|
Special
Reports/Water Crisis |
Overview of water resources in Pakistan
Engineer
Abdul Majid Kazi
The total land area of Pakistan is approximately 310,322
square miles or 88 million hectares of land, of which
approximately 20 million heaters are used for agriculture
purposes.
 The river system of Indus and its tributaries provides
Pakistan some of the most fertile land in the Indian
subcontinent.
Under the Indus Water Basin Treaty of 1960 three eastern
rivers namely: Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were allocated to India
for its exclusive use. The Treaty gives Pakistan control
over the western rivers namely: the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.
India has also been allowed to develop 13,43,477 acres of
irrigated cropped area on the western rivers without any
restriction on the quantum of water to be utilised.
India has already developed 7,85,789, acres for which 6.75
MAF has been used. Thus, for the remaining area of 5,75,678
acres, 4.79 MAF would be required on pro rata basis.
The water availability in our rivers is highly erratic and
unreliable. The highest annual water availability in the
recorded history 1922 todate was 186.79 MAF (million acre
feet) in the year 1959-60 as against the minimum of 95.99
MAF in the year 2001-2002.
This includes the Kabul River contribution. The Kabul River
contributes a maximum of 34.24 MAF and a minimum of 12.32
MAF with an annual average of about 20.42 MAF to Indus main.
The short-term possible uses by Afghanistan on the Kabul
river as stated by the President of Pakistan in his
televised speech on 13th September, 2003 would be 8 MAF.
THIS PAPER WILL EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
1. Inter-provincial water distribution;
2. The construction of new water reservoirs in the context
of surplus water availability;
3. The regulation, operation and management of existing
reservoirs and link canals Chashma Jhelum and Taunsa Panjand
(C-J and T-P);
4. The construction of Greater Thal Canal,(GTC) and;
5. The escapages downstream Kotri/outflow to sea.
At the time of independence in 1947, the irrigation system,
conceived originally as a whole, was divided between India
and Pakistan without regard to irrigated boundaries.
This resulted in the creation of an international water
dispute in 1948, which was finally resolved by the
enforcement of Indus Water Treaty in 1960 under the aegis of
the World Bank.
The Treaty assigned the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas,
Sutlej) to India, with an estimated total annual flow of 33
MAF and the three western rivers (Indus Jhelum, Chenab) to
Pakistan with a transfer of irrigation supplies from the
western rivers to areas in Pakistan formerly served by the
eastern rivers as well as some development potential to
compensate for the perpetual loss of the eastern waters.
The whole Sindh in general and the Indus Delta in particular
is the worst sufferer of Indus Water Treaty 1960. The Indus
Basis Project, including Mangla Dam, with the live storage
capacity of 4.82 MAF, five barrages, one siphon and eight
inter-river link canals were completed during 1960 -1971,
while the Tarbela Dam with the live storage capacity of 9.3
MAF started partial operation in 1975-76.
After the partition of the Indian sub-continent, Kotri,
Taunsa and Guddu Barrages were completed in Pakistan on the
Indus River between 1955 and 1962 to provide controlled
irrigation to areas previously served by inundation canals.
Also, three additional inter-river link canals were built
prior to the initiation of Indus Basin Project.
However, immediately before the signing of the Water Accord
1991, water distribution was being made on the basis of
adhoc arrangements decided by the Federal Government every
year on season-to-season basis ie Kharif and Rabi since
1970.
This adhoc distribution was a provisional arrangement in
nature and without prejudice to the claims of the provinces.
However, prior to 1970 water was distributed under the Sindh-Punjab
draft agreement 1945, and sharing of water between 1970 and
the signing of the water accord 1991 was made on an adhoc
basis.
After the dismemberment of One Unit in 1970, the Federal
Government on the request of the provinces appointed
different commissions/committees, headed by Supreme Court
Judges, one after another to examine the problem of
inter-provincial apportionment of Indus water, but the
consensus could not develop amongst the provinces on Justice
Fazle Akbar committee and Justice Haleem Commission.
INTER-PROVINCIAL WATER DISTRIBUTION ACCORD 1991: On
March 16th, 1991, an agreement was signed unanimously by the
then Chief Ministers of all the four provinces for sharing
of water, including periods of shortages and surpluses. The
agreement is known as the Water Accord 1991.
The Council of Common Interests (CCI) ratified the accord on
March 21, 1991. Under the accord, 117.35 MAF have been
allocated to the provinces for their existing canal systems.
Para 14 (a) of the accord says, "The system-wise allocation
will be worked out separately on ten daily basis and will be
attached with this agreement as part and parcel of it."
Recognising that there will be shortages to meet the
requirements of the existing canals under these conditions
of uncertain water availability, the provision was made in
Para 14 (b) of the Water Accord for sharing the shortages
and surpluses of water. Para 14 (b) of the accord says:
"The record of actual average system uses for the period
1977-82 would form the guideline for developing future
regulation pattern. These ten daily uses would be adjusted
pro-rata to correspond to the indicated seasonal allocations
of different canal systems would form the basis for sharing
shortages and surpluses on all-Pakistan basis under clause 2
of Water Accord 1991 following is the allocation of water
for provinces:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVINCE KHARIF RABI TOTAL
-------------------------------------------
Punjab 34.07 18.87 55.94
Sindh 33.94 14.82 48.76
NWFP (a) 3.48 2.30 5.78
(b) 1.80 1.20 3.00
Balochistan 2.85 1.02 3.87
-------------------------------------------
Total 78.14 38.21 117.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be stated here that
0.87 MAF sanctioned by the President of Pakistan for Karachi
Municipal uses has been included in the sanctioned
allocation of Sindh under the accord.
Just Six months after the accord was signed, the Council of
Common Interests (CCI) held its meeting on 16th September
1991 to decide 10-day average system-wise, season-wise
allocation for the provinces.
In this meeting Punjab expressed the view that it would not
be appropriate to take any one clause of the accord in
isolation and that the ten daily system-wise allocation by
provinces should not be taken in isolation without
protecting the existing uses and deciding on future
storage's, to which the government of Sindh expressed the
view that providing data on 10 daily average allocations on
system-wise basis was an integral part of the accord.
It would not be appropriate to link other issues such as
development of future storage's etc with the provisions of
the accord. Sindh further expressed that the Accord 1991
should be religiously implemented and there should be
openness in dealing with all issues.
In response to Punjab's objections and Sindh's concerns the
CCI in the above meeting authorised 10-daily seasonal
system-wise adjusted allocations (excluding flood flows and
future storage) provided by the provinces to become part and
parcel of the water accord.
Thus, the CCI did not agree with the view of Punjab that the
existing sharing arrangement had to continue during deficit
periods in the absence of construction of storage's.
