Legends Of Reviera

Name, Purpose And Design

Earlier known as the Periyar dam as it was basically meant to dam the Periyar river, the present name Mullaperiyar is derived from a portmanteau of Mullayar and Periyar, at the confluence of which the dam is located^. The geography of the Periyar river which flows westward into the Arabian Sea had suggested to engineers in the first decade of the nineteenth century that the river waters could be diverted eastward to flow towards the Bay of Bengal and provide water to the arid Madurai region of Madras Presidency which was in dire need for a greater supply than the small Vaigai River could give. The dam, finally constructed in 1895, created the Periyar Thekkady reservoir, from which water was diverted eastwards to Tamil Nadu via a tunnel enabling the water to join the Vaigai River which was dammed to provide a source for irrigating large tracts of Madurai. Initially the dam waters were used only for irrigation. Later, the Periyar Power Station in Lower Periyar, Tamil Nadu was built which generates hydro-electricity from the diverted waters.
The Mullaperiyar is a masonry gravity dam, which uses its weight and the forces gravity to support the reservoir weight and remain stable. The main dam has a maximum height of 53.6 m (176 ft) and length of 365.7 m (1,200 ft). Its crest is 3.6 m (12 ft) wide while the base has a width of 42.2 m (138 ft). It is comprised of a main dam section, spillway section on its left and an auxiliary (or "baby dam") to the right. Its reservoir can withhold 443,230,000 m³ (359,332 acre·ft) of water, 299,130,000 m³ (242,509 acre·ft) of which is active (live) storage.^[2][1]

Disputes AndThe Lease Agreement

The dam is operated by the Government of Tamil Nadu based on a lease agreement entered into in 1886 by the British India Government and the Maharajah of Travancore. Control of the dam and the reservoir by Tamil Nadu, after Independence and after Reorganization of States, has been a matter of dispute between the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The matter is still sub judice and is currently pending before a Division Bench of the Supreme Court.
A lease deed was signed between the Travancore Princely State and British Presidency of Madras in 1886 which gave the British the right to divert "all the waters" of the Mullaperiyar and its catchment to British territory (the Madras Presidency, now Tamil Nadu) for 999 years. After Independence, both the entities became non-existent. Further, according to Indian Independence Act 1947, all the treaties between British Government and Indian Princeley States have lapsed. Moreover, Article 131 of the Constitution of India denies Supreme Court of jurisdiction on pre-constitutional agreements. Kerala argued that the agreement is not an equal one, but imposed on the local King by the British Empire.
In 1970 the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments signed a formal agreement to renew the 1886 treaty almost completely. The Idukki Hydroelectric project, located 30 km downstream was completed in 1976 by the Kerala government  After Independence the areas downstream of the Mullaperiyar become heavily inhabited, as Kerala has a very high population density.

Construction of a New Dam

Kerala enacted the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006[24] to ensure safety of all dams in the State including the Mullaperiyar dam. The law empowered Kerala's Dam Safety Authority to oversee safety of dams in the State with powers to direct Tamil Nadu to suspend or restrict the functioning of the Mullaperiyar dam, to prevent submergence of land beyond the leased land; protect environment, flora and fauna; promote tourism and ensure the safety and security of its inhabitants.  In pursuance of Kerala's dam safety law, in September 2009, the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Government of India granted[25] environmental clearance to Kerala for conducting survey for new dam downstream. Tamil Nadu approached Supreme Court for a stay order against the clearance; however, the plea was rejected. Consequently, the survey was started in October, 2009.

