The Mullaperiyar Dam controversy

Kerala says the dam threatens the lives of its people while Tamil Nadu argues that studies have shown dam to be safe.
An underwater technical expert, engaged in photographing the structure of the Mullaperiyar dam, gets ready to dive with a camera.
An underwater technical expert, engaged in photographing the structure of the Mullaperiyar dam, gets ready to dive with a camera.
Updated on
5 min read

Why is a dam that’s more than a 100 years old the most important story in the news these days? To put it simply, two states are fighting over whether it should exist or not.

The Mullaperiyar dam was constructed in 1895, on the Periyar River, to divert water to the Madras Presidency, which is now Tamil Nadu.

The Government of British India had entered into a lease agreement with the

Maharaja of Travancore in 1886, which gave control of the dam to the Secretary of State of India. After Independence and the reorganisation of states, control of the dam and the Periyar Thekkady reservoir — which are located in Kerala — was given to Tamil Nadu.

Over decades, the issue became a disputed one, with Kerala wanting to build another dam downstream instead, and Tamil Nadu saying the dam is safe. The matter is pending before a Division Bench of the Supreme Court. The Construction of the Dam The dam was built in order to bolster the water supply to Madurai, the irrigation needs of which could not be met by the small Vaigai River. The location was considered in 1808, but that attempt was abandoned because the excavation needed would be more than 100 feet deep. The proposal was considered several times, until it was finally approved by Major John Pennycuick of Madras Engineers in 1882, and construction began in 1887.

Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed using limestone and surkhi, which is a mixture of burnt brick powder, calcium oxide and sugar. It consists of a main

dam, a spillway on its left and “baby dam” to the right. This dam was considered

a feat of engineering, as it required tremendous skill to divert the large river to build the lower parts of the dam, and workers had to fight everything from floods to malaria.

Water from the Periyar Thekkady reservoir, created by construction of the

dam, could be diverted to Madras Presidency. Later, the waters were not used

only for irrigation but also for generation of hydro-electricity through the

Periyar Power Station in Lower Periyar in Tamil Nadu.

The Lease On October 29, 1886, a lease for 999 years was signed between Maharaja of Travancore Vishakham Thirunal and Secretary of State for India for Periyar irrigation works. This gave the Secretary the right, power and liberty to carry out construction required for irrigation works, and granted exclusive

use of this to the Madras Presidency.

Travancore would give 8,000 acres of land for the reservoir and another 100 acres to construct the dam, at an annual tax of Rs 5 per acre. The lease agreement expired after Independence, and attempts to renew it were unsuccessful in 1958, 1960 and 1969.

Finally, in 1970, Kerala agreed to renew the agreement at an annual tax of

`30 per acre, with charge for electricity being Rs 12 per kilowatt per hour.

What is the Debate About Now?

In 1979, after an earthquake caused leaks and cracks in the dam, the Kerala

Government raised safety concerns.

The Centre for Earth Science Studies in Thiruvananthapuram said the dam

couldn’t withstand an earthquake above magnitude 6 on the Richter scale. Tamil

Nadu lowered the storage level from 142 feet to the current 136 feet so Kerala

could carry out repairs. However, the water level was not raised after repairs.

Tamil Nadu complained farmers in drought-prone areas were suffering.

Kerala denied this. When the matter went to the Supreme Court, a Bench

allowed the storage level to be restored to 142 feet, in 2006. But the Kerala

Government passed a new Dam Safety Act against increasing the storage level

of the dam. This was challenged by Tamil Nadu in the Supreme Court. The

apex court served notice to the Kerala government, but did not issue an interim stay on the Act. It advised the states to sort out the issue amicably, and ruled that the Act was not unconstitutional.

Kerala then said it didn’t object to giving water to its neighbour, but only

had safety concerns. In 2006, the State passed the Kerala Irrigation and Water

Conservation (Amendment) Act, fixing 136 feet as the maximum level of water,

and empowering the authorities to suspend the functioning of a dam or  decommission it, if it posed a threat to human life and property.

In September 2009, the Union Ministry of Environment gave environmental

clearance to Kerala to conduct surveys for a new dam. Tamil Nadu asked

for a stay against this, but that was rejected.

Later, the State Assembly would discuss a proposal for the State to retain

right of construction, ownership, operation and maintenance of the new

dam, while giving water to Tamil Nadu on the basis of a new agreement.

On February 18, 2010, the Supreme Court constituted a five-member committee headed by former Chief Justice of India A S Anand, to prepare a report on all the issues involved in the Mullaperiyar dispute within six months.

But Tamil Nadu’s ruling party at the time, the DMK, said the Centre should

mediate between the states instead. The Opposition AIADMK disagreed.

When Tamil Nadu finally told the Supreme Court it did not want to sort out the dispute in front of the empowered committee, the apex court rejected the request. The committee was formed in April, and has had extensions since.

It is expected to submit its report to the Supreme Court in January 2012.

The Dispute This Year In December 2010, the committee conducted a spot inspection of the dam, and heard the views of the two states and the Centre on issues related to the dam. Several bodies were formed to conduct tests of the dam’s safety.

On August 31, 2011, Kerala’s application to present additional evidence to

the panel was rejected. Kerala asked for permission to speak to the Committee

and to study the reports presented to it. Tamil Nadu opposed this, saying it

was an attempt to delay the submission of the committee’s report.

The problem has been exacerbated by the controversy over the release of a

film Dam 999, which is set in China, and based on the Banqiao dam disaster

of 1975 in which 2,50,000 people died.

The movie was made by filmmaker Sohan Roy, who is from Kerala. Political

parties in Tamil Nadu called for, and succeeded in imposing, a ban on the

screening of the film in Tamil Nadu.

Advocate General KP Dandapani also caused a furore when he told the Kerala

High Court that the water level at the dam was not related to its safety. On

December 3-4, there were reports of violent activities reported at the Mullaperiyar dam site. There were also reports of members of the Kerala unit

of the BJP youth wing attempting to vandalise the baby dam. But Kerala

police stopped them before they could do any damage. The group was

arrested and later released.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa has called it an “orchestrated

campaign of fear-mongering carried on by the Kerala government” and asked

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to deploy Central Industrial Security Force

at the site immediately. In the same letter, she said dams much older than

Mullaiperiyar were functional, citing examples of the Kallanai built by Karikaala

Cholan, more than 1,900 years ago, as well as the Godavari Anicut and Krishna barrage, which date between 1845 and 1855.

On Monday, the committee held a meeting to examine the reports it received

from the agencies constituted to analyse safety of the Mullaperiyar dam in Kerala, and decided to make a site visit in the near future.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com