This is clear from the fact that CCI approved one set of ten
daily statements which forms the basis for distribution in
the event of surpluses and shortages, otherwise separate set
of ten daily statements should have been approved for
sharing shortages during deficit periods as proposed by
Punjab.
It may further be mentioned that clause 6 of water accord
regarding future storage's states "the need for future
storage's wherever feasible on the Indus and other rivers
was admitted for planned future agricultural development."
This clearly indicates that future storage's are in no way
connected with sharing of water in the existing canal
systems.
PUNJAB'S IMPRESSIONS ABOUT THE WATER ACCORD 1991:
Punjab generally propagates that according to 1991 Water
Accord Punjab's share was reduced by 2.7% and Sindh's share
increased by 1.2%. However "Punjab sacrificed and Sindh
gained."
In response to this propaganda we will have to peep into the
past. In the absence of Mangla Dam, water from Jhelum River,
an early riser, was making significant contribution in the
development of Kharif crop in the southern portion of Sindh
under the command area of Kotri Barrage.
With the commissioning of Mangla Dam the water was not
allowed to Sindh, consequently early Kharif crop got a
serious setback. It may be stated that live capacity of
Mangla Dam was 5.34 MAF with the replacement component of
3.12 and out of 2.22 MAF of development component, Sindh's
share is 1.92 MAF, which has been and remains continuously
denied to Sindh.
As a result of Indus Water Treaty 1960, India got the
exclusive use of total inflows of 33 MAF of three eastern
rivers instead of their utilisation of 8 MAF. India thus got
25 MAF in excess of its claims on the three eastern rivers.
Consequently with the placement of withdrawal of Trimmu,
Islam and Panjnad barrages that were being fed by the
eastern rivers on the Indus main with the same priority as
that of Kotri, Guddu and Sukkur barrages of Sindh, the
withdrawals of Sindh barrages drastically reduced.
As a cumulative effect of the above exploitation Sindh's
uses reduced
to 43.67 MAF against its pre-accord sanctioned allocation of
50.92 MAF, whereas the uses of Punjab increased to 54.39 MAF
against their sanctioned allocation of 48.33 MAF.
Under the Accord Sindh got the allocation of 48.76,
including 87 MAF for Karachi Municipal uses and Punjab got
an allocation of 55.94 out of 117.35 MAF apportioned to the
provinces.
From the above discussion it is clear that Punjab's
allocation of 48.33 out of a total allocation of 103.30 went
up to 55.94 MAF out of a total apportionment of 117.35 MAF.
In the case of Sindh its sanctioned allocation was 48.74 out
of 103.30 MAF, but with the sanctioned allocation of 2.24
for LBOD Project, Sindh's pre-accord sanctioned allocation
was 50.98 whereas it received 48.76 MAF, including an
allocation of 87 MAF for Karachi Municipal uses out of
117.35 under the Accord.
It will, therefore, be highly unfair and unjust to say that
"Punjab sacrificed and Sindh gained" as a result of the
accord. The above facts and figures show that it is the
other way round.
INTER-PROVINCIAL MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE MEETING ON WATER
ISSUES IN 1994: Despite the fact the federal government
agrees the sacrosanct status of Water Accord of 1991, Sindh
has not been receiving its share of water as ensured in the
Accord.
In 1994 Punjab brought in an ex-agenda working paper before
the inter-provincial Ministerial Committee meeting chaired
by the then Minister of Water and Power, Ghulam Mustafa Khar.
It was proposed in the working paper to share shortages of
water between Punjab and Sindh on the basis of 1977-82
average uses.
The proposal was bitterly opposed by the representatives of
Sindh as it was violative of the water accord of 1991 and
against the CCI decision. However, in the minutes to the
meeting it was shown that Sindh had agreed to the
above-mentioned proposal.
In response to the resume of the Inter-Provincial
ministerial meeting on water held on May 2nd, 1994 member
Sindh A.R. Memon in his letter (No IRSA/1692-93, dated March
12, 1994) to Salman Farooqi, Secretary, Ministry of Water
and Power, Government of Pakistan wrote:
"....nominee of the Government of Sindh, I owe my duty to
safeguard the due rights of Sindh while implementing water
accord [1991]."
HE WENT ON FURTHER: "It would be a travesty of truth
and distortion of resume to say that there was consensus on
the historical uses for sharing shortages. This requires to
be deleted. We have discussed within Indus Regulatory System
Authority (IRSA) and we are sharing shortages as per Para 2
of accord 1991 and not as per historical uses.
MEMON CONCLUDES HIS LETTER BY WRITING: "We would be
sowing the seeds of discord on water accord if we include
such controversial version as part of consensus in such a
high-level meeting. God is Great."
The Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Government of
Sindh, in his faxed letter dated May 15th, 1994 addressed to
the Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, Government of
Pakistan fully endorsed the views of Memon and requested
that "the Para 6 (3) may kindly be deleted from the minutes
of resume of the Inter-provincial Ministerial meeting held
on May 2, 1994." Para 6 (3) is reproduced below:
"The shortages between Sindh and Punjab will be shared
according to the historic uses"
In response, the Special Secretary, Ministry of Water and
Power, Government of Pakistan, in Para 2 of his letter No
(-2 (156) A/94, dated May 10, 1994 addressed to Chairman
IRSA stated.
"As you are aware, IRSA is vested with full authority under
the Act for resolving inter-provincial issues. The
Inter-Provincial Ministerial Committee on water is of an
advisory nature and without any legal mandate. The committee
is primarily to assist IRSA in attempting a consensus on
major issues through a spirit of goodwill and co-operation.
All decisions on controversial matters are ultimately the
responsibility of IRSA to ensure fair and equitable
distribution of water among the provinces"
However, water continued to be distributed under clause 2 of
the 1991 accord until Kharif 1999.
However, in Rabi 1999-2000 IRSA arbitrarily enforced the
recalled decision of 1994, to which the Sindh Government
vehemently opposed and the matter was referred by the
Chairman IRSA vide his letter NO.
PS/Chairman, 1-2/2000/85, dated May 30, 2000 to the
Secretary, Water and Power, Government of Pakistan.
The matter was referred to the Ministry of Law, Justice and
Human Rights by the Ministry of Water and Power for
interpretation of Clause-14 of Water Accord 1991 as desired
by IRSA. The Law Division's advice in this regard is
reproduced below:
-- "as per plain interpretation of Clause 14 of the Accord,
the ten daily uses, having become part and parcel of the
accord, shall be adjusted pro-rata for sharing shortages.
Any interpretation of sharing shortages on the basis of
historic use shall be violation of the concurrent accord.
