Dam

Edited by – Ashis Roy

Dam a structure built across a stream, river, or estuary to store water. A reservoir is
created upstream of the dam to supply water for human consumption, irrigation, or
industrial use. Reservoirs are also used to reduce peak discharge of floodwater, to increase
the volume of water stored for generating hydroelectric power, or to increase the depth of
water in a river so as to improve navigation and provide for recreation. Dams are usually of
two basic types - masonry (concrete) and embankment (earth or rock-fill). Masonry dams
are used to block streams running through narrow gorges, as in mountainous terrain;
though such dams may be very high, the total amount of material required is much less.
The choice between masonry and earthen dam and the actual design depend on the geology
and configuration of the site, the functions of the dam, and cost factors.

Auxiliary works for a dam include spillways, gates, or valves to control the discharge of
surplus water downstream from the reservoir; an intake structure conducting water to a
power station or to canals, tunnels, or pipelines for more distant use; provision for
evacuating silt carried into the reservoir; and means for permitting boats or fish to cross the
dam. A dam therefore is the central structure in a multipurpose scheme aiming at the
conservation of water resources.

Water levels in the reservoir upstream is controlled by opening and closing gates of the
spillway which acts as the safety valve of the dam. In addition to spillways, openings
through dams are also required for drawing off water for irrigation and water supply, for
ensuring a minimum flow in the river for riparian interests downstream, for generating
power, and for evacuating water and silt from the reservoir. sediment in rivers seriously
influences the effective life of a reservoir and therefore the financing of a dam. Some
modern dams have been rendered useless for storing water because the reservoir has been
filled up with silt. In many others, effective storage capacity has been seriously reduced.
Usually the heavy silt-laden floodwater is allowed to pass through the sluices and only the
cleaner water at the end of the flood season is stored.

The history of dams has been traced to about 2900 BC when a 49-ft (about 15m) high
masonry structure was built on the Nile at Kosheish to supply water to King Menes' capital
at Memphis. Evidence exists of a masonry-faced earthen dam built about 2700 BC at Sadd-
el-Kafara, about 19 miles (about 30.5 km) south of Cairo. This dam failed shortly after
completion when it was overtopped by a flood in the absence of a spillway. The oldest dam
still in use is a rock-fill structure about 20 ft (6.1m) high on the Orontes in Syria, built about
1300 BC.

Dam construction evolved quite independently in Asia. In 240 BC a stone crib was built
across the Gukow river in China; this structure was 98ft (29.89m) high and about 985ft
(300.23m) long. Many earthen dams of moderate height (in some cases, of great length)
were built by the Sinhalese in Ceylon after the 5th century BC to form reservoirs or tanks
for extensive irrigation works. India and also Bengal were experienced in dam construction
since that time. But none of those dams exist. In Bangladesh, a number of dams have been
constructed for different purposes. Kaptai dam, Meghna crossdam and Feni closure dam are
the most important. In the recent past Bangladesh has also installed a few rubber dams.

Kaptai Dam The most notable dam of the country which has been constructed on the
karnafuli river at Kaptai in Rangamati district, 65 km upstream of Chittagong. It is 670.56m
long and 45.7m high. The width at the foundation level is 45.7m and at crest level 7.6m.
The crest level is 36m above mean sea level (MSL). The quantity of total excavation was
113,400 cu m (4.05 million cubic ft). Since it is an earthen dam a 16-gated spillway (each
12.2m by 11.3m) with discharge capacity of 625,000 cusec has been constructed on the left
side of the main dam. The catchment area of the reservoir is 11,000 sq km. Average annual
rainfall is 2,500 mm over the catchment and average annual flow to the reservoir is 12
million ac-ft. The full reservoir level above mean sea level is 33.23m and the reservoir area
and capacity at this level are 777 sq km and 5.25 million acr-ft, respectively. The dead
storage at 23.16m above MSL is 1.18 million ac-ft. Flood storage capacity is 0.83 million ac-
ft.

