Click here for more...


Click here for more...


VOL. XXII NO. 3, MAY 16-31, 2012
The historical legacy...
... of an engineering marvel

The Mullai Periyar dam and Engineer Mohanakrishnan are invaluable assets of Tamil Nadu. Indeed, he is an icon for all of us engineers. However, his article in Madras Musings (March 16th) did raise some questions. In this follow-up to his article, I offer a different perspective. I also stress the need for Tamil Nadu and Kerala to show wisdom and move towards the future, rather than being held hostage to the ghosts of the past.

Prof. M. Subramaniam

All records have it as the Periyar project, but it is commonly called the Mullai Periyar Dam, as it represents the combined storage of the Mullai and Periyar Rivers which converged to become the Mullai Periyar.

The dam and reservoir are in Kerala but, through a lease deed of 1886, the rights of ownership control and property are vested with Tamil Nadu.

The Periyar rises on Sivagiri (6000 ft.) hill in Tamil Nadu. After traversing 48 km South to North it joins the Mullai running in a North-South course. The Mullai Periyar then turns 90o westwards, and 11 km from there is the dam (at 2700 ft.).

Cement was not manufactured in India when the dam was being built and it was, therefore, imported in wooden casks from England. All drawings of the project carry notations demarcating areas where masonry was done with cement mortar and where concrete was used as cement concrete.

The possession, ownership and property rights of the dam and reservoir, as well as the water available therein, were transferred to Tamil Nadu (then Madras) through the 1886 agreement by the Maharaja of Travancore. The dam has since then been operated and controlled by Tamil Nadu PWD. The 1886 agreement was not in dispute for 116 years (2002). A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in February 2006 found the matter in favour of Tamil Nadu and dismissed the review petition. Later, in March 2006, Kerala introduced a countervailing provision in its Irrigation and Water Resources Act, 2003. This introduction by Kerala awaits the judgement of a five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court as these lines are written.

From 1958 Kerala had been unhappy with the lease rental and the Rs. 300 crore accruing to Tamil Nadu from fishing and tourism rights. When Tamil Nadu wanted to go in for a hydroelectric power plant, the request was denied by Kerala. When the matter was arbitrated, the two technical arbitrators, each representing one side, gave a split verdict. The third arbitrator and umpire, a High Court Judge of the Calcutta High Court, ruled in favour of Kerala. Instead of going on appeal to the Madras High Court, Tamil Nadu handed over the Rs. 300 cr. fishing and tourism money to Kerala and agreed to pay royalty for the water used in hydropower generation. The understanding reached in 1970 was incorporated as a supplementary corollary and in continuation of the 1886 agreement.

Next, in 1979, Kerala raised concerns about the safety of the Mullai Periyar dam. Tamil Nadu, in consultation with Kerala and the Central Water Commission, the statutory authority for dams in India, agreed to carry out an extensive retrofit of the dam. This was done with the understanding that as an interim measure the water level would be reduced to 136 ft. and, after retrofit, it would be raised again to full reservoir level of 152 ft.

On completion of the retrofit, Kerala refused to accept the raising of the water level again. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and the Court appointed the Mittal Committee of experts to go into the technical issues of safety, etc. and report back. A three-judge Supreme Court Bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India, accepted the expert committee findings, rejected the contentions of Kerala and ruled in favour of Tamil Nadu. It then dismissed the review petition also.

Kerala now wants the present Mullai Periyar Dam demolished and to construct a new dam 1300feet. downstream. However, no physical water flow would be possible to Tamil Nadu from the new dam, as its top is 14 ft. below the bed level of the present intake channel which takes the water forward to the tunnel.

The detailed project report repeatedly states that Tamil Nadu has no riparian rights and water, if any, will be subject to availability.

Kerala's objections are on two counts: the first is the safety of the dam and the second is the dam being more than 100 years old.

