. Flushing out all the salts, however, increases the salinity of the
groundwater below and, in the absence of good drainage, causes the
water table to rise. Eventually, when the water table reaches the surface,
the water evaporates leaving behind its salt content as a crust of deadly
white crystals. Thus in trying to flush out the salts, the irrigator is not
only accelerating salinisation, but also the water logging of the root zone.
Atleast 25 mha of land in India is facing the threat of salinity24.
The salt poisoning of arable land seems to be an inevitable consequence
of intensive irrigation in arid regions. In regions of scarce rainfall, the
earth contains a large amount of non-leached salts. Pouring irrigation
water to such soils brings those salts to the surface and leaves behind a
residue when the water evaporates. Today more than one third of the
X
98
Interlinking of Revers
world’s irrigated land has salt – pollution problems that diminish the
productivity of the soil and, in extreme cases, ruins it forever. It is estimated
that about 7 lakh ha in Punjab are salt affected and produce either no
yield or very poor yields.40
In India, the salt-affected areas in the country as reported by the Central
Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI), Karnal, India as of 1991 was 7
mha of which 2.4 mha were inland saline soils of the arid and semi-arid
regions, 2.5 mha were alkali soils of the Indo-Gangetic plains and 2.1
mha were coastal saline soils. This amounts to 2.3 percent of total
geographical area or about 4 percent of total cultivable land. The leaching
of the saline desert soils by irrigation was the major cause of the secondary
(capillary) salinisation (Smedema 1990a).46
Water logging and salinity are problems linked to the over use of water in
regions where the nature of the topography and soils rule out intensive
irrigation as a productive use of land and water. The natural ecological
solution to these problems would be to shift to more water prudent
cropping pattern, to crops and varieties that need less water. The
engineering solution, on the other hand is to redesign the nature by
artificially transforming the drainage characteristics and chemical
composition of soils. The cure is worse than the disease; more water
consumption, more drains to get rid of the excess water quickly, more
energy and capital for desalting. These cures are neither affordable nor
sustainable.40
Increasing food production
One of the arguments that have come forward in favour of interlinking is
that we need to increase our food production to 450 million tonnes by
2050 for the fast growing population. The interlinking of rivers, will not
only increase the availability of water and reduce drought in the country,
but also translate into higher food grains production of 380 million tonnes
by 2025.
From past experiences, we know that assured irrigation has almost always
prompted farmers to shift to water intensive cash crops from indigenous
varieties of food crops which were raised adapted to the local climate,
topography and water availability. Sugar growers in Maharashtra occupy
X99
Tragedy of Commons
only one tenth of the State’s irrigated land, yet use half of its irrigation
water.
It is a well-known fact that more area under irrigation does not necessarily
mean more food production. A well known and documented case of
water logging leading to reduction in yields before that of introducing
irrigation is that of Tawa dam in Madhya Pradesh. According to the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, “it will be noticed that the
yields per acre after irrigation have actually declined.” “According to the
scientific and technical opinion now available, because of the soil
conditions and weather conditions in the command area of the Tawa
project, agricultural operations in both kharif and rabi seasons with the
help of irrigation could not have been productive, but on the other hand,
irrigation could be even harmful. There was also resistance on the part of
cultivators to a change in their habits and the cropping pattern they have
been used to. Thus, it would appear that the project was ill conceived
and the benefits that were presumed would be available could not have
been realized” (CAG 1979 – 80)35.
We have the classic example of Kerala wherein irrigation expansion has
led to more and more farmers replacing rice farming with commercial
crops. The cumulative investment for irrigation development in Kerala till
the end of 1997-2002 was Rs.2692.11 crores, out of which, a major
chunk of Rs.1976.98 crores (about 70per cent) was on major and medium
irrigation projects. The overall trend in agricultural development indicates
that while the net sown area in the State has increased by about 46per
cent during the period 1952-1997, net irrigated area has increased only
by less than 10per cent. The proportion of net irrigated area is stagnant
since 1990s. Similarly while the proportion of canal irrigated area made
a sharp decline from 46per cent in1952 to below 30per centin 1997, the
area irrigated by wells has increased by 108per cent during 1980-1997.
This exposes the mismatch between the largescale investment in canal
irrigation and the corresponding area expansion in Kerala. However, it is
important to note that when the share of paddy in the gross irrigated
area has declined from about 73per cent in 1980-81 to 48per cent in
1997-98, that of coconut has increased from 15.75per cent to 34.53per
cent during the same period.43
X
100
Interlinking of Revers
The claim made by a number of supporters of large projects that India
has achieved food production of today due to large dams based irrigation
is quite erroneous looking at the facts. The India Case Study calculates
that the share of the total increase in food production from 1950 – 1993
attributes to additional land brought under irrigation is 10per cent. However
during this period the absolute number of people below poverty line-that
is without capacity to buy food- increased from 180 million to 300
million.45
Another pertinent question that has to be raised here is whether there is
actually shortage of food grains in India? We have instances in history
wherein famine has been created and used as a political weapon. Is not
the problem more of misappropriation, the failure of the PDS, the incorrect
use of land and other natural resources for unsuitable cropping systems,
the over consumption of fertilizers and pesticides making more and more
productive land barren and uncultivable to name a few? While on one
hand, our godowns are overflowing; there are millions who cannot afford
a single square meal per day
After examining the six east flowing rivers, namely, Mahanadi, Krishna,
Godavari, Cauvery, Vaigai and Pennar, the National Commission for
Integrated Water Resources Development Plan concludes (p.192) “Thus
there seems to be no imperative necessity for massive water transfers.
The assessed needs of the basins could be met from full development
and efficient utilization of Intra-basin resources except in the case of
Cauvery and Vaigai basins.” Even the shortages in the Cauvery and
Vaigai basins are just 5per cent and 8per cent even after increasing the
present irrigated areas to 1.4 times in case of Cauvery and 1.6 times in
case of Vaigai.31
The depletion of groundwater in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh
and Karnataka maybe one of the reasons projected by the proponents of
Interlinking to be mitigated through mass transfers of water. But we are
all equally aware that the worsening ground water scenario in these states
is also an indicator of the overuse of water for intensive irrigation requiring
crops like sugarcane and cotton, incorrect land use pattern and water
depleting industries. The nature of groundwater, it is hidden, it is very
difficult to measure, and it is not discrete but is linked to the surface
X101
Tragedy of Commons
water flows- making it difficult to know what pumping rate would be
sustainable. Also, the nature of ground water abstraction- through privately
owned wells is such that- means that it is difficult to control.6 Recharging
aquifers requires replenishment of surface water sources. Most of the
natural ground water recharge occurs through the beds of rivers and the
gravels of alluvial plains. Land husbandry practices that recharge rather
than deplete ground water and a resource based or decentralized watershed
approach in agricultural development would not necessitate more and
more centralized area under irrigation to mitigate ground water depletion.
Controlling floods
I do not know much about gods; but I think that the river
Is a strong brown god- sullen, untamed and intractable
T S Eliot (The Dry Salvages)
The project claims that the Inter linking river will provide flood protection.
Human populations have survived for centuries on the most fertile entity
of a river- the flood plains, weaving their livelihoods tuned to the highs
and lows of the annual floods. As in the flood plains of the Brahmaputra,
sometimes they lived in stilt houses, or moved away during the floods,
and waited for the floods to subside so that they could use the fertile
flood plains to raise their seasonal crops. For pastoral societies, who
graze their herds over parched plains and mountains, perennial vegetation
along the banks of rivers provides life sustaining food and fodder during
dry seasons and droughts.
Flooding is a natural process that flushes out the river and recharges the
drainage channel for water flow. It results in the deposition of alluvium
particularly in the delta areas of rivers to maintain the fertility of the land
by compensating loss of topsoil due to natural erosion. Any system that
prevents or severely reduces natural flooding (by diversion of floodwater)
will cause land fertility to gradually reduce over the years, thus desertifying
the land. The greatest loss that land can suffer is desertification by loss
of topsoil.
The intricate relationship between flowing rivers and flood plains is evident
from the state of the Nile River. Before the Aswan dam was constructed,
X
102
Interlinking of Revers
the Nile carried an average of some 124 million tonnes of sediment to the
sea each year and deposited another 9.5 million tonnes or so on the
narrow flood plain and delta which are home to all of Egypt’s people.
Today, more than 98 per cent of the Nile’s sediment drops to the bottom
of the vast Nasser reservoir. The loss of silt - which is low in nitrogen but
rich in silica, aluminum, iron and other vital trace elements - is believed
by many to have had a serious effect on Egyptian agriculture, resulting in
the need for ever larger amounts of artificial fertilizers and a long term
decline in trace element levels in soils. Today the Nile has no true delta.24
Further, out of the 47 commercial fish species thriving in the Nile prior to
the dam’s construction, only 17 were still being harvested a decade after
the dam’s completion. In the Mediterranean Sea, the annual sardine
harvest dropped by 83per cent; a side effect of the reduction in the nutrient
rich silt entering that part of the sea.
One of the aims of dam construction has indeed been flood control. But
case studies from all over the world also point towards the adverse impact
of flood control over the river and its dependents. After the Farakka
Barrage was built, Malda and Murshidabad have become extremely
vulnerable to floods and erosion. The problem is so acute that the Ganga
may soon erode the land between it and its tributary, the Bhagirathi, and
become a wider mass of water over a stretch of a few kilometers. If that
happens the river may not only engulf houses and cultivable land in north
Murshidabad, but also the railway tracks - the most important link between
South and North Bengal.7
Over longer time periods the storage provided by the reservoir ‘creams
off’ flood peaks and permits the release of augmented flows. In 1978,
floods exacerbated by forced discharges from Bhakra dam rendered nearly
65,000 people in Punjab homeless. Eleven years later, a similar flood
occurred. Stress has remained on engineering responses like dams and
embankments, which have necessitated astronomical expenditures.