Moreover, under clause 13 of the accord, IRSA is responsible
for implementation of the accord. Similarly, any dispute on
this subject should have been referred to the CCI under the
Constitution. Hence the formation of any other body or
committee or taking any decision or interpretation on such
report shall be a distortion of the accord as well as
violative of the Constitution."
FURTHER, PARA 2 OF THIS ADVICE OF THE LAW DIVISION SAYS:
"However, since the matter has not been referred to the
appropriate body ie CCI by the aggrieved party, therefore,
the existing arrangements as decided by the IRSA, may be
allowed to continue till the constitution of and decision of
the CCI."
The Law Division's advice was communicated by the Ministry
of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan to the Chairman
IRSA, vide letter No WA-5(1) 98-Vol.II, dated October 25th
2000. In this regard the Chief Executive's Secretariat
issued a directive on 26.10. 2000 stating that:
"All instructions given on the issue by the Chief Executive
regarding IRSA to be implemented immediately along with the
apportionment of the water of the Indus River System between
the provinces on 16.3.1991. Moreover, the ministerial water
accord of 1994 to be annulled immediately."
In response to the Chief Executive's directive, the Chairman
IRSA vide letter No IRSA/Admn/Gen-l/1139-57, dated November
12, 2001, copies endorsed to all provincial secretaries
(Irrigation and Power), members of IRSA for information and
compliance, states:
"In pursuance of the Chief Executive Secretariat's directive
No F, 100/137/0-1/CES/2000, dated October 23, 2000 and
Ministry of Water and Power UO No WI-G (1)/2000, dated June
28, 2001, and its letter of even No, dated November 7, 2001,
it is hereby notified that subject decisions of the 1994
Inter-Provincial Ministerial meeting stand annulled."
It is noteworthy that IRSA notified the Chief Executives
Secretariat's instructions to the provinces after a lapse of
eight months. It is also regretfully noted that the water is
still being distributed according to annulled 1994
ministerial decision and not under the water accord 1991.
The opinion of Law Division dated 16.10.2000 and the said
directive of the Chief Executive Secretariat dated
23.10.2000 were placed before the then Law Minister who
approved the proposal that Para 2 of the advice of the Law
Division dated 16.10.2000 be recalled and consequently this
Division issued a revised note on 16.02.2001 in these words:
"In view of the said directive, regarding apportionment of
water of the Indus River System the ministerial award of
1994 is annulled and the accord of 1991 has to be
implemented, the opinion already conveyed by this Division
on 16.10.2000 is revised and Para 2 thereof is accordingly
recalled."
The Government of Punjab made a fresh reference on 9.04.2002
asking the Law Division to review the earlier opinion by
examining clauses 14 (a) and 14 (b) of the accord in the
light of Para 2 of the preamble thereof.
The Rules of Business 1973 as stated by the Law Division
provide a hierarchy by the authorities for the resolution of
the conflict in opinion. In this case since the issue has
been examined upto the level of the Federal Law Minister as
well as the Chief Executive of Pakistan, therefore, this
Division can neither re-open nor review the said earlier
communications. The matter can only be resolved by the CCI
or the Chief Executive of Pakistan.
It seems that unfortunately the water is still being
distributed by IRSA as per the annulled 1994 ministerial
decision and not under the 1991 accord under the pretext of
Chief Executive Secretariat's letter No F.4 (23) C-I/CES/2001,
dated 19.1.2002, addressed to the Chairman IRSA and
Secretaries of Governor Punjab, and Irrigation and Power
Department, Punjab.
The text of the Chief Executive Secretariat's letter to
Chairman IRSA, in response to Secretary Irrigation and Power
Department, Punjab's letter No 83-87/2/83, dated 17-1-2002
is reproduced below:
"The competent authority has been pleased to direct that
IRSA may please refer the cases regarding Water
Accord/Distribution to the Secretariat for approval before
finalising them."
After receiving interpretation from the Law, Justice and
Human Rights Division on May 20, 2002 mentioned above, the
IRSA has no legal, technical and moral justification to
distribute water under the recalled 1994 ministerial
decision. Therefore, this gross violation should be stopped
forthwith and Sindh should be compensated due to less supply
of water to the extent of 2 MAF from their allocated share
in the accord since the last over three years.
As stated earlier the shortages of water is still being
shared under the annulled Ministerial Water Formula 1994,
and surpluses under the 1991 - accord. Table 2 shows a
comparative statement of Kharif water sharing by Punjab and
Sindh under 1991 Water Accord and 1994 Formula.
-- Comparative Statement Showing Water Share of Punjab &
Sindh (Kharif)
-- Under Water Accord 1991 and Under (Historic use) 1994
Formula
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. In MAF
As per Water As per Historic
Uses Excess over/
Share of Shortage Accord 1991 (1994
Formula) Short supplies
Punjab in MAF during
Shortage over & above
&
Sindh
Water Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of Share of Share of Share of
Punjab Sindh
Punjab Sindh Punjab Sindh
(52.2%) (47.8%) (54.62%) (45.38%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
71.01 0 37.07 33.94 37.07 33.94 - -
70.01 1 36.55 33.46 38.24 31.77 (+)1.69 (-)1.69
69.01 2 36.02 32.99 37.69 31.32 (+)1.67 (-)1.67
68.01 3 35.50 32.51 37.15 30.86 (+)1.65 (-)1.65
67.01 4 34.98 32.03 36.60 30.41 (+)1.62 (-)1.62
66.01 5 34.46 31.55 35.05 29.96 (+)1.59 (-)1.59
65.01 6 33.94 31.07 35.51 29.50 (+)1.57 (-)1.57
62.01 9 32.37 29.64 33.87 28.14 (+)1.50 (-)1.50
52.01 19 27.14 24.86 28.40 23.60 (+)1.26 (-)1.26
47.01 24 24.54 22.47 25.68 21.33 (+)1.14 (-)1.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MAF
Total Kharif allocation to all provinces
791.4
Share of Balochistan & NWFP (exempted from sharing
authorities)
8.13
Punjab
37.07
Sindh
33.94
Punjab & Sindh (Total)
71.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above table shows that
under the 1994 formula, the share of Punjab during shortage
periods (upto 3 MAF) works out to 1.14 MAF more than its
full allocated share of 37.07 MAF and does not share any
shortages and they draw from 1.52 to 2 MAF more than their
share under the accord during shortages every year.
The share of NWFP and Balochistan is not reduced and they
get full accord share according to the arbitrary IRSA
decision. Thus the full burden falls only on the province of
Sindh.
Under the circumstances explained above it is only just and
fair that the distribution of water must be done under 1991
accord and not under the annulled decision of 1994, as is
being done at present.