The generation of hydroelectric power is the main purpose of the lake. Other utilities include
navigation, flood control, fishery, recreation and tourism. The present generation capacity of
the karnafuli hydro power station is 230 MW during peak load hours. The downstream flood
peak in the Karnafuli river can be reduced by 50% by storing water in the reservoir. Usually
all floodwater during May to August is stored. A cargo transfer system with overhead
trolleys facilitates transfer of boats, timber logs and other commodities from the reservoir
side to the downstream side in the river. The panoramic view and boating facilities of the
reservoir upstream of the dam offer a good recreation area and attract many visitors.

The Karnafuli Hydro Power Station was first contemplated in 1906 and a brief
reconnaissance was carried out. The study was taken up again in 1923. In 1946, EA Moore
submitted a report recommending a dam site at Barkal about 65 km upstream of the
present dam site at Kaptai. In 1950, Merz Rendal Vatten, Consulting Engineers, proposed a
site for the construction of a dam at Chilardak, about 48 km upstream of Kaptai and in 1951
government engineers proposed a site at Chitmoram about 11 km downstream of Kaptai.
Finally, in 1951 under the guidance of Khawja Azimuddin, then Chief Engineer (Irrigation),
the dam site was selected at Kaptai. Preliminary work started in 1951 and the government
engineers did some physical work. The US Government agreed to assist in the
implementation of the project and in 1952 the International Engineering Co Inc (IECO) was
engaged for a study of the project through the International Cooperation Administration of
the USA. On the basis of these studies the project was taken up and IECO was appointed for
the engineering services of the project. Utah International Inc was engaged as the
construction contractors and started working in October 1957.

In 1962, the initial phase of construction was completed, comprising the dam, spillway,
penstock and powerhouse with a generation capacity of 80 MW by means of two units, each
with a capacity of 40 MW. The third generating unit with an installed capacity of 50 MW was
completed in November 1981. The project was financed by government, ICA and DLF loan
and the total cost including the dam with ancillary structures, Units 1, 2 and part of Unit 3
was Rs 503 million with a foreign exchange component of Rs 171.6 million. The government
and USAID financed the remaining cost of the third unit. The total cost was Tk 274 million
with a foreign exchange component of Tk 156 million. In October 1988 construction of the
4th and 5th units of the Kaptai station was completed raising the total generation capacity
to 230 MW. The total cost of the extension work was Tk 1,900 million, which included a
foreign exchange component of Tk 1,080 million.

Although the Kaptai dam has provided increased economic opportunities which include flood
control and power generation, many local inhabitants have lost their homes and means of
livelihood owing to inundation, making way for a storage reservoir. There has also been a
general destruction of wilderness and open spaces, and an accompanying loss of wildlife and
wildlife habitats.

Meghna Cross Dams A major channel of the meghna used to flow between Ramgati and
the Noakhali mainland. The channel gradually silted up over a period of 20 to 30 years. In
1957 the Irrigation Department constructed a 12-km long embankment, known as Meghna
Cross Dam 1, across the channel to divert the flow westward. The construction cost of this
dam was Rs 1.4 million. As a result a new land area of 207 sq km was formed in the slack
water adjacent to the cross-dam up to 1964. In 1964 the bangladesh water development
board constructed another cross-dam having a length of 16 km, Meghna Cross Dam 2,
between Char Jabbar and mainland of the Noakhali at a cost of Tk 9 million. This led to
reclamation of another 563 sq km of land up to 1985 and the total reclaimed land area
increased to 717 sq km.

Feni Closure Dam A 3.41-km closure dam constructed across the feni river in 1965-66 at a
cost of Tk 593.5 million to divert the flow through the Feni regulator. This closure dam is
located in Mirsharai and Sonagazi, respectively in the Chittagong and Feni districts. The Feni
regulator with 40 gates was constructed to prevent saline water intrusion from downstream
and retain fresh water upstream for use in the Muhuri Irrigation Project.

Rubber Dams These are made of reinforced rubber bags inflated either by water or air and
anchored to the channel bed for retention of water in small rivers and stream channels. The
body of the rubber dam is made of rubber reinforced by woven synthetic fabric. The
reinforcement provides the tensile strength with rubber acting as the adhesive and water-
proofing element. The fabric reinforcement is used in layers as decided by the design
strength requirement. Rubber for the dam is produced in long strips of fixed widths
dependent on machines producing the fabric. The strips are then joined by using glue and
pressing by machine. Using steel clamps or concrete wedge blocks the dam bag is anchored
to a concrete base prepared on the river bottom.