However, a corresponding jump in flood relief expenditure and an alarming
increase in flood-affected area, despite protection, make it obvious that
the flood control measures have failed to deliver the goods. The Rashtriya
Barh Ayog (RBA) or National Commission of Floods set up by the
Government in 1976 found that the country’s flood prone area, which
X103
Tragedy of Commons
had been estimated at about 25 mha during the 1960s, went upto 34
mha by 1978. Since 10 mha had been covered by flood protection
measures by then - it is well known that these measures often fail during
high floods- the commission put the country’s flood prone area at about
40 mha. 7
The most flood prone basins are those of the Ganga and Brahmaputra in
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Assam, followed by Baitarni,
Brahmani and Subarnarekha basins in Orissa. The commission analysing
the flood damages in the 1970s, pointed out that during the period 1976-
78, floods were also experienced in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana
and Gujarat, which is, “in areas not usually affected”. The share of
damages of the second group went up from around 20-25per cent to
about 50per cent of the total. Even in the chronically flood prone states
of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the flood - affected area has been increasing.4
The commission did not find any evidence to show that rainfall had
increased during the 1970s. The commission, therefore, felt that floods
had increased more because of human factors like deforestation, drainage
congestion caused by badly planned construction of bridges, roads, railway
tracts and other developmental activities; reduction in infiltration because
of increased occupation of land by industries and large scale urbanisation;
and construction of embankments along rivers. Damages increased because
of the increased flood incidence and encroachment of flood plains. 7
The basic idea of networking rivers is to convey unwanted floodwaters
from one place to another where it is deficient and needed. But this idea
does not consider that the period when it is surplus in the donor area
(July to October in the Ganga-Brahmaputra basins) is not the time when
it is needed most in the recipient area (January to May in the peninsular
rivers). In such a situation, it will be necessary to construct enormous
holding reservoirs that will add to financial, social and environmental
costs. 44 As M.S. Reddy, former Secretary, the Union Ministry of Water
Resources pointed out, the plan to lift 1,500 cubic metres of water per
second would not be able to control floods since the normal volume of
floods in the Ganga, the Brahmaputra, the Mahanadi and the Godavari
range between 30,000 and 60,000 cubic metres of water flow per second.2
X
104
Interlinking of Revers
A more serious difficulty arises from the fact that most of the flow in
practically all rivers occurs during the southwest monsoon. Published data
from official sources show that 90 per cent of the flow in South Indian
Rivers occurs between May and November. Data on the Indo-Gangetic
and Brahmaputra river basins are classified. Being perennial, the
proportion of the total flow occurring during these months maybe somewhat
smaller but not all that much smaller.39
Human habitation in flood plains has increased over the last few decades.
Of course, human populations in the floodplains are adversely affected.
But it is the population pressure and modern high- production- agriculture-
boom that has today driven people to settle down in such regions, unlike
in earlier centuries when all inhabitants migrated seasonally. Deaths and
catastrophes from floods have also been a part of the history especially
in the larger river basins of the world like the Hwang Ho, the Brahmaputra
etc.
While the Government tries to justify the Inter linking Project also in
terms of flood control, the social, ecological and economic impact of
river diversions on the downstream riparian states or country like
Bangladesh when water gets diverted upstream will be disasterous
especially since the major economy and livelihood of Bangladesh entirely
depends on the seasonal fluctuations of Ganga and Brahmaputra.The
impact on the fragile wetlands and deltaic systems like the Sunderbans
and the Kaziranga National Park starting from the Brahmaputra – Ganges
basins is another aspect.
Drought relief
Drought proofing and more drinking water for water scarce regions have
been promised once the interlinking plan is completed.
The terms water scarcity and drought are often defined, used and assessed
in different circles in so many different ways that these two problems can
be viewed only in a contextual manner.
Drought is not unique and its description is totally dependent on local
conditions and local levels of water use. Under monsoonal weather
X105
Tragedy of Commons
conditions, as in India, determining what exactly can be counted, as
drought is a complex issue. For official purposes of declaring drought, a
25per cent to 50per cent deviation from normal rainfall is considered
moderate drought while a departure greater than 50per cent is considered
serious drought (Irrigation Commission, 1972).19
Drought can be meteorological when rains do not arrive in time, or can
be due to ground water depletion through overuse or misuse, can be soil
water drought when the soil loses its moisture holding capacity due to
incorrect cropping pattern or land use, or even can be surface water
drought when streams and rivers dry up during post monsoon due to
hydrological destabilization or deforestation. Drought has different
meanings for a farmer, a hydropower engineer, a meteorologist, and an
average citizen to name a few. The most notorious example of this is
Cheerapunji in NorthEast India, one of the world’s wettest places, with
an average rainfall of more than 9000mm. Illegal logging and expansion
of farmland have denuded the once lushly forested slopes of the region,
and now it suffers floods for three to four months and severe water
shortages for the rest of the year24. Due to the same reasons, even in a
heavy rainfall region like Kerala, drought has become a recurring
phenomenon.
In South India, iron ore mining in the Western Ghats Watersheds of
Tungabhadra is creating a similar situation of drought by reducing the
base flow and increasing the silt load in the river. Expansion of unterraced
agriculture and overgrazing has also contributed to hydrological instability
throughout the mountain watersheds of the country; the exact nature
and the extent of such contribution is however uncertain and little
quantitative information is available. The cumulative impact of all these
factors has been worsening floods and droughts even under normal rainfall
conditions.19
Even after 50 years of dam building, the drought prone areas in the
country have gone up. On August 27th 1987, while Gujarat was reeling
under drought, nearly 50 villages downstream of Kadana Dam in Baroda,
Savli and Padra Taluks were given the alert for evacuation due to floods
in view of the water released from dam following rainfall in the catchments
of the dam. Increasingly, reservoirs are not holding any water during
X
106
Interlinking of Revers
acute drought periods and the result is tremendous water scarcity
confirming that dams have neither effectively controlled floods in the
country nor has the drought protection expected from them been met.19
Palakkad district which has the maximum irrigation dams in Kerala, built
across almost all the tributaries of the Bharathapuzha is one of the worst
drought affected districts in the State.
There are enough indicators to establish our failure in ensuring the stability
of the water cycle. State after state is trapped in an irreversible and
worsening crisis of drought, desertification and consequent water scarcity.
The magnitude of the scarcity is disproportionately higher than the variation
in rainfall from normal. Uttar Pradesh had 17,000 villages without water
in the 1960s; this figure had doubled to 35,000 in 1972 and by 1985 the
crisis had extended to 70,000 villages. In Madhya Pradesh 36,420 villages
had no water in 1980; this number had risen to 50,000 in two years and
64,565 in 1985.The number of villages without water in Gujarat shot up
from 3,844 in 1979 to 12,250 in 1986; and in Maharashtra from 17,112
in 1979 to 23,000 in 1984.19
There are sufficient examples to prove that our rivers are drying up, our
wells are drying up, and our soils are drying up. But it is more due to the
destruction and mismanagement of forests, land, soil, water and mineral
resources that have maintained the hydrological cycle for millions of years
than due to dearth of engineering solutions. It is more due to unsustainable
agricultural development policies and practises and water policies of the
changing governments that are totally against watershed principles. Local
water resources like tanks, wells, ponds, johads, kundis, surangams to
name a few developed by human requirements over centuries adapted to
the geographical, soil and topographical peculiarities are being destroyed
due to pollution, neglect and mismanagement and of course centralized
control of water resources.
More Electricity Generation
The interlinking of rivers project will provide an additional power
generation potential of 34,000 MW.
Power development is placed in the concurrent list of the Indian
Constitution, as a joint responsibility of both the states and the Centre.
X
107
Tragedy of Commons
The present installed capacity of India is about 89,000 MW. Out of the
total installed capacity in 1997-98, 63.3 per cent was owned by the states,
30.7 per cent by the Centre and 6 per cent was in private sector.21
The Transmission and Distribution loss of Indian Power sector stood at
25per cent in 1997-98 and rose to 26 per cent in the next year (Government
of India 2001: 175) against 8 per cent of China, 9 per cent of Chile,
Thailand and Malaysia, 8 per cent of world average.21 A single percentage
point reduction in T and D loss would have resulted in additional
availability of about 4365MU. Or an additional generating capacity of
about 900MW (at 56per centPLF) (2.5per cent reduction will provide the
total electricity requirement for the state of Kerala) Even this figure of T
and D loss is a gross under estimate, for example the transmission and
distribution losses of Kerala is about 30per cent. But, there has not been
any actual scientific measurement of the T&D loss in the State so far
either.
Underutilisation of generation capacity, high T&D losses, lack of demand
side management, which has a 35per cent energy saving potential,
subsidised pricing of power, financial crisis of SEBs and corruption are
some of the major problems faced by the Indian power sector. Instead of
tackling these problems the authorities always present addition in installed
capacity and privatization of energy sector as the only options available.
Hence, generating more power alone cannot solve the problems facing
Indian Power sector. The recent claim of additional power generation
through inter linking rivers has to be viewed against this background.