The distribution of water (shortages and surpluses) has to
be made on all-Pakistan basis under 14 (b) of the accord.
Distribution under annulled ministerial decision 1994 is
nothing short of "Robbing Peter to pay Paul."
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WATER RESERVOIRS/DAMS: While
considering the proposals of construction of future
reservoirs, the first and foremost thing is to ascertain
reliable surplus water availability for storage's after
accounting for all the existing uses, including water
accord-1991 allocations and commitments.
It is also necessary to know the sources of water
availability, the quantum of water available, so as to have
a clear picture of the reliable availability of surplus
water for storage's.
In this context the Federal Government has constituted
technical committee on water resources to give report on
surface water availability for future reservoirs and
irrigation schemes, filling criteria of Mangla reservoirs
and to make recommendations in this regard and lay down
operational criteria of link canals and future reservoirs.
The committee has not yet given the report in this regard.
The committee has to submit its recommendations/report by
February 2005. In the absence of the Technical Committee's
report on water availability it is premature to take the
decision regarding the construction of future dams.
Under the Indus Water Treaty-1960, three eastern rivers-
Sutlaj, Beas and Ravi-were allocated to India for their
exclusive use with an estimated total mean annual flow of 33
million acre feet (MAF) against their established uses of 8
MAF and three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) were
given to Pakistan.
Kabul, Harrow, Soan rivers are the tributaries of Indus
main. Besides, India was also authorised under the 1960
Treaty to develop 1,343.477 acres of irrigated cropped area
on the western rivers without any restriction on the quantum
of water to be utilised.
India has already developed 785,789 acres for which 6.75 MAF
had been used, thus for the remaining area of 557,678 acres
about 4.79 MAF would be required on pro rata basis, as per
reply given by the Minister for Water and Power in the
sitting of Senate on August 11, 1988.
There is no way of knowing how much water will be available
in the rivers in the future. The flow pattern of western
rivers is highly erratic and therefore, the available data
for the entire period must be considered so that the trend
of river flow, including both wet and dry periods, may be
properly reflected and analysed for ascertaining reliable
surplus water availability for storage's.
The annual average water availability for the period from
1922-23 to 2002-2003 is 138 MAF, but WAPDA has used figures
for the post-Tarbela period from 1976-77 to 1994 only which
works out to 143 MAF, but becomes 140 MAF when updated (for
the period from 1976-77 to 2002-2003).
Thus out of the available record for a period of 81 years
WAPDA has chosen only 18 years of wet period only. The
figure of 143 MAF is unrealistic and therefore, water
availability of 138 MAF must be taken.
These figures had earlier been supported by the federal
government data. For example, in 10 years Perspective Plan
by the Planning Division, Government of Pakistan and
approved by the National Economic Council (NEC), headed by
the Chief Executive/President of Pakistan, it has been
stated that flows in western rivers vary significantly.
Based on 72 years of inflow data (1922-23 to 1994-95) for
every 4 out of 5 years, the yearly flows are around 123.59
MAF. Super floods occur approximately once in five years.
This may increase the average to a respectable 137.27 MAF
per year but in the remaining 4 years the availability of
water is 123.59 MAF. These figures when updated until
2003-2004 become 138 MAF on average year basis and 124 on 4
out of 5 years.
The Water Resources Management Committee of the National
Commission on Agriculture (1987) and the Integrated Valley
Development Programme (1989) stated that until there is
storage's capacity large enough to absorb above flows for
carryover into subsequent years, the development would have
to be based on the levels of flows which can be relied upon
at least 4 years out of 5.
Kabul river contributes significantly to the Indus river
water. At present Pakistan has no treaty with Afghanistan
for apportionment of water from Kabul river, which
contributes an annual average of 20.42 MAF (maximum 34.24
MAF in 1991-92 and minimum of 12.32 MAF in the year
2001-02). Possible short uses by Afghanistan on Kabul river
as stated by the President of Pakistan in his televised
speech on 13th September 2003 are 8 MAF.
Thus the water availability from the western rivers on an
annual average basis will become 130 MAF instead of 138 MAF
and, on 4 out of 5 years 116 MAF instead of 124 MAF and on
Kharif basis will be 106.84 MAF instead of 114.84 MAF after
adjusting less supply of 8 MAF from Kabul river.
Since the three eastern rivers were allocated to India for
its exclusive use under the Indus Water Treaty, 1960, so
there is no justification to include a portion of water into
the total availability of water in the Indus system. Even
WAPDA, in the Water Management Committee Report 1987, had
conceded that after completion of storage reservoir on Ravi
(Thein) in 1989, there will be no significant flows from the
Eastern rivers in Pakistan except for occasional flood flows
towards the end of monsoon. During this period we ourselves
throw flood water into the sea.
It is a matter of record that during negotiations of the
Indus Basin Treaty 1960 with India, Pakistan's viewpoint for
scheduled deliveries from the Eastern rivers to meet the
shortfall was responded in the following words by the World
Bank. (Appearing on page 57 of the yellow book "Introductory
Memorandum" on requirements, works and supplies, January
1959):
"In the long run it would be no favour to India to help it
acquire the last drop of the water Pakistan now receives
from the eastern rivers."
Furthermore, in the programme for Water and Power
Development in West Pakistan through 1975 by M/s Harza
Engineering Company International prepared for WAPDA in
January 1964, the contribution from each of the eastern
rivers has clearly indicated as zero.
In 1992 post-accord computation, WAPDA accepted the position
that the eastern rivers having been allocated to India, no
contributions from these rivers can be expected. However,
for the first time they came up with a fantastic idea that
some flow is generated from the eastern rivers from the
catchments above rim stations within the Pakistan territory.
It is really hard to understand how this discovery was made
by WAPDA, 32 years after the signing of the Indus Water
Treaty in 1960. The figures incorporated by WAPDA in the
1992 computations on account of the flow generated in
Pakistan was 1.3 MAF, where as in 1994, this figure was
increased to 4 MAF which is double the WAPDA's own figures
of 1987, when it was assumed by it (through wrongly) that
some flow will be coming from India without generation
within Pakistan.
This is absolutely incorrect, because there are a number of
link canals, which join Ravi and Sutlej rivers upstream of
the rim station barrages and transfer water to these
barrages from the western rivers.
The additional flows reaching the rim stations of eastern
rivers are therefore, not just the flow generated in
Pakistan, but the water transferred to the eastern rivers
from the western rivers.
The additional flows reaching the rim stations of eastern
rivers are, therefore, not just the flow generated in
Pakistan, but the water transferred to the eastern rivers
from the western ones through link canals.
