Home »Top Stories » India must not be allowed to build spillways below DSL: Senate body

  • News Desk
  • Sep 26th, 2017
  • Comments Off on India must not be allowed to build spillways below DSL: Senate body
Senate Standing Committee on Water Resources has recommended that India should not be allowed to build spillways below dead storage level (DSL) in projects currently under construction on the Western rivers under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) 1960.

The committee gave these recommendations at its maiden meeting held under the chairmanship of Senator Sardar Yaqoob Khan Nasir on Monday. Joint Secretary of newly created Ministry of Water Resources, Mehr Ali Shah informed an upper House panel that the World Bank is the signatory to a few clauses of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and not the entire Treaty signed on September 19, 1960. Pakistan''s Indus Water Commissioner Mirza Asif Baig also gave a presentation about the history of the dispute with India.

Chairman Standing Committee observed that India was stopping water from flowing into Pakistan, and enquired from the officials as to what the government was doing to stop India from this violation? The Ministry of Water Resources informed the committee that India put forward the case that the geology of the site was weak and that the proposal of Pakistan regarding RHEP of surface intake would involve massive hill cutting that would make the spot perennially weak and a potential hazard. This evaluation of the geology by India is false as the material obtained from Indian references regarding RHEP describe the geology as strong and firm. The visit to the dam site during a tour of inspection also showed strong massive firm rocks on the site.

According to the Ministry, it was evident from the Indian stance on poundage and intake that it would not be possible to achieve resolution on technical matters.

Regarding Kishenganga (KHEP), India did not want to discuss the matter and held the view that as the project was finished it need not be discussed. Pakistan insisted on having Indian evaluation on alternative designs while India summarily provided its observations claiming that it was not possible to modify the design.

On the proposal of ungated bay on the right side of the dam, India said that the geology was weak and constricting a spillway would endanger the safety of the dam. On the proposal of constructing weirs in front of spillway and intake, India said that it would require constructing coffer-dam again and putting the facility out of function. India showed no appreciation of Pakistan''s concerns that the projects'' completion was achieved without addressing Pakistan''s objections to the design.

In the first round of Secretary-level talks, the World Bank presented eight options to the parties for consideration as a mode of resolution. After the resolution of the technical matters ended in failure the Bank presented four short listed options to the parties under Article IX(2) of the Treaty which specifies that the Commission has the discretion to adopt a resolution of differences through a Neutral Expert (NE) or by Court of Arbitration (CoA) or by any other way agreed upon by the Commission.

The World Bank presented the following options: (i) Expert panel to be decided by the parties along with ToR; (ii) merge NE into CoA to a person who qualifies to be NE; (iii) make the two forums and divide the work between them (NE considers difference while CoA considers disputes or diversion of projects; and (iv) make both forums and stagger the sequence (drawing of lots).

India in her initial response stated that the Treaty specifies only NE and CoA as resolution forums and any other way required meeting of the Commission at a proper place.

Pakistan evaluated the options and except for the of Panel of Experts (PoEs) accepted the options with the following priority: (i) merge NE into CoA with a person who qualifies to be NE;(ii) make both forums and divide the work between them (NE considers differences CoA considers dispute or division of projects); and (iii) make both forums and stagger the sequence (drawing of lots).

After receiving Pakistan''s response the Bank again asked for India''s response; India rejected all the four options as non- Treaty compliant and asked for appointment of NE for resolution of the differences. On this, Pakistan asked the Bank that since all the options presented by the Bank have been rejected by India, Pakistan asked for empanelment of the CoA for resolution of the dispute.

The ''pause'' failed to achieve the purpose for which it was made. The Bank announced that it will discharge its responsibility according to the Treaty provisions without delay and that it would continue consultations with the parties.

In view of the options floated by the Bank and India''s reaction to those, the officials said that it seems that both forums would be formed where NE would consider differences - matters specific to the projects and the court disputes - the matter of general applicability. Pakistan should accept the option with the condition that the court should decide first the matter of general applicability and NE later on the basis of the decision of the court, decide the matter specific to the projects.

The committee was informed that initially India was allowed to irrigate 0.6 million acres of land with western rivers which was increased to 0.7 million acres in Treaty 1960 along with a condition to lower the speed of water flowing to Pakistan. However, India is only irrigating around 0.14 acres of land. India was also allowed to build poundage on run of the river project with a specific dead level of water sans spillway gates. However, India is making all out endeavors to make gates below Dead Storage Level (DSL).

Senator Taj Haider said that there is an issue of confidence between India and Pakistan therefore spillways should not be allowed below DSL. The committee endorsed his recommendation. The committee also recommended that India opt for other ways of de-silting.

During the meeting Senators except Senator Nauman Wazir Khattak who is also an engineer by profession, did not ask relevant questions about the current row between Pakistan and India.

Chairman Standing Committee sought clarifications from the Joint Secretary about the role of the Senate Standing Committee on Water Resources. "Power has been shifted to Energy Committee. All members maintain there is nothing left with them after this. We have nothing to do," said the Chairman.

Senator Nauman Wazir expressed his desire to become a member of Senate Committee on Energy (comprising Power and Petroleum Divisions). Senator Taj Haider thanked the committee for judicious distribution of water amongst provinces in April 2017, due to which Sindh got required water which resulted in bumper crops of cotton and rice. Besides others, the meeting was attended by Senator Muhammad Khan Achakzai, Senator Nisar Muhammad, Senator Dr Ghaus Muhammad Khan Niazi and Senator Daud Khan Achakzai.



the author

Top
Close
Close