Compared to concrete barrage and regulators rubber dams are cheaper and more flexible
and can be fully deflated during the flood season providing unobstructed passage to flood
water. Rubber dams can be as long as 100m and used for irrigation and rural water supply.
These can also be used for small-scale hydropower generation in hilly streams. Recently the
Local Government Engineering Department of the Bangladesh government has constructed
two rubber dams on a pilot basis in Cox's Bazar district with the technical assistance of
IWHR of China. Construction of one dam at Bakkhali and the other at Eidgaon was started in
February 1995 and completed in May 1995. Salient features of the two rubber dams are as
follows:

Feature Bakkhali Dam Eidgaon Dam

Length (m) 84 52

Height (m) 3.5 3

Maximum water retention depth (m) 4 3

Maximum overflow discharge (cumec) 256 80

Maximum flood flow (cumec) 1073 600

Length of concrete floor (m) 40 33.5

Protective works (m):

Upstream 9 6

Downstream 13 8

Volume of inflated dam (cu m) 1200 800

Weight of dam bag (ton) 14 7

Filling pump capacity (cu m/hr) 150 100

Filling/emptying time (hr) 8.1 8.1

Total cost (million Tk) 36 18

The bakkhali river at the dam site is tidal and located at Jhilwanji union about 3 km from
Cox's Bazar. The dam conserves fresh water upstream and prevents saline water intrusion
from downstream. The retained water is used for irrigation of Boro rice by lowlift pumps
from January to May. The Eidgaon Khal is non-tidal at the dam site near Eidgaon Bazar on
the Chittagong-Cox's Bazar highway, about 30 km from Cox's Bazar. The dam is operated to
retain stream flow in channel storage, which is used for irrigation by gravity for growing
boro rice. [M Fazlul Bari]

Kaptai Dam

Kaptai Lake shore

Kaptai Dam (Bengali: ï đȼđå বাঁধ) is located on the Karnaphuli River at Kaptai, 65 km upstream
from Chittagong in Rangamati District, Bangladesh. It is an earthfill embankment dam with
a reservoir (known as Kaptai Lake) water storage capacity of 11,000 km². The primary
purpose of the construction of the dam and reservoir was to generate hydroelectric power.
Construction was completed in 1962.

Coordinates: 22°30'N 92°23'E / 22.5°N 92.383°E

Description

The earthen dam is 670 meters long and 45.7 meters wide with a 16-gated spillway on the
left side of the main dam. The catchment area of the reservoir is 11,000 km². The dam has
provided significant flood control as well as power generation. The construction of the dam
submerged 655 km² area. This included 220 km² of cultivable land, 40 percent of the
cultivable land in the area, and displaced 18,000 families and 100,000 tribal people, of
which 70% were Chakma. The dam also flooded the original Rangamati town and other
structures.
Disadvantages

Local inhabitants living in the storage reservoir area who lost their homes and farmland due
to flooding were not compensated. More than 40,000 Chakma tribals emigrated to India.
The scarcity of land is consider a main cause of the continuing conflict in the area today.
The building of the dam and reservoir also caused destruction of wilderness and loss of
wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Kaptai Dam

Completed in: 1962

Status: in use

Location: Bangladesh

Impounds: Karnaphuli River

Structural Type: Earthfill dam

Function / usage: Hydroelectric power

capacity for electric power generation 230 MW

 Tipaimukh dam
Fulertal barrage spell 'disaster' for Sylhet, say experts

Dhaka, May 28 ----Farm output will fall and poverty will rise, spelling 'disaster' for the
Sylhet region if India's proposed Tipaimukh dam and Fulertal barrage are built, maintain
experts.

"The dam will cause water flow to slow down while the barrage will ensure their full control
of water resources," former director general and chief engineer of Water Resources
Planning Organisation,engineer Inamul Haque told bdnews24.com Thursday.

"The cultivation of early variety of boro in the northeast would be hampered," he said.

"So far as I know the Tipaimukh dam will be built 200 kms from the Amolshid border, at
Zakingong, to construct a vast water reservoir for hydro-power generation."