FOLLOWING IS THE PRESENT
ANNUAL AVERAGE WATER REQUIREMENTS/COMMITMENTS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Water accord allocation below rim stations 114.4 MAF
2. Average system losses (Post-Tarbela 1977-94) 14.7 MAF
3. India's unauthorised uses on western rivers (unutilised
portions) 4.8 MAF
4. Outflows to sea (According to water accord) 10 MAF
5. For use by Mangla raising 3 MAF
Total 146.9 MAF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may also be stated that
the catchment area of each of the eastern rivers above rim
stations in Pakistan is very small, so the generation of
huge flow of 4 MAF within Pakistan is out of question.
Moreover, in the document "Anticipated water availability
and operation of Indus Basin System, during Kharif season
2003," IRSA has indicated a maximum of .741 MAF and a
minimum of .413 MAF as a component from the eastern rivers
for distribution of water to the provinces.
Under the circumstances it is unrealistic to assume that
there will be any generating flow of eastern rivers within
Pakistan. The eastern rivers' contribution must, therefore,
be taken to be zero, and not 8 MAF as incorrectly shown by
WAPDA.
Thus the net water availability both from the western and
eastern rivers, after accounting for short term uses of 8
MAF by Afghanistan from Kabul rivers works out to 130.09 MAF
on annual average basis, 116 MAF on 4 to 5 years basis and
106.84 MAF on annual Kharif basis and not 151 MAF on annual
average basis (143 from the western rivers and 8 MAF from
the eastern rivers) as incorrectly indicated by WAPDA.
THE PRESENT ANNUAL AVERAGE
KHARIF SEASON REQUIREMENTS/COMMITMENTS ARE AS UNDER:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Water accord Kharif allocations below rim stations 77.3
MAF
2. Water requirement for filling the existing dams(including
3 MAF for raising Mangla Dam to offset the existing
depletedcapacity of dams) 15.7 MAF
3. Indus river system losses 15.5 MAF
4. India's authorised uses on western rivers (75% of annual
4.8 MAF) 3.6 MAF
5. Water for downstream Kotri 10 MAF
Total 122.1 MAF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Outflow to sea basis
Lot of publicity is being made that a huge quantity of 35
MAF on annual average, post-Tarbela period from 1976-77 to
2002-2003, is flowing into the sea, which should be utilised
by building new storage's. In this context it may be stated
that water presently going into the sea includes the
following commitments/uses.
ESCAPAGES BELOW KOTRI SCENARIO POST -TARBELA PERIOD
(1976-77 TO 2002-2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MAF
Outflow to sea downstream Kotri 10
Eastern river contribution 8
Future dev on Kabul river by 8
Afghanistan
For use by Mangla raising 3
For use by LBOD project 2.2
sanctioned by ECNEC
India's authorised uses for further 4.8
balance area to be cropped
Utilisation allocation by provinces 12
Total 48
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER POSITION UNDER DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IS GIVEN BELOW:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
01 Scenario Water Requirement/ balanceavailability
commitments MAFMAF MAF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
02 Annual average 130.09 146.90 -16.81
03 4 out of 5 years 116 146.90 -30.90
04 Average Kharif 106.84 122.1 -15.26
05 Outflow to sea 35 48 -13
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above table clearly shows that there is shortfall from
13 to 30.90 MAF under different scenarios between water
availability and requirement/commitments instead of any
surplus availability for construction of storages.
In such a case if a dam of 7 MAF is considered, there will
be additional losses of at least 3 MAF and the
requirement/commitment will be increased by 10 MAF in each
of the above scenario 156.9 MAF on annual average, 156.9 MAF
in 4 out of 5 years and 132.21 MAF in average Kharif season.
This bleak water position does not support
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On year-to-year basis: 15 out of 81 years ie 18% of the time
On outflow to sea basis: 5 out of 28 years ie 17.6% of the
time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Water availability for justification of construction of a
dam as stated in earlier Para is for 80% percent of the time
that is (4 our of 5 years) whereas water availability is
only 18% of the time as shown above.
The water reservoirs are required to compensate for water
losses due to silting in the existing dams but it is also
necessary to take steps to reduce the silting in the dams
and to monitor the silting on year-to-year basis and to
carry out analytical studies of silting phenomenon and
finding out the solutions of the problem.
The data regarding the silting of reservoirs are not
published by WAPDA every year and no graphs and charts are
available to study the silting quantum and trends under
different river flow conditions.
For desilting of dams WAPDA should focus on silt reducing
measure, like water shed management, construction of any new
reservoir or link canal. It is further alarming to point not
that despite this dismal water availability scenario WAPDA
in its documents Vision 2025 has shown the programme of
Reservoirs requiring 59 MAF and new canals requiring 5.5 MAF.
All these projects are unrealistic as there is simply no
surplus water available to support them.
Surplus storable water availability on year-to-year basis
for construction of reservoir of 7 MAF capacity is as under:
And also attention should focused on silt exclusion devices
like operation of flushing tunnels of which the provision
exists in the reservoirs. As regard to Tarbela reservoir
WAPDA has conducted a study through international
consultants (TAMS) but their recommendations have neither
been implemented nor any reason given for ignoring them.
Nevertheless, from the data provided by WAPDA in 1998, the
silting in the live storage portion of the existing
reservoirs upto year 2010 would be about 3 MAF which will be
offset by the raising of Mangla reservoir, the work on which
has already been started and is likely to be completed
before 2007.
It is, however, necessary to ensure proper monitoring of the
silting process in live and dead storage portion separately
and to publish the necessary data and charts for public
information.
It is also necessary to take early decision on the
recommendations of TAMS on Tarbela reservoir for the
exclusion of sedimentation.
Moreover, Kalabagh Dam already stands rejected by all three
smaller provinces and their Assemblies have passed unanimous
resolutions against the project.
The protests against this project are still continuing in
all the three smaller provinces.
According to TAMS reports the silt exclusion devices for
Tarbela Dam suggested by them will exclude the possibility
of construction of Kalabagh Dam.
THE REGULATION, OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT (ROM) OF
EXISTING RESERVOIRS AND INDUS LINK CANALS: Under Indus
Water Treaty 1960 Mangla, Chashma and Tarbela reservoirs and
two Link Canals (C-J and T-P) were constructed to transfer
water from Indus to its tributaries, when water is surplus
to the requirements of the lowest riparian.
Before considering any new reservoir project it is important
to review the regulation, operation and management (ROM) of
the present reservoirs and Link Canals.
In this context it is important that the following basic
criteria for ROM of reservoirs are properly and faithfully
observed.