Barring a few cases where gravity links maybe feasible, interbasin transfers
generally involve the carrying of water across the natural barrier between
basins (which is what make them basins) by lifting, by tunnelling through
or by a long circuitous routing around the mountains, if such a possibility
exists in a given case. Rivers or streams may also have to be crossed in
some cases. Exceptionally heavy capital investments and continuing energy
costs (in operation) are almost always likely to be involved. In addition,
big dams, reservoirs and conveyance systems will need to be built, involving
substantial environmental impacts and displacement /rehabilitation
problems.26
X
108
Interlinking of Revers
According to the official sources, the Peninsular River components together
have a generating capacity of about 4000 MW of power and the rest
30,000 MW by the Himalayan River components.
The Himalayan component is proposed to generate huge amount of power.
Though it has been assured that the project would generate a total 34,000
MW of energy, the National Commission for Integrated Water Resource
Development Plan (NCIWRDP) also says, “Unfortunately, the Himalayan
component data being classified were not available for analysis”. If this
is the case then the claims of 30,000 MW of power from the Himalayan
Component is itself questionable
Unsaid Impacts
There are certain aspects about the project that have been concealed,
suppressed and kept out of bounds from the public who are supposed to
be the beneficiaries of this project.
Linking Pollution
There is deep concern regarding linking polluted rivers with unpolluted
ones. Reducing the flow (in a polluted river) by diversion would increase
concentration of pollutants. The Ganges and the Brahmaputra of India
are filled with bacteria and high feacal count and nearly 200 million litres
of untreated sewage pour into the Yamuna River from Delhi’s sewage
system every day. Annual floods reduce the impact of pollution by flushing
industrial and municipal pollution in the Ganga down to the Bay of
Bengal. In the Yamuna, from which Haryana and Delhi draw so much
water, (it barely flows after Delhi) the water quality at Delhi is so poor as
to be positively poisonous.
We have the classic case of the Damodar River.The 563 km long Damodar
River, originates in the Kharmarpet hills in the Chottanagpur Plateau. In
its upper reaches, it passes through six districts of Jharkhand. Thereafter
it enters West Bengal traversing Burdwan and Hoogli district fully and
Bankura and Purulia districts before joining the River Hoogli. The river
has atleast one million people dependent on it directly and indirectly. In
its upper stretch the Damodar twists through 6 coalfields which is
X109
Tragedy of Commons
4000sq.km Government controlled intensive coal extraction area, which
draws water for its operation from the Damodar and its tributaries. One
hundred and eighty three coal mines. Add to this: 28 iron ore mines, 33
limestone mines, 5 copper ore mines, and 84 mica mines. Graphite, silver
and uranium. Then there are coal based industries that dot Damodar valley:
mostly government owned coal washeries: coke oven plants, the country’s
major iron and steel plants, thermal power plants. Zinc, glass and cement
plants. Fertilizer and chemical plants. 1,423 factories employing 2, 04,084
people in Jharkhand alone. And all over the valley, countless little workshops
that sprout in the interstices of mega industrial sprawl. .... A river being
slowly wrung out of its capacity to bear and support life forms. Pollution is
caused by mine overburden, fly ash, oil, toxic metals and coal dust.8
It enters into the Himalayan Component of the Ganga- Damodar -
Subarnrekha link. Through this link the flood waters of Ganga and
Brahmaputra will reach the Subarnarekha and from there to Mahanadi
by the Subarnerekha-Mahanadi link. From there it becomes part of the
Peninsular Component. From Mahanadi it is planned to transfer water to
the so-called water deficit Southern River basins.
It is a well known fact that the pollution levels in the Ganga and the
Damodar Rivers has worsened, in spite of spending crores of rupees on
the Ganga and Damodar Action Plans. India is home to the most polluted
water in Asia. So the chances are that almost all the rivers in the plan are
polluted in some way or the other. How do the planners intend handling
such a problem remains to be seen. Has any estimation been made as
to how each state is adding to the pollution and treating the wastes in its
own river basin? It is ironical that a state that is in the forefront for
demanding waters through river linking is not doing much to protect its
own available water resources! It is reported that about 29per cent of the
red (polluting) industries in Tamil Nadu are located in the Chennai river
basin, 28per cent in the Cauvery, 20per cent in the Palar, 7per cent in the
Vaigai and 6per cent in the Tambraparni river basins.
Canals are known to lead to many health impacts. Spread of malaria
due to canal irrigation has been known since British times. Large-scale
water projects are known to increase the incidence of water borne diseases
X
110
Interlinking of Revers
like malaria, filariasis, encephalities, fluorosis, yellow fever, dengue, river
blindness and schistosomiasis in many areas.
Dams and irrigation schemes can also decrease the availability of clean
water: when water for domestic use comes from irrigation canals, it maybe
polluted with pesticide runoff and other agricultural wastes, heavily saline
and contaminated with human sewage. Micheal Goldman of the University
of California reports that most of the households he visited during a
research project on the huge Indira Gandhi Canal in the Rajasthan desert
‘ expressed concern for their children’s stomach ailments’ due to their
contaminated water supply.24
The Human factor
The history of dam building all over the world and in India has always
witnessed over sizing of the benefits of dams and canal irrigation systems
and under sizing of the losses. The land and livelihoods lost so far by the
millions in the name of displacement for dams and canals and powerhouses
and other associated infrastucture is almost always written off as the
inevitable costs of ‘development’ of the nation that they have to bear
and suffer. The Proposed Interlinking Project is no different.
India and China have created the largest number of oustees and have
used brutal tactics to enforce their evictions. According to the WCD report,
between 16 and 38 million people have been displaced by dams in post
Independence India.
It is still not clear as to how many lakhs will be displaced by the proposed
interlinking project. Atleast 8000 sq km (8 lakh ha) of land is the figure
quoted in the project for land acquisition. Sizeable land shall have to be
acquired for the construction of storage dams, canals and reservoirs. Land
acquisition is a big process in itself. It has also to be seen that in an effort to
provide respite to millions from floods and droughts, we don’t displace equal
millions. Right now, we don’t even have preliminary studies on the number of
communities that will be displaced by the project. Often, people physically
displaced by canals, powerhouses, and associated compensation measures
such as nature reserves are not enumerated and considered for resettlement.
X111
Tragedy of Commons Interlinking of Revers
The people affected and displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Dam (at least We have a history of 3,600 odd large dams built across most of our
1, 57,000 people) is not yet considered ‘Project Affected’! From past rivers. If we honestly go through the past records, we cannot site a single
experiences it is well known that the survey of the categories of people to case wherein afforestation activities for the forests or other wildlife habitats
be affected by dams has generally been inadequate and underestimated. that have been lost to reservoirs and canals have been carried out. In
Moreover, the scope of the definition of the affected has been limited fact dams have only opened up the catchments of our rivers to further
and the totality of affected group has not been determined. encroachment and destruction. Dams have fragmented our rivers into
chains of reservoirs. Dams have severely disrupted the downstream flow
Financial Aspects and livelihoods, which depended on the river flow. Dams and canals
have disrupted or buried wildlife corridors, led to the extinction of thousands
The estimated cost of the project, Rs 5,60,000 crores at 2002 prices, of fish species and aquatic species, degraded flood plains, displaced
equals 25per cent of our Gross Domestic Product, or two and a half millions… The list can go on. Very rarely has an EIA rejected a dam
times our annual tax collection and double our present foreign exchange proposal due to the above problems. Very rarely has an EIA process been
reserves. Does the domestic economy have the investment capital of this carried out based on open discussions with the affected persons. Often
magnitude? According to the Government’s economic survey for 2001- EIAs have only served to legitimise the Environmental clearance for dam
02, the country’s Gross Domestic Savings were lower than the estimated and canal projects.
cost of this project, which is also higher than India’s total outstanding
external debt by close to $12 billion!
Seeking funds from international sources would be the next option available
to the Government. Apart from the fact that this would place a debt of
$112 on every Indian (where average annual incomes range from $400
to $800), it also raises serious reservations about how this loan is to be
returned, the guarantees and counter- guarantees that would need to be
given to secure it. Annual interest on this amount would be between Rs.
20,000 crores and Rs. 30,000 crores.
User charges for irrigation water or power provided by this scheme could
make these uneconomical for both the agricultural and industrial sectors.
They would put inflationary pressure on the prices of our agricultural
produce even as we try to make these competitive in the international
market. The political viability of collecting these user charges is also being
questioned.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Fiasco

Environmental Impact Assessment followed by Public Hearing is
mandatory for River valley Projects costing more than Rs.100 crores
investment as per the MoEF guidelines since 1997.

X
112
X113
Tragedy of Commons Interlinking of Revers

The proposed Kerala Link

Pamba –Achankoil – Vaippar Project
The 176 km long Pamba River, the third longest river, with a catchment
area of 2235 sq.km, lies entirely in Kerala. It originates from the Southern
part of Kerala Western Ghats. It is formed by the confluence of the
Pamba Aar, Kakki Aar, Azhuthai Aar, Kakkad Aar and Kallar. A branch
of Achankoil River joins river Pamba at Veeyapuram. The two rivers
thereafter drain into Vembanad Lake through several branches. The
catchment area of the 128 km long Achankoil River is 1484 sq.km, which
is also an in-state river. The River Vaippar rises from eastern slopes of
Varasunad hills of the Western Ghats near Sivagiri in Tirunelveli District
in Tamil Nadu and flows a length of 140 km before joining Gulf of Mannar.