Justice A.S. Anand Committee

On 18 February 2010, the Supreme Court decided to constitute a five-member empowered committee to study all the issues of Mullaiperiyar Dam and seek a report from it within six months. The Bench in its draft order said Tamil Nadu and Kerala would have the option to nominate a member each, who could be either a retired judge or a technical expert. The five-member committee will be headed by former Chief Justice of India A. S. Anand to go into all issues relating to the dam's safety and the storage level. However, the ruling party of Tamil Nadu, DMK, passed a resolution that it not only oppose the apex court's decision to form the five-member committee, but also said that the state government will not nominate any member to it. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said that immediately after the Supreme Court announced its decision to set up a committee, he had written to Congress president asking the Centre to mediate between Kerala and Tamil Nadu on Mullaperiyar issue. However, Leader of Opposition J. Jayalalithaa objected to the TN Government move. She said that this would give advantage to Kerala in the issue. Meanwhile, Kerala Water Resources Minister N. K. Premachandran told the state Assembly that the State should have the right of construction, ownership, operation and maintenance of the new dam, while giving water to Tamil Nadu on the basis of a clear cut agreement. He also informed the media that Former Supreme Court Judge Mr. K. T. Thomas will represent Kerala on the expert panel constituted by Supreme Court. On 8 March 2010, in a fresh twist to the Mullaperiyar Dam row, Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that it was not interested in adjudicating the dispute with Kerala before the special “empowered” committee appointed by the apex court for settling the inter-State issue. However, Supreme Court refused to accept Tamil Nadu's request to scrap the decision to form the empowered committee. The Supreme Court also criticized the Union Government on its reluctance in funding the empowered committee.

Current status

Tamil Nadu is the custodian of the dam and its surrounding areas. In 2006, the Supreme Court of India by its decision by a single bench, allowed for the storage level to be raised to 142 feet (43 m). However, the Kerala Government promulgated a new "Dam Safety Act" against increasing the storage level of the dam, which has not been objected by the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu challenged it on various grounds. The Supreme Court issued notice to Kerala to respond; however, did not stay the operation of the Act even as an interim measure. The Court then advised the States to settle the matter amicably, and adjourned hearing in order to enable them to do so. The Supreme Court of India termed it as not unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution bench to hear the case considering its wide ramifications. The case involves pre-constitutional agreement between two entities which does not exist now.
Kerala's Stance: Kerala did not object giving water to Tamil Nadu. Their main cause of objection is the dams safety as it is as old as 110 years. Increasing the level would add more pressure to be handled by already leaking dam.
Tamil Nadu's Stance: The State wants that the 2006 order of Supreme court be implemented so as to increase the water level to 142 feet (43 m).

Safety Concern

In 1979, safety concerns were raised by Kerala Government after an earthquake, that resulted in leaks and cracks in the dam. A state agency, Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS), Thiruvananthapuram, had reported that the structure would not withstand an earthquake above magnitude 6 on the Richter scale. The then Tamil Nadu government lowered the storage level to the current 136 feet (from 142.2 feet) at the request of the Kerala Government to carry out safety repairs.
Current safety concerns hinge mainly around the issues listed below:
Risk Factors

1. Age of the dam: The dam is 116 years old as of 2011. It has outlived its expected life span of 50 years. Strengthening the existing dam has its limitations and may not prove to be effective in the event of a disaster (reference: Morvi Dam)
2. Construction Material: The dam was constructed using lime and mortar. Seepage and leaks from the dam have caused concern.
3. Earthquakes: The dam is situated in a seismically active zone . CESS has reported that the dam cannot withstand earthquakes above 6 point on the Richter scale. Several earthquake tremors have occurred in the area in recent times. An earthquake measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale occurred on June 7, 1988 with maximum damage in Nedumkandam and Kallar (within 20 kms of the dam).
4. Changing weather patterns leading to incessant rains, flooding and overflow of the dam^.
5. Insufficient or improper safety maintenance and safety monitoring of the dam

Potential adverse impact in the event of a disaster

1. Impact on lives and property downstream in the event of a disaster: The estimated population of the five districts of Kerala downstream is 3.5 million. Villages such as Vallakadavu, Vandiperiyar, Upputhara, Ayyappankoil, Kumili and parts of Kattappana and other parts of Idukki and Ernakulam Districts would be immediately affected, with loss of lives and property.
2. Impact on flora and fauna including endangered species such as tiger and elephants in the Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary.
3. Impact on tourism: Thekkady Reservoir and Periyar Wild Life Sanctuary are important and popular tourist spots in Kerala^{[citation needed]}.
4. Impact on Idukki Dam and the disastrous consequences of an Idukki Dam disaster.
5. Impact on agriculture, drinking water supply and power generation in southern Tamilnadu.
6. Impact of a disaster on the general economy of Kerala and Tamilnadu.