"The water from three rivers—the Barak, Tipai and Irang—would be required to feed the
water reservoir to cover an immense area," said Inamul.

"Besides, another barrage is to be built 100 kms off our border at Fulertal in India for
irrigation purposes which would feed the waters through canals," Haq said.

Haq said downstream regions will experience two major impacts: firstly, with the decrease
of water in December, the people who now grow early varieties of boro on the land which
used to arise in the haor areas would no longer have this resource.

Secondly, the water flow of the river Surma will decrease significantly, he said.

IUCN resident director Dr.Ainun Nishat told bdnews24.com that the construction of
Tipaimukh dam will reduce the the natural monsoon flood patterns of the area on which
cultivation depends.

He said the construction of barrage at Fulertal on top of the Tipaimukh dam could seriously
reduce the water flow during the dry season.

"The extent of drop in water flow depends on the volume of water withdrawn through the
irrigation canals," he said.

"We could see the Surma and Kushiara rivers dry up completely during the dry season, he
said

Anu Muhammad, professor of economics at Jahangirnagar University, told bdnews24.com

the Tipaimukh dam and Fulertal barrage would spell "a great disaster."

"Arable land will decline and production of crops fall, leading to a rise in poverty," he said.

According to some reports, the proposed Tipaimukh dam across the river Barak in the
Indian state Monipur will 162.5 metres high and 390metres long to create a reservoir by
permanently submerging some 2.75 square kilometers of land.

India expects to generate around 1500 megawatt of hydropower from the project.

Tipaimukh Dam Is A Geo-tectonic Blunder Of

International Dimensions
By: Dr. Soibam Ibotombi (Dept. of Earth SciencesManipur University)

Introduction:

The proposed Tipaimukh dam is to be located 500 metres downstream from the confluence
of Barak and Tuivai rivers, and lies on the south-western corner of Manipur State (24°14¢N
and 93°1.3¢E approximately). It is a huge earth dam (rock-fill with central impervious
core) having an altitude of about 180 M above the sea-level with a maximum reservoir
level of 178m and 136m as the MDDL (minimum draw down level). The dam was originally
conceived to only contain the flood water in the Cachar plains of Assam but later on,
emphasis has been placed on hydroelectric power generation, having an installation
capacity of 1500MW with only a firm generation of 412MW (less than 30 per cent of
installed capacity). In order to appease the people of Manipur state, the project proponent,
NEEPCO, has been building up a list of benefits that include high-class tourism, free power
sharing, resettlement and rehabilitation package and an all round rosy picture of
development.

Over the past decade and half, the issue of Tipaimukh dam has created a lot of
disenchantment in regard to scientific, technical, economic and environmental feasibility of
the dam especially concerning with the state of Manipur. An attempt is, therefore, made
here to provide a brief geological, structural and tectonic account of Tipaimukh and its
adjoining region in terms of tectonic framework of Indo-Myanmar [Burma] Ranges (IMR) in
general and that of Manipur in particular and possible
socio-economic impacts of the dam. Such a consideration would reveal the nature and
extent of the geotectonic risk being taken by constructing a mega-dam at Tipaimukh.

Some basic geological informationTipaimukh and its adjoining areas are basically made up
of Surma Group of rocks. The rocks of Surma Group are mainly light grey to brownish grey
generally medium to coarse grained sandstones having occasional shale and silt/sand
intervening bands between massive to thickly bedded sandstones. Conglomeratic (loosely
cemented pebbles and gravel)) horizon at the base of Bhuban Formation, though, can be
observed in the field easily due to its wide areal extent; other conglomeratic horizons are
generally often missing which is probably due to their localised nature.

In general, this group of rocks are predominantly arenaceous with subordinate shales.
Usually shales are less sandy and sandstones are less argillaceous. Some typical natures of
bedding similar to turbidite character are also found at places. Like Barails, Surma Group of
rocks is also marked by primary structures such as cross bedding, ripple marks, etc.
All these geologic features, lithocharacters as well as primary st ructures suggest a
different depositional environment from that of the Disangs and Barails. So, these groups
of rocks as well as the younger Tipams are treated as molasse sediments.