These three rivers are also involved in the Interlinking of rivers project
and included as the 16th link in the Peninsular Component, the Pamba-
Achankoil -Vaippar Link Project. It is planned to divert water from the
two west flowing rivers to the east into the Vaippar River basin in Tamil
Nadu through three dams; one in the Kallar tributary of Pamba River at
Punnamedu, one in Kallar tributary of Achankoil at Chittarmuzhi and
one in the main Achankoil River. The diverted water will be stored in a
dam at Mekkara in Hanuman Odai, a tributary of Vaippar and used for
irrigation. It is proposed to divert a total quantity of 636 Mcum. of water
per year from Pamba and Achankoil Rivers for irrigating 91,400 ha of
land in three districts viz. Viruthunagar, Thirunelvelli and Tuticorin. The
Rs.2588 crores project with an installed capacity of 508 MW will produce
1114 million units of electricity per year. The power required to pump up
water from the Achankoil dam to the Chittarmuzhi dam (2283 MU) will
be supplied from the Tamil Nadu grid during off peak hours.
Features of the Project
❖ 150 m. high, 774 m long concrete dam in Pamba - Kallar at
Punnamedu a highland region - storage capacity – 208 Mcum of
water.
❖ 160 m high, 738 m, long concrete dam in Achankoil - Kallar. Storage
capacity 497 Mcum of water.
X
114
X115
Tragedy of Commons
❖ Achankoil dam -35 m high, concrete dam – in mid land region -
storage capacity -30.6 Mcum of water.
❖ Punnamedu dam- connected to Achankoil –Kallar through a tunnel.
Achankovil dam water is pumped to Achankovil-Kallar dam. 2283
MU of power per year.
❖ From Achenkoil-Kallar to divert water through a tunnel to cross the
Western Ghats to reach Mekkarai village- Shengottai Taluk. The
50.7 km long canal passes through Thenkasi and Sankarankovil
Taluk and will reach Selvakulam –Periar tank and Alagar Odai a
tributary of Vaippar River. 37
All the reservoirs and tunnels planned in this project falls in the Konni,
Achankoil forest ranges. Atleast 2004 ha of forest is expected to be
submerged in the reservoir. The Tamil Nadu government has already
constructed Adavi Nainar dam, across Hanuman Odai, a small rivulet in
Mekkara village even without the consent or knowledge of Kerala
Government.
The Pamba- Achankoil Vaippar Link would require atleast 228.3 crore
units of power to pump water to Tamil Nadu for irrigating a projected
91,400 ha. The pumping charges would alone amount to Rs.456.6 crores
at a conservative rate of Rs.2 per unit of electricity. As per this estimate
a farmer in Tamil Nadu would have to incur a cost of about Rs.50, 000
for irrigating one hectare of land annually. This is apart from the cost of
investment, operation and maintenance. But the benefit expected from
the project by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu is only Rs.101 crores worth 1.4
lakh tonnes of food grains.
Status of the rivers
The river Pamba is overburdened by dams constructed in the upper reaches
for power generation. Water from the Azhutha tributary is already diverted
to the Idukki Reservoir as a part of the Idukki Augmentation scheme. The
famous Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple situated upstream on banks of the
holy river Pamba attracts millions of pilgrims from all over the world
during November – January every year. All pilgrims are expected to take
bath in the river as a part of the ritual before entering the Temple. During
X
116
Interlinking of Revers
the pilgrimage season, the river turns into an open drain of human waste,
night soil, raw sewage, and domestic and commercial garbage. The heavy
influx of pilgrims, the presence of dams along with the degradation of the
catchment has taken its toll on the river. Atleast twelve dams small and
big have been constructed across the Pamba and its tributaries starting
from Kakki in the 1960s. The brief details are as below.
❏ The Kakki, Aanathodu and Pamba dams constructed as part of
the Sabarigiri HEP (300 MW)
❏ Upper Moozhiyar, Gavi, Kallar, Meenar I and Meenar II dams/
weirs constructed to augment the water availability in the Sabarigiri
HEP
❏ Veluthode and Moozhiyar dams as part of the Kakkad HEP (50
MW)
❏ Maniyar weir in the Pamba Valley Irrigation project which also has
an HEP component (12 MW)
❏ Azhutha weir as part of diverting water to the Idukki reservoir in
the Periyar basin.
Two years back, diversion of water in the Kakkad Project led to drying up
of the river downstream and the people took to the streets to demand
release of minimum flow. The state of Achankoil river is not much different
either. The dismal scenario upstream has its impacts in the form of
degradation of drinking water quality and water availability, in Kuttanad,
once the rice bowl of Kerala.
Tragedy of Kuttanad
Kuttanad, a Ramsar site, the low-lying floodplain of the four rivers namely
Meenachil, Manimala, Pamba and Achankoil, extends over 800 sq.km
area in Pathanamthita, Kottayam and Alleppey districts. The areas of
the settlements being islands in between the flood plains, the effective
density of population is one of the largest in India. The area below sea
level (ranging from 60cm – more than 2 m) is subjected to severe flooding
during both the monsoon periods by water drained by the four rivers.
Most of the land remains submerged for the better part of the year. It has
X117
Tragedy of Commons
the distinction of being one of the few areas in the world where rice
farming is carried out below sea level. The nutrients deposited annually
by the four rivers have been the main stay of livelihood to the farmers
and fisher folk of Kuttanad.
Kuttanad, the rice bowl of Kerala, is facing different types of ecological
problems due to the already implemented projects to control flood and
saline ingress. The Thanneermukkam regulator constructed across
Vembanad lake to prevent saline ingress into the paddy fields during
summer season, and the Thottappilly spillway constructed to flush out
excess water during monsoons to boost paddy cultivation has severely
affected the natural flushing in the entire Lower Kuttanad by reducing
the tidal movements and dropping the water levels upstream.
Consequently, the water body has tended to become stagnant, leading to
pollution. Moreover the accumulating residues and run off of heavy dosage
of pesticides and fertilizers applied in the rice fields gets added to the
stagnant waters worsening the severity of pollution. Aquatic weeds have
also grown to epidemic proportions.
The estuaries and backwater systems of Kerala coast are the nurseries of
several species of marine shrimps. During the early stages of their life,
prawns enter the backwaters and grow in them for about six months by
feeding on the detritus. Shrimps are caught when they return to the sea.
The construction of the regulator has severely reduced the backwater
area available to the prawns to spend their larval and growing stages of
life. The fishing community is perhaps the major group whose interests
and livelihood have seldom received any attention in all the developmental
work22. The case of Kuttanad is a classic example of both the failure of
man-made flood and salinity control measures and the extent of adverse
consequences that can happen while intervening in such natural systems.
According to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board statistics, the
coliform bacteria count in 100 ml of water in the Pamba at Sabarimala
is 2, 00,000. When the river reaches Edathwa in Kuttanad, the count is
48,700. Outbreaks of epidemics like rat fever and diarrhoea have seen
an alarming increase in the region. According to statistics available with
the District Medical Officer, Alappuzha, 18 persons died of Wheel’s disease
till October 2002. The count for 2001 was 23. The total number of those
X
118
Interlinking of Revers
suffering from diarrhoea in 2001 was 19,570. Statistics at the Alappuzha
Medical College show an increase in filariasis, schistosomiasis, typhoid,
jaundice, intestinal cancer, gastroenteritis and cholera. There is no attempt
to address the root cause: the scarcity of drinking water.” Over the past
10 years, diarrhoeal diseases resulting from inadequate water and
sanitation have killed over 5,000 in Kuttanad36.
Kuttanad is a testimony to misplaced and impractical developmental
schemes as well. The backwaters itself are vanishing due to encroachment.
The Vembanad Lake has been reduced to one-third its size, with 65 per
cent reclaimed by the government or people. Hardly 23 per cent of the
backwaters remain in Kerala and a part of this is under bunds and barriers.
Fish species get extinct in bunds, as there is no way for them to disperse
and breed. The land of rivers and eternal monsoons is currently dependent
on tankers supplying drinking water. Now, the demand for water is constant
and thirsty people are willing to pay as much as they are willing to live. In
the lowest income groups, people pay a wholly disproportionate share of
their income to locally run private water companies36.
The saline ingress from sea in the summer months is controlled by the
downward flow of the river. The four rivers reaching Kuttanad backwaters
used to reduce the intensity of pollution and saline ingress of Kuttanad to
some extent. Over years, the downstream flow of all the four rivers has
reduced drastically. Against this dismal backdrop, the water from Pamba
and Achankoil if diverted would raise the water pollution to deadly levels,
upset the water balance further and permanently damage the highly fragile
social fabric and ecological system of this thickly populated wetland region.
What has happened in Kuttanad is a pointer towards what may be in
store for the low lying areas and flood plains of those rivers whose water
is planned to be diverted.
X119
Tragedy of Commons
Resolution passed by the Kerala Legislative
Assembly, 6th of August 2003
Whereas the proposal of the National Water Development Agency to divert
the Water of the Pamba and Achankovil rivers to Vaippar basin of Tamil
Nadu is very harmful to the State of Kerala;
And whereas the said proposal is totally discriminatory;
And whereas the Centre or other agencies have no power to interfere or
induce in this case since water is a State subject as per the Constitution;
And whereas the Pamba and Achankovil rivers are rivers of the State, the
power to take decision in respect of water thereof is vested only with the
State Government;
And whereas diverting water from the Pamba River and Achankovil River
to Tamil Nadu would create severe scarcity of water and environmental
problems in the State;
And whereas Hydel Projects and drinking water supply schemes are to be
implemented in the Pamba river and Achankovil river;
And whereas shortage of water in the drinking water supply projects
formulated based on the water sources of Pamba river and Achankovil
river is experienced even at present;
And whereas the studies of the Centre for Water Resources Development
and Management have made it clear that the Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar
link project would even derange the ecological balance of Kuttanad;
And whereas in the circumstance where the National Water Development
Agency is going ahead with this project without considering the protest of
this State;
This House unanimously requests the Central Government to give up
totally the Pamba-Achankovil-Vaipar Link Project”.