1. The reservoirs are water banks, where water is stored in
Kharif season only when it is surplus to the
requirements/allocations of the present canal system for
subsequent use during shortage periods, particularly the
following Rabi season.
2. During the Kharif season itself the reservoirs are to be
used for balancing so that the fluctuations in the river
flows are absorbed and a steady flow maintained in the river
downstream even during shortage periods.
3. The Indus Link Canals are to be operated only when the
water in Indus is in excess of the allocations/requirements
of the canals settled on that system and there is shortage
in the tributary rivers.
The experience of the past has, however, shown that these
basic criteria are not being observed. Water is stored in
the reservoirs, especially in Mangla, during the periods
when there is extreme shortages of water in the lower
riparian provinces of Sindh and Balochistan.
In addition, the Indus Link Canals (C-J & T-P) are opened
when there is an acute shortage of water in Sindh and
Balochistan.
To sum up, water has to be stored in the reservoirs only if
it is surplus to the allocations/commitments, not at the
cost of lower riparian provinces.
CONSTRUCTION OF GREATER THAL CANAL: The controversial
Greater Thal Canal project had been vehemently opposed by
the Government of Bombay even before the creation of the
province of Sindh (1935) on the grounds that it would hit
the vital interest of lower riparian ie Sindh, amid the land
to be brought under cultivation is barren waste with no hope
of producing anything.
The British Government upheld these objections. Since then
the project had been brought up for consideration for a
number of times but was not approved by the competent forum.
The project, however, was considered and deferred by
Executive Committee on National Economic Council (ECNEC) in
its meeting held on August 19, 1975.
THE PRESENT PROPOSAL: The proposed Greater Thal Canal
off-takes from Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal on river Indus. The
estimated cost of the project is Rs 30.47 billion. The
designed discharge of its head regulator, which was
previously constructed, is 15,000 cusecs and that of canal
itself is 8,500 cusecs. The canal will provide irrigation
water for an area of 1.5345 million acres located in Bhakhar,
Layyah, Khushab, and Jhang districts.
It is claimed that 1.9 MAF is available under the water
Accord although there is no such provision in the Accord.
The provision of water for GTC was made in a clandestine
manner by Punjab in draft ten daily statements in
contravention of clause 14 (b) of the Accord. Para 14 (a)
and (b) are reproduced below.
ARTICLE NO. 14 (A) OF THE ACCORD SAYS: The
system-wise allocation will be worked out separately on ten
daily basis and will be attached with this agreement as part
and parcel of it."
PARA 14 (B) OF THE ACCORD SAYS: "The record of actual
average system uses for the period 1977-82 would form the
guideline for developing future regulation pattern. These
ten daily uses would be adjusted pro-rata to correspond to
the indicated seasonal allocations of the different canal
systems would form the basis for sharing shortages and
surpluses on all Pakistan basis."
As a first step Punjab prepared the following statement
table-I Appendix-A under para 2 clause 14 (a) showing the
actual average system-wise uses of their canals which
existed during the period 1977-82.
Draft adjusted/on pro-rata basis ten dailies submitted by
Punjab under Clause 14 (b) of the Accord for the approval of
CCI in its meeting held on September, 16, 1991 are as:
table-II Appendix-A
Table-I Appendix-A clearly shows that Punjab while
submitting ten daily statements under clause 14 (b) did not
adjust on pro-rata basis system-wise uses of the existing
canals shown under 14 (a). Instead of adjusting pro-rata
basis of the difference of 2.42 MAF (difference between
allocation 37.07 and historic uses 34.65) it was shown for
two non-existing and unsanctioned schemes, viz. CRBC Punjab
portion and Greater Thal Canal.
This is a clear and blatant violation of Para 2, Clause 14
(b) of 1991 Accord. It may be mention that no other
province, except Punjab, included any new canal in their ten
daily statements.
The CCI in its decision of the meeting held on September 16,
1991 authorised ten day seasonal system-wise adjusted
allocations (excluding flood flows and future storages)
provided by the provinces as revised to become part and
parcel of the water accord.
THE CCI DECISION WORKS OUT AS: TABLE-III APPENDIX A
In this connection it is pertinent to mention that on
information from late Mohammad Aalam Baloch, who was
Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Government
of Sindh, as well as signatory to the water accord 1991, who
also attended the said meeting of CCI as an expert, the then
Secretary Irrigation and Power, Sindh vide U.O No A
(WD)/IX/P/5-91, dated 5-10-1991 wrote to the Chief Minster,
Sindh:
"System-wise adjusted ten daily allocation of the provinces
was presented before the CCI and it was agreed except the
inclusion of Greater Thal Canal which is an unsanctioned
project. In this regard, the Federal Secretary, Water and
Power was asked to look into this issue and get it corrected
to bring it in line with the water accord requirements."
In compliance, the decision of CCI, Ministry of Water and
Power, Government of Pakistan, circulated ten daily
statements as: table-IV Appendix-A
The Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan, did
not circulate the adjusted pro-rata ten dailies as decided
by the CCI. On the contrary, they circulated ten daily
statements, as submitted by Punjab, in violation of Para 2,
Clause 14 (b) of the accord, as mentioned: table-IV
Appendix-A.
Moreover, it is pertinent to point out that the circulated
ten dailies by the Ministry of Water and Power are unsigned,
whereas each page of the water accord 1991 was signed by all
the provincial Chief Ministers and their nominees.
Under Para 2 of the Accord, 117.35 MAF of water has been
allocated to the provinces. Under Para 4 of the water
accord, the shares of the provinces from the balance-river
supplies (including flood supplies and future storages) have
been prescribed.
The accord also recognises the need for flow downstream
Kotri for which 10 MAF water has been tentatively provided,
pending further study to be carried out by an international
panel of experts.
Moreover according to provision of the accord, the water
requirements of LBOD scheme ie Nara canal remodelling and
Chotiari reservoir should also be met from the flood flows.
The LBOD scheme was ongoing at the time of signing of the
water accord. As aptly described in chapter 18 of Planning
Commission documents, "Ten-year perspective plan and
three-year development programme (September, 2001)" and
approved by the National Economic Council (NEC), chaired by
the President/Chief Executive of Pakistan, that floods occur
once in five years on the average.
No flood irrigation scheme can be based on uncertain and
irregular flows, which may occur for a few days in a period
of five years and even longer. If the canal is constructed,
it can operate by depriving the existing canals of their due
share of water.
Thus neither there is any provision for Greater Thal Canal
in the water accord nor floodwater can be provided for it.
The mandatory guidelines of the Planning Commission/ECNEC
provided that for any project costing Rs 50 million or more,
feasibility study is a 'must'. WAPDA got the PC-II for
feasibility study of Greater Thal Canal approved by CDWP in
November 2000 for completion in a period of three years.
