[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dam-l LS. Frontier Post: The myth of large dams (II)



>Return-Path: <owner-irn-narmada@igc.org>
>Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:08:56 -0800
>From: Maqbool Khan Aliani <maliani@fecrc.com> (by way of patrick@irn.org
(Patrick
> McCully))
>Sender: owner-irn-narmada@igc.org
>Subject: LS. Frontier Post: The myth of large dams (II)
>To: irn-narmada@igc.apc.org
>X-Sender: patrick@pop.igc.org
>
>The myth of large dams
>Engr Javaid R. Leghare
>
>In Sindh's lower Indus, concentration of salt in ground water have been
>found to reach 30,000 ppm-almost as salty as seawater. Only 6 percent of
>sea wells have water that can be classified as of excellent quality. All
>told, an estimated 100,000 Pakistani acres are lost annually to
>waterlogging and salinisation. This will greatly increase with the
>proposed irrigation from the Kalabagh dam, unless extensive drainage
>systems are also built. In Pakistan, unfortunately, the government has
>spent well over six billion dollars to date on this problem, and the
>results are negligible.
>
>The arguments against the building of large dams such as Kalabagh dam can
>go on and on. Much of the above discussion shows that there is clear
>evidence that building large dams is not an appropriate method for feeding
>the worlds hungry, for providing energy or for reducing flood damage. To
>conclude otherwise would be to accept the flora, the fauna, the
>population, and the land itself, as largely expendable. And these great
>costs will be simply to further the political and financial interests of a
>very small minority.
>
>Let us briefly discuss the historical background of water distribution
>pacts between Sindh and Punjab, the water distribution and power
>generation capability of the Kalabagh dam, and the other energy options
>available if Pakistan was to scrap this highly controversial dam.
>
>Historical background:
>
>Barrage irrigation was first initiated in present Pakistan in the Punjab
>during the last decades of the 19th century. As early as 1900, it was
>recognised that Sindh was going to suffer, as a result of the construction
>of barrages over the tributaries of the River Indus flowing through the
>Punjab. Sir Evan James, the then commissioner of Sindh, pointed to this
>fact and called for appropriate measures to protect the vital interests of
>Sindh.
>
>The Sukkur Barrage was first proposed in 1869, but could not be sanctioned
>until 1916, because of objections raised by the Punjab, even though the
>construction of a barrage downstream could not cause any harm to Punjab.
>
>Irrigation Committee (1901-1903) :
>
>The Indian Irrigation Committee was established to frame the barrage
>irrigation policy for the Indus River basin. This committee decided that
>the diversion of water from the Indus was permissible only after prior
>consent from Sindh was obtained. This was deemed necessary to safeguard
>the inundation canals (the only source of irrigation at that time in
>Sindh), which were critically dependent on the rivers water level at the
>time of crop sowing.
>
>Government of India Act 1919:
>
>This policy was again emphasised by the Indian Cotton Committee in its
>report of 1919. It was specifically mandated that no irrigation project
>affecting supplies in the Indus undertaken in Punjab until the Sukkur
>Barrage project was completed. The government of India Act 1919, provided
>further that irrigation projects affecting more than one province should
>be referred to the governor general of India before the implementation.
>However, despite clear policy formulations regarding the issue of river
>water, Punjab continued to push through schemes designed to divert water
>without regard to the interests of Sindh. In September 1919, the
>government of Punjab submitted the Thal scheme. When the Sukkur Barrage
>project was finally sanctioned in April 1923, Punjab protested. The
>protest was rejected by the government of India as ill-founded.
>
>Anderson Committee of 1935:
>
>In 1935, when the Sukkur Barrage in Sindh and the Sutlej Valley Project in
>the Punjab were completed, issues were raised by the states of Bikaner,
>Bahawalpur and Khairpur. Punjab also demanded additional supplies for the
>Haveli Project. The government of India appointed the Anderson Committee
>to resolve these differences. The committee functioned from March 1935 to
>June 1935 and submitted its final terms of reference and recommended
>allocation of water to the Thal project. This was in violation of an
>earlier decision by the government of India which stated that question of
>allocating additional supplies from the Indus were not be responded before
>1939. As a result of this favourable recommendation, Punjab then became
>more aggressive in its attempts to secure more water, especially for the
>Thal project.
>
>Sindh-Punjab agreement 1945 :
>
>After the promulgation of the government of India Act 1935, Sindh was made
>a separate province. Alarmed by the successive attempts on Punjabs part to
>withdraw and store extensive quantities of water which could be
>detrimental to Sindh, the newly created province was compelled to lodge a
>formal complaint with the government of India on June 7, 19451, under
>Section 130 to 134 of the government of India Act of 1935.
>
>The governor-general appointed a commission on September 11, 1941, to
>investigate the complaint lodged by Sindh. A three-member commission was
>headed by Justice B.N Rau, a judge of the Calcutta High Court. The Rau
>Commission concluded that the Punjab project withdrawals when added to the
>requirements of other projects already in operation or about to be
>completed, were likely to cause material injury to Sindhs inundation
>canals, specially in the month of September.
>
>
>
 ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Dianne Murray,
Coordinator, Dam-Reservoir Working Group
Webmistress, Dam-Reservoir Impact and Information Archive
http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/dams
vox: 1-613-520-2757  fax:1-613-520-3898	e: dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
Home of Project Pisces: fish need flow!
><((((º>`·.¸·´¯`·¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·.¸.><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`¸><((((º>