The Government of Kerala has accordingly written to the Prime Minister
and the Union Minister for Water Resources to urge the NWDA not to
pursue with its proposal on Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar link project any
further.
X
120
5
Implications
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Where does one start drawing the parallels between the proposed
Inter Linking Project and the linking experiences of Kerala?
The basic principles and precepts based on which the rivers of Kerala
were diverted to Tamil Nadu are the same as that in the river linking plan.
All the Inter state, Inter basin river diversions in the case of Kerala were
initiated based on two main simple linear assumptions; 1) there is ‘surplus
water’ in these west flowing river basins that can be utilised by the water
‘deficit’ neighbouring State, 2) A river is just a channel that carries water
to the sea and to prevent water from flowing waste to the sea, can be
diverted in any direction from its natural course and manipulated in any
manner for human welfare and the river is still expected to perform its
natural functions.
The experiences of Kerala is an indication enough to the rest of the country
as to what is in store if the proposed river linking comes through. It is just
intended to indicate rather than elaborate upon each aspect/ problem
that can arise if river linking materializes.
§ Political pressure: There was tremendous pressure on the Kerala
Government from the Centre to agree to the PAP Treaty (inspite of
opposition from different circles) in exchange for the sanction of
many pending River valley projects in Kerala. Many states like Kerala,
Orissa, Assam have opposed the River Linking openly. The chances
for intense pressure or threats in various forms on the dissenting
States to agree to the River Linking are very high.
§ Concealed clauses: The agreements / awards at times may have
concealed clauses that are detrimental to the interests of one or
more parties. There are chances that the Agreements even if arrived
at between the states in ILR may contain clauses detrimental to the
donor state. Once put into practice, it is next to impossible to utilize
remedial clauses, if any, in agreements due to various reasons.
X121
Tragedy of Commons
§ Reliability of data: The basis of arriving at ‘surplus’ and ‘deficit’ is
questionable. The water sharing agreement signed some years after
the commissioning of the PAP was not based on reliable data.
Moreover there has been no review of the change in the river flow or
status of degradation of the catchment all these thirty odd years
since the Agreement was signed. It is not yet clear how the
Government of India is going to decide the basis/ quantum of the
share of water that would be transferred from the ‘surplus’ to ‘deficit’
river basins without making any assessment of the hydrological status
of the river basins entering River Linking given the inadequate
hydrological data base we have.
§ Mistrust: Unequal apportionment, violations of agreement conditions
etc. are bound to inculcate mistrust among parties and often lead
to conflicts.
§ Apportioning of waters: River flow is a natural dynamic phenomenon
that depends on the rains received and the status of the catchment.
It is more complex in the case of huge river basins, which are shared
by two or more states for diverse uses ranging from Hydro Electric
Dams, Irrigation dams, Lift Irrigation Schemes, Industries, Drinking
Water Supply Schemes etc. It is simply not possible to assess all the
complex, ever changing and unending demands for water of the
different states. Obviously, the politically more powerful states will
have an upper hand in deciding the apportioning. It will only add to
the already existing unending disputes on equitable sharing of water
between both upstream and downstream of the same river and
between the ‘surplus’ and ‘deficit’ river basins. In the case of
apportioning of river water what are the factors deciding the share
to be diverted and who decides the same are questions that remain
unanswered inspite of all these experiences in river diversions.
§ Equitability issues: The three rivers in the PAP treaty have never
received their due share of water all these years apart from the
numerous violations. Even the basic requirement of minimum stream
flow to sustain the life of a river has neither been assessed nor
followed.
§ Denial of riparian rights: the complete diversion of all the three
tributaries of Chalakudy River is a blatant violation of the water
X
122
Implications
rights of the lower riparian state of Kerala. The government, who is
the custodian of public property, does not have any right to divert a
stream / river totally. Denial of riparian rights is a very crucial issue
that could become a source of dispute and irrevocable damage in
the case of river linking.
§ Impact on downstream: The downstream impacts of the PAP
diversions in the form of drying up of the river downstream of the
diversion, destruction of the riparian forests, disruption of wildlife
movement, water scarcity in downstream irrigation and power
projects, tribal displacement etc have been discussed already. Massive
diversions from so called ‘surplus’ to ‘deficit’ river basins are bound
to cause all of the above cited impacts apart from the loss of inland
fisheries and related livelihoods due to the drastic fluctuations in
the river flow caused by the diversions and huge storages.
§ Displacement of livelihoods: The PAP and Siruvani diversions
implimented to provide drinking and irrigation water to Tamil Nadu
resulted in the loss of livelihoods to the hundreds of tribals living in
these river basins in Kerala. The massive displacement of people for
the River Linking Project is another equally important issue that
would create similar situation.
§ Resource use: The Agreements did not take into account how the
water from the donor state is used by the recipient state or the need
for regulation of water use by the receiving State. The experiences
of river diversions for large-scale irrigation have always resulted in
shift towards more water loving crops, intensive irrigation, never
ending demand for water at the expense of severe water scarcity for
the downstream populations in the donor river. In the case of the
PAP, Tamil Nadu has been continuously increasing the ayacut even
to the extent of disputes arising between old and new ayacut farmers.
The complexities created by the existing diversions and treaties are
numerous and add to that the complexities that will be created by the 30
new links planned! Given the complex fragile fabric of Indian society that
mainly depends on its numerous rivers big and small for it’s innumerable
needs, the scale of consequences of the huge risk that the Government is
blindly taking up in the name of River Linking cannot even be predicted.
X123
Tragedy of Commons

Beyond Links,
Dams and
Conflicts

X
126
X127
Tragedy of Commons
6 but not properly rehabilitated after all these years.
Beyond Links, Dams and Conflicts
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
The aim of this book has been to look anew at the problems and
consequences of river diversions- against the backdrop of the already
existing links in Kerala-and look anew at the grandiose proposed Inter
Linking Project
Why Kerala?
Because,
Kerala has been always projected as a water ‘surplus’ state.
A major river in Kerala has already been diverted based on this assumption
much before the river link idea was mooted,
Atleast four rivers of Kerala are already linked.
The Inter Linking Task Force has quoted PAP and Mullaperiyar as success
stories in river linking.
Lately, it is planned to divert two more rivers of Kerala in the new river
linking proposal.
Starting from the Agreement, everything about the three major diversions
has been against the interests of Kerala, the donor state.
Riparian rights, right to compensation for land and water, right to due
share of benefits viz. water or power, irrigation rights etc. have all been
consistently violated or denied.
Upstream - downstream linkages and impacts have not been seriously
looked into
The riparian forests, wild life and ecology of the rivers that were diverted
have been severely disrupted.
The drinking and irrigation water of downstream panchayaths has been
severely disrupted and saline ingression into the river has increased after
diversions
X
126
Beyond Links, Dams and Conflicts
The tribals have been dislocated from their livelihoods and settlements-
Why beyond links?
The links have worsened the conflicts, opened up new conflicts, spread
the seeds of disbelief, and strained relations between the two states.
After all these years of massive water diversion, the problems of water
scarcity and drought in the recipient state remain still unresolved and
increasing in scale
The assumption of assured water supply from outside the basin has only
increased the consumption and wastage, in the deficit state, as it is the
case anywhere.
The water needs of the donor state are also increasing so also the drought
and water scarcity
Why beyond dams?
The twentieth century has seen dams and nothing but dams being erected
across the entire major river basins of the world.
Dams were believed to deliver water over long distances to quench the
thirst in far away places.
Dams were believed to eradicate poverty by boosting irrigated agriculture.
Dams were believed to control floods.
The myth was soon shattered when the expected results were not
forthcoming.
The problems of poverty, water scarcity, unemployment, drought, still
loom large.
Dams ushered in new set of problems of displacement of millions, salinity,
water logging, flooding new areas, water conflicts, pollution, greenhouse
gas effects etc.
To go beyond….
The re-search for the roots of the problems has begun-the search for long
lost traditions- the real technological options- the low cost options for
X 127
Tragedy of Commons
water conservation, protection and augmentation-realization of the link
between ecological degradation and water scarcity.
Decentralized and participatory efforts to revive watersheds and river basins
is gradually evolving.
Hence, when society is advancing and responding to the changing needs
and insights, when the society is trying to grow beyond the dams and
diversions formula, the Government’s entry with an old formula of 200
dams, 30 links involving 37 rivers to solve the water problems of the
country naturally creates apprehension and doubts in the minds of the
public.
Beyond Links, Dams and Conflicts
Which would surely not require crores, but the meeting together of the
goodwill and sincere efforts of politicians, bureaucracy and the public.
Minimize the pollution of rivers, tanks, ponds, wells, and nallas for
posterity.
Try to bridge the losing connections in our minds between ecological
degradation and water scarcity.
Which would also mean practicing austerity in one’s own personal life.
When there are so many ways opening in front of us, why insist on river
linking alone as the ultimate solution?

The people of Kerala have subtly but surely opened a fresh path by rejecting We never heeded the advice of J.C.Kumarappa, A Gandhian Economist
the new river-linking project outright, particularly due to their bitter who once rightly said, the states should be reorganized not on the basis
experiences and suffering of the consequences of river diversions. of language but on the basis of river basin boundaries.

When there are live examples to learn from, is it not better for the public
and the authorities to think and act beyond dams and diversions? Think
and act beyond conflicts induced by human interferences in natural flow
of water? Go beyond River Linking?
