threats to geological heritage

5/11/2018 Threats to Geological Heritage - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/threats-to-geological-heritage 1/7

BY,

SONU RENJITH

THREATS TO

GEOLOGICAL

HERITAGE



Mullaperiyar Dam

Mullaperiyar Dam is a masonry gravity dam on the Periyar River. It is located 881 m (2,890 ft) above mean sea level on the Cardamom Hills of the Western Ghats in Thekkady, Idukki District of Kerala, South India. It was constructed between1887 and 1895 by the British Government to divert water eastwards to Madras Presidency area (the present-day Tamil Nadu). It has a height of 53.6 m (176 ft)

from the foundation and length of 365.7 m (1,200 ft).The Periyar National Park inThekkady is located around the dam's reservoir. The dam and the river are owned by

and located in Kerala but the dam is controlled and operated under a period lease byneighbouring Tamil Nadu state. The control and safety of the dam and the validity

and fairness of the lease agreement have been points of dispute between Kerala and Tamil Nadu states. The dam is an 'endangered' scheduled dam under the KeralaIrrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006.



FO R WHAT IT WAS MADE?

The Periyar river which flows westward into the Arabian Sea was diverted eastward to flow towards the Bay of Bengal to provide water to the arid rain shadow region of Madurai in Madras Presidency which was in dire need of a greater supply than the

small Vaigai River could give. The dam created the Periyar Thekkady reservoir,

from which water was diverted eastwards to via a tunnel to augment the small flow of the Vaigai River. The Vaigai was dammed by the Vaigai Dam to provide a source for irrigating large tracts around Madurai. Initially the dam waters were used only for the irrigation of 68,558 ha (169,411 acres). Later, the Periyar Power Station inthe lower Periyar, Tamil Nadu was built which generates hydro-electricity from the

diverted waters.



Interstate dispute

F or Tamil Nadu, Mullaperiyar dam and the diverted Periyar waters act as a lifeline for Theni, Madurai, Sivaganga and Ramnad Districts, providing water for irrigation, drinking and also for generation of power in Lower Periyar Power Station. Tamil Nadu has insisted on exercisingits unfettered rights to control the dam and its waters, based on the 1866lease agreement. Kerala has pointed out the unfairness in the 1886 lease agreement and has challenged the validity of this agreement. However safety concerns posed by the 116 year old dam to the safety of the people of Kerala in the event of a dam collapse, have been the focus of disputes from 2009 onward. Kerala's proposal for decommissioning the dam and construction of a new dam, has been challenged by Tamil Nadu



In 2006, the Supreme Court of India by its decision by a three member division bench, allowed for the storage level to be raised to 142 feet (43 m) pending completion of the proposed strengthening measures, provision of other additional vents and implementation of other suggestions.

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 the act as not unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution bench to hear the case

considering its wide ramifications. Kerala did not object giving water to Tamil Nadu. Their main cause of objection is the dams safety as it is as

old as 116 years. Increasing the level would add more pressure to be handled by already leaking dam. Tamil Nadu wants the 2006 order of Supreme court be implemented so as to increase the water level to 142 feet (43m).

In 2000F

rontline one author stated thus: " F

or every argument raised by Tamil Nadu in support of its claims, there is counter-argument in Kerala that appears equally plausible. Yet, each time the controversy gets embroiled in extraneous issues, two things stand out: O ne is Kerala's refusal to acknowledge the genuine

need of the farmers in the otherwise drought-prone regions of Tamil Nadu for the waters of theMullaperiyar; the other is Tamil Nadu's refusal to see that it cannot rely on or continue to expect more and more from the resources of another State to satisfy its own requirements to the detriment of the other State. A

solution perhaps lies in acknowledging the two truths, but neither government can afford the political repercussions of such a confession".



MULLAPERIYAR DAM



THANKS,

SONU RENJITH

X-D

****HAPPY NEW YEAR****

threats to geological heritage

Documents