However, without waiting for completion of feasibility
studies, WAPDA got ground-breaking ceremony performed in
August 2001 and even started the work. The PC-I form was
submitted to CDWP on 4th February 2002 without feasibility
report and water availability certificate of IRSA (which was
managed subsequently in May 2000, Member Sindh dissenting).
The project was cleared by CDWP within 4 days on 8th
February 2001, without participation of the Sindh
Government. The project was also cleared by ECNEC on 28th
February 2002 under similar conditions.
The economic viability of the project (ie cost benefit rates
and rate of return etc) considered and approved by ECNEC in
February 2002 is highly dubious under the project intensity
for a non-perennial canal is shown as 61.4% in Rabi.
The production as well as prices is on very much the high
side to exaggerate the benefits whereas costs are
under-estimated.
In this context, the World Bank in its report on July 15,
2004 questioned the economic viability of the three ongoing
projects (Greater Thal Canal, Kachi and Rainee Canals), and
five proposed irrigation projects (Sehwan Barrage, Chashma
Right Bank 1st lift Irrigation, Akhori Dam, Dhok Pathan Dam
and Sabakzai Dam).
The Sindh Provincial Assembly has passed two unanimous
resolutions against the construction of Greater Thal Canal
recently. Moreover, there is a strong agitation against the
construction of Greater Thal Canal throughout the length and
breath of the province of Sindh and southern Punjab (Seraiki
belt).
It is therefore, appropriate that further work on the GTC
project be stopped forthwith in the supreme national
interest and provincial harmony.
ESCAPAGES BELOW DOWNSTREAM KOTRI: It is being stated that
the annual average of 35 MAF of water have flown into the
sea during the post Tarbela period (1976-77 to 2002-2003).
All this water in fact is not surplus and available for
utilisation. Following adjustments have to be made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Outflow to sea downstream Kotri 10
MAF
Eastern river contribution 8
MAF
Kabul River short term 8
MAF
by Afghanistan Unutilised portion on 12
MAF
water according allocation Unutilized portion of 4.8
MAF
India's entitlement on Western Rivers Requirement for Mangla
3.0
MAF
Dam raisin LBOD's sanctioned allocation 2.2
MAF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 48
MAF
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above table shows that
there is a shortfall of 13 MAF of water between the
availability and commitments.
An official report says that fresh water flow of Indus River
has been reduced from 150 million acre feet (MAF) a year
some 60 years ago to 0.72 MAF in the year 2001-2002.
Experts say that there has been virtually no sweet water
flow in the sea during 2002-2003 which signals an
acceleration in the pace of the devastating phenomenon in
the coastal areas of this unfortunate province.
The quantity of outflow to sea has been progressively
reducing, particularly after the construction of more
barrages, dams and link canals after the signing of Indus
water treaty, 1960.
The actual outflow to sea at the time of independence was
above 80 MAF annually which have now reduced to 35 MAF.
The duration of the flow has also reduced to less than two
months and that also only in high flood years. Even this
quantity is dwindling further as unutilised allocations of
water are being harnessed.
CLAUSE 7 OF WATER ACCORD 1991 READS: "The need for
certain minimum escapages to sea, below Kotri to check sea
intrusion was recognised. Sindh held the view that the
optimal level was 10 MAF which was discussed at length which
other studies indicate lower/high figure. It was, therefore,
decided that further studies would be undertaken to
establish the minimal escapages needs downstream Kotri.
Under the provisions of water accord 1991, the quality of 10
MAF has been provisionally earmarked for outflow to the sea.
Unfortunately, the studies have not been initiated even
after 13 years of signing of water accord due to frivolous
objections raised on the terms of study.
However the IUCM, an international organisation based in
Pakistan, has worked out the annual requirements for outflow
to sea for environmental sustenance to be 27 MAF. This
corresponds to 300,000 cusecs discharge flowing for a period
of 45 days.
Whereas, the World Commission on Dams has identified that 29
countries seek to minimise Eco System impact created due to
large dams.
The Commission has further recommended the environmental
flow requirement as 10% of the annual run off which comes to
14.2 MAF downstream Kotri instead of 10 MAF demanded by
Sindh during 1991.
It is shocking that in the year 2003 there had been
virtually no sweet water flow in the sea, a signal for
acceleration in the pace of the devastating phenomenon in
the coastal areas of Sindh.
In order to save the environment from complete devastation
there is an urgent need to plan future projects so that the
minimum required discharge of 300000 cusecs is available for
outflow to sea at least for as much time as it is available,
after meeting the Kharif demands. This figure of 300000
cusecs is also supported in WAPDA's exercise of 1992.
Indus delta originally occupied an area of 6 lakh hectares
consisting of 17 major creeks. Currently with reduced water
only two creeks - Hajamro and Kharak - receive water and
there is only one outlet to sea ie Khobar Creek.
The active delta is only 10 percent of the original area.
Under this phenomenon, when fresh water is withdrawn faster
than it can be recharged near coastal line sea intrusion
occurs.
The sea water intrusion has resulted in damage of 1.2
million acres in delta covering two districts viz Thatta and
Badin and eight Talukas/Tehsils.
The World Report of Environmental Management 1991 identified
a number of environmental problems in Pakistan, including
the extinction of coastal mangrove forest.
The mangrove forest area was spread over 700000 acres, which
is now suffering badly. According to satellite survey 1998
the mangrove cover has been reduced to 400,000 acres, of
which an area of 125,000 acres is healthy.
The Indus river used to throw 400 million tons of silt in
the sea every year, which has now been reduced to barely 100
million tons a year.
This gradual depletion in flow of sweet river water and rich
silt into sea has led to what is called "hyper saline
condition" in the coastal area that literally kills life in
all forms, LIVESTOCK and vegetation on land and fish and
other edible marine varieties and rich mangroves forest in
the Sea.
An estimated 40 to 50 ppt (particles per thousand) salinity
level at present which when compared to 15 to 20 ppt half a
century ago has already crossed the "dead level mark." On
the other hand, sea mangroves and the delta area mangroves
have been devastated to the extent of two to three lakh
acres.
Fishing as well as fish farming, cattle farming and dairy
farming have sustained severe damage, or even destroyed.
Rivarian forest spread on six to seven lakh of acres on the
both sides of the river Indus, totally depending upon the
flood water of the Indus are on the verge of extinction.
Kacha area of Sindh starting from Obaro (district Ghotki) to
Keti Bander stretched to on about 2 million acres on both
banks of river Indus, which were rich in crops, forests,
cattle, fisheries etc have also almost been eliminated.
