Mullaperiyar Dam: A case for settlement

"Majority is always wrong"-Ibsen.

Mullaperiyar issue is not a conventional inter-state water dispute as visualised in Article 162 of the Constitution. As an extraordinary and ageing dam, the useful life period of which is clearly over, it poses questions of safety which precisely mean questions of survival for the people in at least four districts in Kerala. Safety of the dam is the need of Tamil Nadu as well, as only a sustaining dam can provide water to them.

I do not know whether the present issue can be resolved through litigation. In my view, an inter-state dialogue with an open mind and sense of realism and responsibility would resolve the issue.

For that, leaders and administrators of both Tamil Nadu and Kerala should put an end to the hollow rhetorics and meaningless campaigns.

First of all, Tamil Nadu should realise that the dam is unsafe. The scanning report pertaining to the dam prepared by M Sasidharan, retired Chief Engineer and Member of Inter-state Water Advisory Committee says that deterioration of the dam in between depths of 106 and 95 ft throughout the length of the dam was observed in the pictures obtained in the scanning study. The scanning report reaches the following conclusion:

"…the scanned upstream surface of the Mullaperiyar dam shows a highly deteriorated upstream surface in between elevation 106 ft and elevation 95 ft. This is apart from the innumerable other defects such as large potholes, crevices, highly loose joints etc, that could be observable in the scanned results of most of the sections at various depths of the dam. In effect the scanned pictures of the dam vindicated Kerala's stand with regard to the condition of the dam, and also Kerala's decision to construct a new dam below the existing dam as expeditiously as possible. A medium type of earthquake in the periphery of the dam site will shake the already crushed outside masonry to a collapsible condition, and that can cause the failure of the dam without showing any external symptoms".

An overemphasis on the study reports on dam safety and controversies with respect to differences in conclusions are only to be averted, for nobody can have a case that the dam is eternal. If not today, in the immediate future the old dam will have to be decommissioned.

Going by the Precautionary Principle laid down by the Riodejaneiro Convention on dam safety (Brazil, 1982) immediate measures are required to avert the mishaps.

At the same time, in my view, Kerala should change the irrational stand that construction of a new dam alone is the solution. Such a stand is fundamentally flawed for three prominent reasons:

1) New dam(s) also will have to be constructed in seismically active areas. Thus the safety threat will continue, and may even get intensified.

2) If the tenure of the original lease is to be honoured, taking the average life span of a dam as 80 years, for the coming 873 years which is the remaining lease period, at least 11 dams will have to be constructed.

Construction of dams downstream may not be ecologically, legally or politically easy on account of the socio-environmental impacts. "No more big dams" is a slogan by Green Peace Movement and other ecologically enlightened individuals and groups worldwide. The brief history of the calamities owing to collapse by dams gives an empirical basis for the demand.

3) Even a new dam may take years for its completion and obviously it cannot answer today's immediate threat posed by the ageing dam. Neither the Government of Kerala nor the political leaders have a convincing basis for their arguments in support of new dam. We are surrounded by politicians and not by statesmen.

There can certainly be a solution to the Mullaperiyar issue, though it is suggested by a few. Activists like Prof. CP Roy and CR Neelakandan have suggested the "tunnel solution" to the issue.

The most popular science movement in the state, namely, Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishat (KSSP) also has pointed out that 'tunnel solution' is technically feasible and ecologically viable.

The suggestion is to lower the water level in the dam below 100 ft by constructing a tunnel and to divert the water to TamilNadu, which should take up the responsibility to store the water, by creating adequate storage facility.

Thus the existing storage dam should be converted into a diversion dam which would also help the decommissioning of the existing dam in a phased manner, without causing any detrimental impact on Tamil Nadu.

Reports say that this formula has been getting increased acceptance from Tamil Nadu as well.

The political leadership and the executive Governments of the respective states should, therefore, initiate dialogue in the said line so as to reach a solution to the questions of survival. Deliberations are more important than litigations.

(Kaleeswaram Raj, the author, is a lawyer at Kerala High Court. The opinions expressed in this column are the author's own.)