It is indeed time for us to recognize that just physical transport of water
cannot solve the problems.
A canal can never perform the functions of a live flowing river.
The time is indeed ripe for us to start understanding issues beyond
boundaries created by humans on rivers.
The real solution beyond conflicts
The time is right to re examine where we have erred in understanding the
limits to technology and engineering led development models-where we
have exceeded the limits of centralized control of water resources.
It is time to evaluate the real potential of humans in solving their water
problems, put faith in their potential and allow them to sustain, care for
and recharge their own water resources. Just guiding them would suffice.
Recognize and assist the local and regional low cost participatory ways
of recharging surface and ground water- to prove which we have ample
examples all over the country.
X
128
X129
Tragedy of Commons
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Oh, the leaky boundaries of man-made states!
How many clouds float past them with impunity;
how much desert sand shifts from one land to another;
how many mountain pebbles tumble onto foreign soil
in provocative hops!
Need I mention every single bird that flies in the face of frontiers
or alights on the roadblock at the border?
A humble robin- still, its tail resides abroad
while its beak stays home. If that weren’t enough, it won’t stop
bobbing!
Among innumerable insects, I’ll single out only the ant
between the border guard’s left and right boots
blithely ignoring the questions “ Where from?” and “Where to?”
Oh, to register in detail, at a glance, the chaos
prevailing on every continent!
Isn’t that a privet on the far bank
smuggling its hundredth-thousandth leaf across the river?
And who but the octopus, with impudent long arms,
would disrupt the sacred bounds of territorial waters?
Wislawa Szymborska
‘View with a Grain of Sand’1976
X
130
APPENDIX I
Kerala -Tamil Nadu Agreement on Parambikulam - Aliyar Project – 1970
TAMIL NADU – KERALA INTER - STATE AGREEMENT ON THE
DEMISING OR SHARING OF WATERS OF THE BHARATHAPUZHA,
CHALAKUDI AND PERIYAR BASINS.
1. AGREEMENT made this twenty ninth day of May of one thousand
nine hundred and seventy between the Governor of Tamil Nadu
(hereinafter called “the Government of Tamil Nadu” which expression
shall, where the context so admits, include his successors in office
and assigns) of the ONE PART and the Governor of Kerala
(hereinafter called “the Government of Kerala “ which expression
shall, where the context so admits, include his successors in office
and assigns) of the OTHER PART.
2. WHEREAS the Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to construct
dams,weirs and reservoirs across and on the Sholayar, the
Parambikulm Ar, the Thunacadavu Ar, the Thekkady Ar and the
Peruvarippallam Ar, all tributaries of Chalakudi River, Aliyar and
Palar, tributaries of Bharathapuzha and also across and on the Nirar
which is a tributary of Periyar river,for the diversion of the waters of
the said rivers and of Anamalayar, a tributary of Periyar river for
the benefit of Tamil Nadu.
3. WHEREAS the Government of Kerala also proposed to construct
dams, reservoirs and weirs on and across some of the said rivers
and Anamalayar, a tributary of the Periyar river for the benefit of
the State of Kerala.
4. WHEREAS with a view to arriving at a settlement on the question
of utilization of waters of the aforesaid rivers, the Chief Ministers/
Ministers of both the Governments have met in conferences and
entered into agreements on 9-11-1958,4-7-1960 and 10-5-1969 and
the representatives and technical officers of both the Governments
have also met in conferences and after examining the details have
to come to an agreement.
X131
Tragedy of Commons
5. NOW THESE presents witness and parties hereto agree: -
(a) (i) to the construction of storage and or diversion works on the rivers
as specified in Schedule-I appended
(ii) to the demising or sharing as the case may be, of waters of these
rivers and in the manner and subject to the condition and
limitations as specified in Schedule- II
(iii) to the sharing of the expenditure consequent on the construction
and maintenance of the works referred to the sub-clause(i) above
in the manner specified in Schedule- III
(iv)to the establishment of a Joint Water Regulation Board for the
purpose of regulating the flow of waters in accordance with the
terms of this agreement as specified in Schedule- V
(b) Rights, liabilities and obligations other than those mentioned above
shall be as specified in Schedule- IV.
(c) The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government Of Kerala
agree that the agreements embodied in the agreement be open to
review in the light of the experience gained and to such modifications
as may be mutually agreed upon, as a result of such review at the
expiry of thirty years from the ninth day of November of one thousand
nine hundred and fifty- eight and once in every thirty years thereafter.
(d) this agreement shall be deemed to have come into force on the
nineth day of November of one thousand nine hundred and fifty-
eight.
(e) The schedules and annexures shall form part of the agreement.
(f) Every dispute, doubt, difference or question which may,at any time
arise between the parties hereto touching on or arising out of or in
respect of this agreement or the subject matters thereof shall be
referred to the Arbitration of an Arbitrator to be agreed upon
between the parties of failing agreement, to two arbitrators one to
be appointed by each party hereto and in case of difference of opinion
between the two arbitrators, to an umpire appointed by the said two
arbitrators, not later than one month from the date of such
X
132
difference of opinion and the decision of the arbitrator or such
arbitrators or Umpire, as the case may be shall be final and binding
on the parties.
Schedule-I
SEE PARAGRAPH 5(a) (i) OF THE AGREEMENT
RIVERS AND WORKS
1.Rivers:
(a) This Agreement deals with the utilization of the flows in the following
rivers and streams flowing into them, for the production of hydro
electric power and irrigation, for drinking water supply, industrial
use and for any other purpose for the benefit of the States of
Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
(i) Anamalayar and Nirar, both of which are tributaries of the
Periyar river;
(ii) Sholayar, Parambikulam Ar, Thunacadavu Ar, Peruvaripallam
Ar and Thekkady Ar all of which are tributaries of the
Chalakudy river; and
(iii) Palar and Aliyar which are tributaries of the Bharathapuzha.
(b) The above mentioned rivers which flow partly or wholly through
Tamil Nadu/ Kerala and the works covered by this Agreement are
indicated in the map appended.
2. Works:
1. The government of Tamil Nadu shall be at liberty to carry out the
following works, (hereinafter called the Parambikulam Aliyar
Project).
(i) Construction of a weir across Nirar at latitude 100 17 ½ ’ N
longitude 770 1’ E with a diversion tunnel leading to the Tamil
Nadu Sholayar Reservoir mentioned in item(ii) below. The weir
shall have two river sluices of not less than 5’x6’ whose sill level
shall be 5’ below the sill level of the diversion tunnel leading to the
Tamil Nadu Sholayar Reservoir.
X133
Tragedy of Commons
(ii) Construction of a dam across Sholayar (hereinafter called the Tamil
Nadu Sholayar Reservoir) at a latitude 100 18’ N longitude 760 53’
E with FRL at R.L+3290 for storing the natural flows in the
Sholayar and also the flows diverted from Nirar and Anamalayar,
the waters being for use in the States of both Tamil Nadu and
Kerala as in Schedule II. From this reservoir a tunnel may be
constructed to divert water to the Parambikulam Valley. A saddle
spillway with crest level at R.L + 3290and MWL at RL + 3295
may be provided to surplus the waters into the Parambikulam valley,
this being of the free overflow type with no shutters provided.
Adequate outlets shall be provided in the dam or through a tunnel
in the flanking hill so as to enable Kerala to get the supplies of
water as provided Schedule II at all stages of effective storage in
the reservoir.
(iii) Construction of a dam across Parambikulam Ar, at Pulikalmudi
latitude 10 023’ N longitude 760 46’ E with FRL at RL +1825 for
storing the natural flows in the river and also waters diverted from
Anamalayar and Nirar and Sholayar with a lead off channel and
tunnels to divert water to the Thunacadavu reservoir. The capacity
of the lead off channel and tunnel shall be adequate to convey the
water requirements of both the States as provided for in Schedule
II at all stages of effective storage in the reservoir.
(iv) Construction of a dam across Thunacadavu Ar at latitude 10 0 25
¾’N longitude 76046’E with FRL at RL + 1770 to serve as a
balancing reservoir with lead off channels and tunnels for diverting
water to Sarkarpathy Power House. It shall have a spillway at a
level not higher than the exit tunnel sill level. The capacity of the
lead off channels and tunnels shall be adequate to convey the
water requirements of both the States as provided for in Schedule
II at all stages of effective storage in the reservoir.
(v) Construction of a dam across Peruvaripallam Ar at latitude 10 0
26 ½’ N longitude 76 0 46’ E with FRL at plus 1770 for storing and
diverting the natural flows.
(vi) Construction of a dam in the Nirar below the diversion weir specified
in item(i) above to store and divert the water to the extent specified
X
134
in Schedule II in the catchment between the Nirar Weir and the
Nirar dam (hereinafter referred to as the lower Nirar catchment)to
Tamil Nadu Sholayar Reservoir. This is in lieu of the Thekkadi
dam and reservoir originally proposed as part of Parambikulam
Aliyar Project and subsequently given up. The Nirar reservoir as
proposed here will also serve to conduct water diverted from the
Anamalayar. A tunnel of suitable size may be constructed to divert
the water from this reservoir to the Tamil Nadu Sholayar Reservoir.
The location, design and other details of the dam and the diversion
tunnel will be as per specifications proposed by the Government of
Tamil Nadu and approved by the government of Kerala.
(vii) Construction of lead off canals to take the tail race waters from
the Sarkarpathy Power House.