As such, Sindh has lost a world. Poverty has increased due
to this situation and as result a massive-scale migration is
witnessed in the coastal areas of both the districts of
Sindh (Badin and Thatta).
The famous Palla fish has become nearly extinct. The annual
production reduced from 5000 tons in 1951 to 220 tons,
besides marked reduction in its size. The rare species of
freshwater dolphin are also facing similar threat. 600000
acres of riverian forests and 550000 acres of Sahlaba areas
of Sindh have been very seriously affected and they are in
the danger of complete elimination. Whole Sindh in general,
and Indus delta in particular, are the worst sufferer of
Indus Basin Treaty and the construction of Tarbela Dam,
Mangla Dam as well as other barrages constructed afterwards
not only on Indus but on its tributaries.
It is a historical fact that before signing of Indus Basin
Treaty and its follow-up actions according to an estimate
more than one hundred million acre feet (MAF) water used to
flow downstream Kotri in the sea annually.
As such this quantum of water flow downstream Kotri is a
historical right of Sindh.
Pakistan is a signatory of Rio Declaration signed by the
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The Principle No 4 of this
declaration proclaims that "in order to achieve development
environmental protection shall constitute an integral part
of the development process and cannot be considered in
isolation from it."
We should, therefore, do all that is possible to abide by
this commitment in letter and spirit.
The President of Pakistan is on record to have stated that
during low flow years water from allocation of provinces
should be diverted for outflow to sea to mitigate the
hardship of the people of Thatta/Badin districts in coastal
area.
The time has come that justice must be done to Sindh and be
given its due share instead of further depriving of whatever
has been made available to it, by construction of more dams
and canals, particularly in the present water scenario where
there is even no water to meet the allocations/commitments
of the day.
Unfortunately, the study for the requirements of outflow to
sea has not even been started in spite of lapse of 13 years.
Punjab, which wanted one line TOR for the study, did not
accept the comprehensive TORs drafted by UNDP (besides the
grant provided by them for the study).
Subsequently, Punjab proposed two separate studies instead
of one study, which was not acceptable by Sindh as it was
against the provision of the water accord. The CCI in its
meeting held on 16th September, 1991 has directed that "the
study proposed to be carried out by an international panel
of experts to establish minimal escapage needs downstream of
Kotri should be completed within one year of the signing of
the agreement with consultant. This directive of CCI seems
to has been completely ignored.
Recently the Parliamentary Committee on Water Resources has
decided to conduct three studies on the subject including
the environmental study related to downstream Kotri. This is
a clear and blatant violation of CCI decision.
The Parliamentary Committee on Water Resources is a
recommendatory body, which cannot take decisions against the
express decision directives of CCI. Moreover the same item
of downstream Kotri also falls within the purview of
technical committee on water resources.
As per the directives of the President both committees have
to work in close co-ordination. The decision of the
Parliamentary Committee without consulting the Technical
Committee is a violation of the President's directives.
The studies are being let out to some local consultants,
with shady track record, though the CCI has directed that
the study is to be carried out by an "International panel of
experts," which is a clear violation of CCI.
Under the circumstances it would be appropriate for the
parliamentary Committee to:
A) Stop the three studies to be conducted through local
consultants with shady track record.
B) Consult the Technical Committee on water resources before
proceeding further.
C) Associate independent international panel of experts for
conducting the study as per specific instructions of CCI
This paper has sought to examine the water distribution and
sharing amongst the provinces, the construction of future
reservoirs, the management of existing reservoirs, the
construction of GTC and escapages below downstream Kotri.
As noted in the foregoing discussion that Sindh vehemently
opposed the distribution of water under the 1994 Formula,
the construction of Kalabagh Dam and Greater Thal Canal for
valid technical, legal and constitutional reasons.
Justifying the unholy 1994 distribution formula if has
deliberately altered the part of water accord 1991 relating
to water sharing.
Therefore, water must be distributed amongst the provinces
in accordance with the clear, specific and unambiguous
provisions of the water accord 1991.
The Accord is the binding force amongst the provinces and an
instrument of inter-provincial harmony. Despite this if this
document has to be annulled or modified it can only be done
by consensus amongst all the provinces and with the approval
of CCI.
The biased propaganda regarding Sindh's opposition to water
development projects must be stopped forthwith.
This is a viscous attempt of Sindh-bashing. Sindh never
opposes any water development project, which does not affect
its legitimate rights and interest, being the lower riparian
province.
Frequent attempts have also been made to project Sindh for
giving incorrect figures. Actually the figure of 123 MAF of
annual water availability in four out of five years
attributed to Sindh in fact, is the figure taken by the
Planning Commission in its document entitled "Ten Years
Perspective Development Plan 2001-11" and "Three Years
Development Programme 2001-04" which has been approved by
the National Economic Council (NEC), headed by the Chief
Executive President of Pakistan and quoted by Sindh.
In order to save water losses in the system, water
conservation like lining of canals/watercourses particularly
in saline areas, should be undertaken immediately.
In addition, improvements in the agriculture practices such
as precision land levelling should be undertaking at massive
level.
In sum, the unanimous resolutions passed by the Provincial
Assemblies of Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP against the
construction of Kalabagh Dam, and two resolutions against
the Greater Thal Canal passed by the Sindh Assembly must be
followed and honoured.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix-A
Table I
Kharif Season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLC MR CBDC SVC SVC Trimmu Panjnand Thal Taunsa Total
(U)
(L) Historic
Uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.18 1.24 74 6.31 3.07 2.15 3.4 2.37 4.19 34.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FIG IN MAF:
TABLE II:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLC MR CBDC SVC SVC Trimmu Panjnand Thal Taunsa CRBC Greater
Total
Int (U)
(L) Thal Historic
Uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.18 1.24 .74 6.31 3.67 2.15 3.40 2.37 4.19 0.55 1.87 37.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FIG IN MAF:
TABLE III
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLC MR CBDC SVC SVC Trimmu Panjnand Thal Taunsa Total
(U)
(L) Historic
Uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.96 1.33 79 6.75 3.28 2.3 3.64 2.54 4.48 37.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FIG IN MAF:
TABLE IV:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLC MR CBDC SVC SVC Trimmu Panjnand Thal Taunsa CRBC Greater
Total
Int (U)
(L) Thal Historic
Uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.18 1.24 0.74 6.31 3.07 2.15 3.4 2.37 4.19 .55 1.87 37.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FIG IN MAF:
(The article presented at a national seminar by an
ex-Senator examines (i) regulation, operation and management
of existing reservoirs, inter-provincial water distribution,
construction of new canals and water escapages downstream
Kotri.)
Courtesy :
Business Recorder
|
Pakissan.com;
|