The Brar Committee, appointed by the Government of India, and the Mittal Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court, have found the concerns about the dam's safety baseless. Further, the three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in February 2006 has held that the retrofitted dam is absolutely safe and sound.

The dam's age of 100+years is a non-issue since, of India's 5150 operational dams, 145 are more than 100 years old (rank of Mullai Periyar is 38), ten are more than 300 years, two more than 1000 years and one, Kallannai, more than 2000 years old.

A dam's life cycle is governed and determined not by age but by its maintenance and upkeep. China has many 1000-years-old masonry dams still functional and operational. Around the world there are 70 Roman dams more than 2000 years old, still functional. The Mullai Periyar's unique construction concept, design and work method adopted are those of a Roman dam, with stone masonry in Roman lime mortar and Roman lime concrete, the only difference being that instead of volcanic ash in both of them, the Indian equivalent of powdered, half burnt clay tiles (surkhi) was used in Mullai Periyar dam.

In recent times, three 100-year-plus globally famous dams, the Roosevelt (USA), Joix (France) and Upper Glendoval (UK), have been retrofitted like the Mullai Periyar and made as good as new.

Tamil Nadu wants Kerala to accept the Supreme Court judgment and the orders of February 2006 and allow raising the water level at Mullai Periyar dam to 142 ft. Then, after physical check and review of the dam at this stage, steps be taken to raise the water level up to full reservoir level of 152 ft if everything is in order.

Now that the Supreme Court-appointed Empowered Committee of 2010, after extensive checks and tests, has reported back to the Supreme Court that the Mullai Periyar Dam is in good condition, Kerala should accept the fact and let the Mullai Periyar continue to function as it did before 1979. In the same vein, subject to the statutory clearances involved, Tamil Nadu should not oppose Kerala's desire to construct a new dam of its own 1300 ft. downstream of the existing Mullai Periyar Dam. As will be clear from the explanation that follows, by doing so, Kerala or Tamil Nadu would have no reason in future to have fears about the existing Mullai Periyar Dam.

  • The 160 ft. high Mullai Periyar Dam has been found safe and sound for 152 ft. water. On constructing the new dam, the 90 ft. high water downstream of the Mullai Periyar Dam would act as a buttress and side support, which would make the dam even safer. Any seismic or other natural force impact, including that of water storage in the Mullai Periyar Dam up to 152 ft. height, would be limited to its top 70 ft. height and technically would not be a matter of any consequence.
  • Kerala gives to Tamil Nadu 600 mn.m3 water/year through the Mullai Periyar which irrigates 2.17 lakh acres, provides drinking water to 60 lakh people, livelihood for 12.5 lakh farmers and generates 140 MW power (water storage at F.R.L. 152 ft.) with gross benefit of Rs. 660 cr./year.
  • Tamil Nadu is scheduled to give 266 MW of power from the Kudankulam Atomic Power Plant and 260 MW low cost thermal power from the Neyveli Lignite Corporation generation. The gross cost benefit to Kerala will be Rs 1913 cr. Tamil Nadu also sends medicines, vegetables, milk, meat on hoof, sand etc. (water equivalent of 1700 mn. m3/year) as also a monetary contribution of Rs. 300.20 cr./year towards Mullai Periyar waters.
  • Kerala's net benefit accrual from Tamil Nadu is Rs. 2053 cr. and net water equivalent transfer by way of produce is 1080 mn. m3.

Kerala and Tamil Nadu have equally benefited through the generations of goodwill arising out of the Mullai Periyar Dam and should accept it as their common historical legacy.

Please click here to support the Heritage Act

In this issue

Heritage legislation at last
What should be done to space beneath flyovers?
Endangered historic site
Tiger, Tiger, burning bright (in Madras)
Birdwatching Notes
A post-box out of the past
The historical legacy of an engineering marvel
English Theatre returns
DRAVID – He fought the good battle every time

Our Regulars

Short 'N' Snappy
a-Musing
Our Readers Write
Quizzin' with Ram'nan

Archives

Download PDF