(viii) Construction of a dam across Aliyar at latitude 100 29’ N longitude
70 58’ E with FRL at plus 1050. The Reservoir is intended to
impound the natural flows of the Aliyar catchment above the
reservoir and also part of the tail waters from Sarkarpathy Power
House mentioned above.
(ix) Construction of storage and diversion works across Aliyar above
the Aliyar Dam mentioned in item (viii) for generation of power
before the water is let down into the said dam.
(x) Construction of a dam across Palar known as Thirumurthi dam at
latitude 100 29’ N and longitude 770 9 ½’ E with FRL at RL plus
1337.
(xi) Other works incidental to the above works including protective
works, trash racks, regulators etc.
II. The government of Kerala shall be at liberty to carry out the
following works:-
(i) Construction of a dam across Sholayar (hereinafter called the
Kerala Sholayar Reservoir) within the State of Kerala at latitude
100 17’ N and longitude 760 45’ E with FRL plus 2663 with
necessary diversion and other works.
X135
Tragedy of Commons
(ii) Construction of projects in the Periyar sytem without reference to
Tamil Nadu without affecting in any manner the irrigation rights
of Tamil Nadu in respect of Periyar reservoir covered by the Periyar
Lease Deed of 1886.
(iii) Construction of storage and diversion works within the State of
Kerala in Chalakudy and Bharathapuzha rivers and their tributaries
but below the works covered by this agreement and without physical
damage or obstruction to the works covered by this agreement.
(iv) Other connected works incidental to the above works including
protective works,trash racks,regulators etc.
(v) All R.Ls referring to Kerala Sholayar are based on the Project B.M.
of that Project. The B.Ms inturn are related to M.S.L and give
mean sea level values.
Schedule – II
( SEE PARAGRAPH 5(a) (ii) OF THE AGREEMENT)
UTILISATION OF WATERS
The actual use of the waters of these rivers shall be governed by the
conditions and limitations mentioned hereunder.
1. Periyar Basin
(i) Anamalyar : 2.5 TMC ft of water may be diverted every year by
Tamil Nadu from Anamalayar for use in the Parambikulam – Aliyar
Project System. This, however, will be done after the construction
of the Idamalayar project is completed by the Government of
Kerala. Details regarding the diversion of the water by Tamil Nadu
will be settled separately between the two Governments and a
supplementary agreement executed. Kerala will undertake projects
in the Periyar system without reference to Tamil Nadu in respect of
Periyar Reservoir covered by the Periyar Lease Deed of 1886.
(ii) Nirar: (a) The government of Tamil Nadu shall be entitled to
divert all the waters of the river Nirar at the site of the weir
mentioned in paragraph 2(i) in Schedule I and utilize the waters
for the benefit of the State of Tamil Nadu provided the entire natural
X
136
flows in the river during the period 1st October to 31 st January
every year are let down the river for the benefit of the State of
Kerala. For this purpose the river sluices will be fully left open
during the period 1st October to 31st January. During this period
tunnel leading to Tamil Nadu Sholayar Reservoir will be kept fully
closed. When the storage reservoirs contemplated by the
Government of Kerala in Periyar valley began to function , the
entire natural flows of Nirar river can be diverted in full every year
at the weir site by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
(b) Subject to the provision of sub clause (a) above, the entire yield of
the lower Nirar catchment (referred to in paragraph 2(iv) of Schedule
–I) shall be diver ted into the Parambikulam system. The
Government of Tamil Nadu will be entitled to draw and utilise a
quantity not exceeding 16.5 TMC ft every year (including
evaporation losses) from the yield of the Parambikulam Ar,
Peruvarippallam Ar, Thunacadavu Ar and the water diverted from
the yield of the lower Nirar catchment. The quantity in excess of
16.5 TMC ft ( including evaporation losses) to be utilized by Tamil
Nadu shall belong to Kerala and shall be made available for the
use by Kerala as specified in paragraph 3 below, provided however
that until the Nirar reservoir is constructed and commissioned the
figures and letters 16.5 TMC ft, wherever they occur in this clause
shall be read and constructed as 14 TMC ft.
2. Chalakudi Basin: Sholayar
The Government of Kerala shall be entitled to utilise a total volume
of 12.3 tmc ft of water every year amounting to the utilization of
390 c/s average discharge from the Kerala Sholayar Reservoir
delivered and measured at the Kerala Sholayar Power House, and
this quantity shall be drawn by Kerala without allowing any spill
over the spillway in Kerala Sholayar dam except under emergency
conditions. The Kerala State shall be entitled to regulate this water
from the Kerala Sholayar Reservoir which has a storage capacity
of 5.3 TMC ft. to provide for an average discharge of 390 c/s for
power or irrigation purposes, as the case may be subject to the
total utlisation of 12.3 TMC ft. of water annually and subject to
X137
Tragedy of Commons
the condition that water shall be drawn only through the power
tunnel except under emergency conditions with due intimation to
the Government of Tamil Nadu. After ensuring this flow and the
total volume referred above, the Government of Tamil Nadu shall
be entitled to store, regulate and divert from Tamil Nadu Sholayar
Reservoir, into the Parambikulam Aliyar Project system all the
surplus flows of the Sholayar and also the waters diverted from
Nirar and Anamalayar rivers as specified in paragraph I above.
The Government of Tamil Nadu shall be entitled to use the waters
let down to Kerala for generation of Hydro Electric Power within
the limits of the State of Tamil Nadu for the benefit of the State of
Tamil Nadu.
Subject to the total quantity delivered and measured at Kerala
Sholayar Power House being 12.3 TMC ft. every year, the
requirements of Kerala shall be supplied in the following manner:-
(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall let down from their reservoir
in the Sholayar river such quantities of water as together with the
yield from the intermediate catchment between Tamil Nadu
Sholayar Reservoir and Kerala Reservoir will ensure the following.
July 1 st : Tamil Nadu shall commence filling Kerala Sholayar
Reservoir from 1 st July and fill upto 5’ below the FRL that is plus
2658 as soon as possible.
September 1st : Kerala Sholayar Reservoir shall be kept at the full
reservoir level of plus 2663.
September 2nd to January 31st : The level in Kerala Sholayar shall
be maintained at about 5 ft. below FRL i.e. plus 2658.
February 1st : The Kerala Sholayar Reservoir shall be kept at the
full reservoir level of plus 2663.
February to June: No releases need be made from Tamil Nadu
Reservoir during these months provided that 12.3 TMC ft. of water
had been delivered at the Kerala Sholayar Power House by 1 st
February.
X
138
Subject to the above, the actual regulation at Kerala Sholayar
Power House shall be as decided by the Government of Kerala.
(ii) The Government of Kerala shall not ordinarily operate the under
sluices or river outlets in the Kerala Sholayar Reservoir except under
emergency conditions and during flood seasons, and when they
are so operated due intimation should be given to the authorised
officers of the Government of Tamil Nadu.
3. Parambikulam group of rivers.
(a) As already stated in paragraph 1(ii) of this schedule and subject to
the proviso thereto out of the total annual yield of Parambikulam
Ar, Thunacadavu Ar and Peruvarippallam Ar, hereinafter referred
to as the Parambikulam system at the respective dam sites and
the lower Nirar catchment at the Nirar Dam site, the Government
of Tamil Nadu shall be entitled to store and divert every year, a
total quantity of not exceeding 16.5 TMC ft including the Tamil
Nadu share of evaporation losses.
Note: Out of the evaporation losses of Parambikulam waters 0.150
TMC ft. should be met from the share of 16.5 TMC ft. of Tamil
Nadu and the formula X- 0.186 TMC ft. + 16.350 TMC ft. adopted
to measure the quantum of water at the Sarkarpathy Power House
where X= quantum of water coming out of the first Power House.
0.186 TMC ft. = evaporation losses of Sholayar and Nirar waters
in Parambikulam Reservoir. 16.35 TMC ft. = Parambikulam water
after allowing for evaporation losses.
(b) (i) Subject to the provisions of the proviso to paragraph 1(ii) (b) of
this schedule any surplus over 16.5 TMC ft. or 14 TMC ft. as the
case may be, including concerned evaporation losses available from
the yield at Parambikulam, Thunacadavu and Peruvarippallam
dam sites and the Lower Nirar catchment at the Lower Nirar Dam
site shall belong to the Government of Kerala. The quantity
available shall be determined by gaugings in the rivers carried out
jointly by the technical officers of the two Governments for a period
of ten years from July 1970 under the supervision of the Joint
Water Regulation Board. But as an interim measure, average of
X139
Tragedy of Commons
the gaugings for the year 1970-71 shall be used for the first year of Explanation: Any flow at Manacadavu weir during any fortnight,
operation under the Joint Water Regulation Board and gradually exceeding the quantum which has to be regulated and supplied as
corrected on the basis of the observations of each succeeding year shown in Annexure –I will be deemed unutilisable.
till the 10 th year when the final figures shall be determined and
(b) The actual regulation for the supply of water for the Kerala Ayacut
accepted.
below Manacadavu Weir shall be as specified in Annexure- I and
(ii) Out of the surplus so determined, the Government of Kerala shall such supplies shall be ensured by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
be entitled to a quantity upto 2.5 TMC ft. for the exclusive use of
(c ) The Joint Water Regulation Board may make any variation to suit
Kerala for irrigating lands in Chitttur taluk. The quantity to which
local conditions in requirements specified in Annexure-I subject to
Government of Kerala is entitled shall be stored and diverted to
the total quantum being 7.250 TMC ft. annually.
the State of Kerala through a high level canal to be constructed
exclusively for the use of Kerala at the cost of Government of (d) The Joint Water Regulation Board will fix points for gaugings of
Kerala branching off from Sarkarpathy power house or Sethumada flows of Palar below Thirumurthi Dam the Aliyar and also at the
canal for irrigating lands in Chittur taluk in the State of Kerala. different anicuts in the two rivers above Manacadavu weir.