The rocks of Surma Group are well characterised by folds and faults having regional strike
similar to that of the Barails i.e. NNE-SSW. Fractures are also well developed which have
close relationship with the topographic features and drainage patterns. The geometry of
folds found in the region is quite typical as in other parts of the Surma Basin and Western
Manipur. Antiforms are generally sharp and angular forming ridges while synforms are
broad and rounded representing valleys and river beds. Such geometry of the folds might
have been controlled by hidden faults called, blind thrusts. And these thrusts could be
potential earthquake foci any time in future.

Geomorphic and topographic features around Tipaimukh and its adjoining region is also
quite interesting not only because of thickly vegetated low-lying hill ranges but also due to
the intimate relationship between the topography especially the drainage system, and the
structural and tectonic lineaments of the region. The drainage pattern of the Barak river
and its tributary system around Tipaimukh displays how delicately Barak river takes a turn
of about 360° at Tipaimukh giving rise to what is called, barbed pattern. Such a drainage
pattern is always resulted from the structural control of the river. And practically the main
Barak River opposite to Tuivai River itself is also controlled by the Barak-Makru thrust fault.
Further it is also observed that main Barak river course and its tributary system are all
controlled by faults and fractures as they all show rectangular to sub-rectangular drainage
patterns.

All these faults and fractures cause localised shifting or deflection of the main river course,
and even at the confluence of Barak River and Tuivai River. Such faults are potentially
active and may be focal and/or epicentres of any future earthquake. 1 The author thanks
the Centre for Organisation Research & Education (CORE) for substantial inputs into this
article from sources based in Bangladesh. The International Tipaimukh Dam Conference
2005, Dhaka saw international water, seismological and geological experts gather along
with social activists, academics, writers and leaders from 11 countries.
North-East region among six major seismically active zones of the world Tectonic setting of
Northeast India is one of the most interesting aspects in the tectonic framework of
Southeast Asia. In this region, two typical tectonic settings are found resulting from the
convergence between Indian and Eurasian plates. The Eastern Himalayas represent a
continent to continent collision mechanism while the Indo-Myanmar Range is an island arc
type of subduction mechanism. Indo-Myanmar Range, therefore, evolved as an
accretionary prism where major structural and tectonic features spread out in the form of
an imbricate thrust system. The Tipaimukh area, about which the dam is proposed to
construct, lies in the Barak-Makru Thrust zone of the imbricate thrust system.

The structural and tectonic pattern of Manipur is transitional between the NE-SW trending
pattern of Naga-Patkai Hills and N-S trend of Mizoram and Chin Hills. The general structural
and lithological trend of the rock formations of the state is NNE-SSW. It frequently varies
between N-S and NE-SW although sometimes NNW-SSE trends are locally common. Almost
all the major structural elements such as folds, thrust and reverse faults follow this regional
strike. Majority of the extensional structures e.g. normal faults have WNW-ESE trend. While
the structures having neither compress ional nor extensional affinities strike in the NW-SE
and NE-SW quadrants. Dip of the lithounits varies between moderate to steep angles
towards east or west. The geological and structural settings suggest a very interesting
tectonic evolutionary history of the state.
The state, forming an integral part of the Indo-Myanmar Range lies in the boundary region
of the Indian, Eurasian and Myanmar plates having typical interaction nature. As a result,
the region is also one of the most seismically active zones in the world (Zone V, earthquake
zones of India).

The North-East region of India is one of the six major seismically active zones of the world
that includes California, North-East India, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan and Turkey. So, it is
essential to have a brief discussion on these aspects also.Plate Kinematics The root cause
of earthquakes in a particular region is more or less exclusively a function of the tectonic
setting of that region and its proximity to plate boundary. Therefore, the tectonic setting,
plate movements and palaeo- and neo-stress analyses of the region are very important
aspects in order to know about the seismic activity of that region. It, not only, will reveal
the deformation mechanism of the region but also, will provide knowledge about the
structures that may be easily reactivated as a function of the plate kinematics in that
region.

Analysis conducted by the author about the plate kinematics in and around Manipur reveals
that the structural and tectonic features of IMR in general and that of Manipur in particular
evolved through the interaction between the Indian and Myanmar plates rather than Indian
and Eurasian (China) plates under a simple shear deformation mechanism.From the
analysis it is found that the region has compression in the WNW-ESE direction while
extension lies in the NNE-SSW direction. As a result, structures such as folds, reverse and
thrust faults oriented parallel to NNE-SSW direction will suffer maximum compression and
shortening while structures such as normal faults, tension fractures and joints running
parallel to the WNW-ESE direction will undergo maximum extension.

And structures lying in the NW-SE and NE-SW quadrants will have strike-slip movement.
The faults and fractures around Tipaimukh dam axis belong to the category that may
undergo strike-slip and extensional movements. So, these structures can be easily
reactivated causing small to considerable displacement along them by any tectonic
phenomena e.g. moderate and large earthquakes. By such a process, if the dam axis is
displaced by a few centimetres a serious damage may occur causing a dam disaster leading
to huge loss of lives and property.Seismicity Northeast India is one of the highest
earthquake potential area in the world due to its tectonic setting i.e. subduction as well as
collision plate convergence. Analysis of earthquake epicentres and magnitudes of 5M and
above within 100-200km radii of Tipaimukh dam site reveals hundreds of earthquakes in
the last 100-200 years. It is found that within 100km radius of Tipaimukh, 2 earthquakes
of +7M magnitude have taken placed in the last 150 years and the last one being occurred
in the year 1957 at an aerial distance of about 75km from the dam site in the ENE
direction.

Beside the frequency of such large earthquakes within 100km radius, it is also further
observed that a number of epicentral points align in the form of a linear array parallel to
regional strike NNE-SSW or N-S revealing how this Barak-Makru Thrust zone is seismically
active. Another important aspect of seismic activity is that shallow earthquakes are far
more disastrous than the deeper ones even if magnitude is relatively low since destructive
surface waves can be quickly and easily propagated from the focus/epicentre. And majority
of the earthquakes that takes place on the western side of Manipur are shallow (50km focal
depth or less) which is due to the tectonic setting of the Indo-Myanmar Range.

Under these circumstances whether it will be a wise policy to construct a huge dam or not
need to be thoroughly discussed and investigated. The trend of earthquakes shows that the
regions which have experienced earthquakes in the past are more prone to it; the
magnitude of future earthquakes may be uniform to the past ones; and the earthquake
occurrence, geological data and tectonic history all have close correlation (Mollick). The
Tipaimukh Dam site has been chosen at the highest risk seismically hazardous zone (See
Map).

The dam proponent, NEEPCO claims that seismic hazards are being taken care of through
consultations with Rourkee University (However, the Government of Indian has requested
NEEPCO to also consult with the Geological Survey of India). Here it is pertinent to state
that extreme seismic hazards cannot be addressed adequately or satisfactorily through
consultations with seismologists, as the risk inducing and impact factors are mechanical,
geophysical, tectonic and socio-economic in nature.The author thanks the Centre for
Organisation Research & Education (CORE) for substantial inputs into this article from
sources based in Bangladesh.

FE Report

The power of the peoples of both India and Bangladesh has to be mobilised and utilised to
stop New Delhi from going ahead with its controversial Tipaimukh dam project to protect
people and nature, speakers said Friday.

'National Tipaimukh Dam Conference 2009 Preparation Committee' organised the

conference at the Seminar Hall of the Engineers Institute in the capital, which was presided
over by Prof A M Faruque of Dhaka University

Speaking as chief guest Finance Minister AMA Muhith said: "Disrupting natural flow of water
will not bring any good as ecological balance will be seriously hampered in the process."

He blamed the 2001-2006 government for their failure to address the issue with due
importance.

Mr Muhith said: "The issue of Tipaimukh dam was discussed during the 35th and 36th
meetings of Joint River Commission (JRC) in 2003 and 2005. But the then government did
not oppose the idea."

"Now they are against the issue. We have to shun this type of politics."

"We have to mobilise the peoples of both the countries and strengthen awareness. We need
to hold public hearing on the issue," he added.
The minister informed the conference that a team, which also includes all JRC members,
was going to India to see the real situation and gather information.

Mr Muhith said: "It should work on three key issues - impact on biodiversity, probable
position of water flow of the Barak river after the construction of dam and whether it will
increase the possibility of earthquake in its surrounding areas."

"We need to set strategy and take most out of the discussion."