Until the high level canal if constructed, Kerala will have the right 5. Thekkady Ar:
use this quantity of water in the Chitturpuzha systems water in
excess of 19 TMC ft or 16.5 TMC ft after setting off 16.5 TMC ft. Tamil Nadu will have no claim for the waters of Thekkadi Ar.
or 14 TMC ft. as the case may be to be drawn by Tamil Nadu and 6. Joint Water Regulation Board:
2.5 TMC ft to be drawn through Parambikulam conductor system
As the follows from one river into another and from one reservoir
for use in Kerala, if Any shall be let down into the Chalakudi basin
/ weir into another are inter-connected, there shall be a Joint Water
through the spillway and outlet arrangements in the dams across
Regulation Board referred to in paragraph 5(a)(iv) the constitution,
the Parambikulam group of rivers.
functions, powers and duties of which are defined in Schedule V.
(iii) If the surplus available for the diversion for use in the Chitturpuzha
7. In all calculations of yield, transfer, discharge, delivery and
valley is short of 2.5 TMC ft. the Government of Kerala may make
utilization, year by year, of water in the rivers, reservoirs, Power
up the shortfall by diversion from other Kerala sources, if they do
Houses and Canals, initial and final storages and intermediate
desire.
flows will be into account to the extent they are necessary and
4. Aliyar: relevant
(a) At present an extent of 20,000 acres of double crop wet lands in
Chitturpuzha Valley in Kerala State (including an extent of 5000
acres of land raising Varthu Vithacrop) and an extent of 6,400
acres of double crop wet lands in Tamil Nadu are being irrigated
from the waters of Palar and Aliyar rivers. The Government of
Tamil Nadu shall supply annually at Manacadavu weir near Kerala
border 7.250 TMC ft. of water exclusive of unutilisable flood waters
for assured irrigation of 20,000 acres in Kerala (including 5,000
acres of Varthu Vitha).
X
140
X141
Tragedy of Commons
References
1. Achyutha Menon. 1995.The Cochin State Manuel. Kerala Gazetteer’s
Department.p.314
2. Aniket Alam, 2002. River Grid, the preferred solution, Dec 2, The
Hindu, Hyderabad
3. Anonymous. 2002.Irrigation Reservoirs in Tamil Nadu. Irrigation
Management Training Institute. Thuvakudy. Trichy. p 66-148.
4. Anonymous.2003. Report of the Technical Committee to Identify
the Areas Where Amendments are Required to be made to the
Parambikulam Aliyar Project Agreement Annexure VII, 197 p.
5. Basak. P. (Ed.). 1995.Water Atlas of Kerala. CWRDM.Kozhikode.
82p
6. Charles. W. Howe and K. William Easter.1970.Interbasin Transfers
of Water. Economic Issues and Impacts. The John Hopkins Press,
Baltimore and London.p 106-107
7. CSE. 2003.Coal dust; Fly ash and Slurry, March 15,Down to Earth.
Vol 11, No 20.
8. CSE.1996. Floods, Flood plains, Environmental Myths, The Citizens
Third Report, CSE. New Delhi
9. GoK 1958. Water Resources of Kerala. Advance Report. GOK. PWD.
Irrigation Branch.
10. GoK. 1974. Water Resources of Kerala. PWD. Trivandrum.110 p
11. GoK.1970.Kerala Tamil Nadu Agreement on Parambikulam Aliyar
Project. Govt. of Kerala Press. Trivandrum
12. GoK.1973. Kerala Tamil Nadu Agreement on Siruvani Drinking Water
Supply Project. GoK. Govt. Press. Trivandrum.
13. GoK.1994. Adhoc Committee on Parambikulam – Mullaperiyar River
Water Agreements- Report.56 p
14. Irrigation Department, Project Report on Chitturpuzha Scheme,
National Water Management Project, GoK
15. Govt of Tamil Nadu. 1997. State Framework Water Resources
Plan.Annexure.17. PAP Basin,Institute of Water Studies. Tharamani.
Chennai.144p
X
142
16. Himanshu Thakkar. 2001. Assessment of Irrigation Options in India.
In. Irrigation Options, WCD Thematic Reviews
17. Jain.S.N., Alice Jacob and Subhash, C. Jain. Inter State Water
Disputes in India. Indian Law Institute. p 151-173
18. James.E.J. 1991. Water Resources Development of Bharathapuzha
Basin. A Status Report. CWRDM. Kozhikode 41 p
19. Jayanta Bandyopadhyay, The Indian Drought 1987-88; The
Ecological Causes of Water Crisis: What to do. Third World Science
Movement, Research Foundation for Science and Ecology, New Delhi
56p
20. Joseph.J.Karoor.2003. Mullaperiyar Diversion.Paper presented at the
National Workshop on Inter Linking of Rivers in India. July 12 –13,
2003. Thrissur. Kerala. SANDRP and CPSS.
21. Kannan K.P. and Vijayamohanan Pillai. N. 2002, Plight of the Power
Sector in India, Centre for Development Studies,
Thiruvananthapuram
22. Kannan.K.P. 1979. Ecological and socio-economic consequences of
water control projects: The case of Kuttanad in Kerala(India) Working
Paper No. 87, Centre for Development studies, Trivandrum.
23. Mackenzie.A.T. 1963.The History of Periyar Project. Government
of Madras.
24. Patrick Mc Cully, 1996. Silenced Rivers. The Ecology and Politics of
Large Dams. Zed Books. London
25. Ramanna.M.V.V. 1992. Inter State River Water Disputes in India.
Orient Longman Ltd.Hyderabad 94p
26. Ramaswamy. R. Iyer. 2003. Water Perspectives, Issues, Concerns.
Sage Publications, Delhi.368 p.
27. Rao.K.L. 1984.Inter basin transfer of water and its importance for
development. In. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Inter
Basin Transfer of Water 27-28- Jan 1984. CWRDM. Calicut. Kerala.p
22-25
28. Robin Clarke.1991. Water: The International Crisis. Earthscan
Publications Ltd. London. p 50
X143
Tragedy of Commons
29. Sanctuary Report. 2003.Wild Rivers. Sanctuary Asia. February. Katmandu. Institute for Social and Environmental Transition,
Vol.23 (1) Colorado. P. 162-190
30. Sandra Postel.1993.Rivers Drying Up. World Watch.Vol.8 (3) May- 43. Viswanathan, P. K., 2002, Irrigation and agricultural development in
June Kerala: An analysis of missed linkages. Review of Devpt. And Change.
Vol VII, No.2.p 279-313
31. SANDRP.2003.The Mindlessness called River Linking Proposals, May
44. Vombatkere .S.G 2003, Proposed Interlinking of Rivers. DNRM
2003, Dossier, SANDRP
Series, January 2003
32. Sathis Chandran Nair S., 2002. Environmental Protection and
45. WCD. 2000. The Report of the World Commission on Dams.
Watershed Management.In. A Compendium of Selected Articles on
Earthscan Publishers. London
Watershed Based Development and Management, Planning &
Environment Affairs Department, Govt. of Kerala 46. World Bank 1993. Irrigiation - Induced Salinity - A Growing Problem
for Development and Environment 94p
33. Sathis Chandran Nair.1991. The Southern Weatern Ghats.A
Biodiversity Conservation Plan.INTACH.92 p.
34. Sathis Chandran Nair.1994. The High Ranges. INTACH Southern
Western Ghats Environment Series. INTACH. New Delhi.81 p
35. Shekhar Singh and Pranab Banerji. 2002,Large Dams in India,
Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts. IIPA. New Delhi 338p
36. Suchitra, M. 2003.Thirst Below Sea Level, The Hindu 15 July, 2003
37. Sukumaran Nair.N.K. 2003.Pampa- Achankovil- Vaippar Link. Paper
presented at the National Workshop on Inter Linking of Rivers in
India. July 12 –13, 2003. Thrissur. Kerala. SANDRP and CPSS.
38. Umashankari.2004.Interlinking Rivers. Contradictions and
Confrontations. South Asian Dialogues on Ecological Democracy
and Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. p :55-57
39. Vaidhyanathan, A. 2003. Interlinking of rivers March 26 and 27,
The Hindu
40. Vandana Shiva, 1991, The Violence of Green Revolution. Thrid
World New Work, Penang, Malaysia 264 p
41. Varma, C.V.J. and Jatana, B.L. 1997.A Century of Hydro Power
Development in India. Central Board of Irrigation and Power. New
Delhi. p 173-182
42. Velayuthan Saravanam and Paul Appasamy.1999.Historical
Perspectives on conflicts over domestic and industrial supply in the
Bhavani and Noyyal basins. Marcus Moench, Elizabeth Casperi and
Ajaya Dixit (Ed.). Rethinking the Mosaic. Investigations into local
level water management. Nepal Water Conservation Foundation,

X
144
X145
 Tragedy of Commons

Abbreviations

Measures of Volume
tmc ft – thousand million cubic feet
M cum - Million cubic meters
One tmc ft = 28.32 M cum.
Measures of water flow
m3/sec – cubic meters/ second (cumec)
ft3 /sec – cubic feet /sec (cusec)
One cumec = 35.315 cusec
Measure Area
ha.- hectares
ac. - Acres
One hectares = 2.47 acres
Power
MW – Mega Watt

X
146
X
View publication stats