Farah Kabir, country director of ActionAid, said: "We do not want any dam as the impacts of
a dam are more negative than the positive."

"If this dam project is implemented the water of Sylhet region will be unusable, biodiversity
will be destroyed, people's livelihood will be severely affected and agro-based economy will
be impacted."

"Mass movement has to be strengthened and they should be brought under a common
umbrella.

"Besides, regional cooperation in South Asia has to be made stronger. We have to work
together with Nepal, India and China to save our peoples and the region.

Lawmaker Rashed Khan Menon said: "We cannot let this become another Farakka."

He said the water of the Kushiara and the Surma will dry up if the proposed 162 meter high
rock filled earthen dam on the Barak River, which is about 100 kilometers off the Sylhet
Border, is built.

The president of Workers' Party stressed on formulating a comprehensive plan to solve all
outstanding problems of 54 international rivers shared by the two neighbouring countries.

"Constructive practices should replace political uproar on the issue," he said.

Menon also accused India of breaching international laws for not providing sufficient
information to Bangladesh on the project.

The lawmaker said the government should send an all-party team to India so that the
outcome of the visit is accepted by all quarters.

He said: "This is not an issue of Sylhet. It is a national issue. So we have to move

together."

Independent expert should have a place in the team, he added.

Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) General Secretary Muzahidul Islam Selim said the
moral side of the project should get priority instead of geo-politics of the region.

He said: "It is clear that people of the both upstream and downstream sides of a dam are
affected. But initiating any project without consulting with the concerned people is immoral
and unfair interference."
He feared relationship between Dhaka and New Delhi might be affected over the dam issue.

Lawmaker Fazle Hossain Badsha said: "You will not find what benefit the Farakka has
brought to India. Their people are suffering due to repeated floods. Farakka has given India
regular floods and Bangladesh desert-like situation. India is responsible for this natural
disaster."

"We have to oppose the construction of the dam with the help of the people of India."

Engineer Md Hilaluddin, chief coordinator of conference preparation committee, said:

"International decision is required to solve problems of international rivers. But we are
becoming the victim of unilateral decision."

He urged the lawmakers to discuss the issue in parliament.

Dr R K Ranjan, a visiting Indian expert, said: "I do not see any positive impact of the
proposed dam."

Bangladesh, India: No To Tipaimukh Dam

The Tipaimukh Hydroelectric Project is being constructed near the confluence of Barak and
Tuivai rivers, in Manipur, India and within 100km of Bangladesh border. Costing Rs 6,351
crore ($1.35 billion) the 164 meter high dam will have a firm generation capacity of
401.25MW of electricity.

While Hydroelectric projects are typically considered greener than other power generation
options in short term, it has significant long-term impact to the environment like changes in
the ecosystem, destroying nearby settlements and changing habitat conditions of people,
fish and wildlife. Especially in the densely populated countries like India and Bangladesh,
where rivers are lifelines, projects like Tipaimukh will create adverse effect to a huge
number of population and their habitats.

No wonder right from the start this project faced protests from potentially affected people in
India, and from the downstream neighbor Bangladesh. The people of Manipur have been
fighting legally to stop the project but have so far been unsuccessful. The Indian
government is going ahead with the plan. The Sinlung Indigenous People Human Rights
Organisation (SIPHRO) of India said that “the process for choosing it (the project premises)
ignored both the indigenous people and the recommendations of the WCD (World
Commission on Dams)”.

From Bangladesh journalist and blogger Dhibor says:

এই বাঁধ Ļþ Ēĉĉ িক অজুহাত িহেসেব বলা ĎĘDZ , আসােমর ąĂƟđ ĒĂĠȫĂ এবং জল ĒąĀĔƟþ উৎপাদন কের, উঃ ăĔą Ūভারেতর মানুষেদর
ƵĆĔþ ï ĊƟđĘý এই বাধ ĒĂĒćŪþ হেব। পাঠকেদর Ƿ đþ đĘÿ Ūö đĂđĒDZ ĺĈ, ä ȭöŪđĒþ ï পািন আইন অনুসাের, Ć đDž ĉ ĺĀĘċĉ ăĔý Ūčɖ Ēþ ছাড়া
এবং পিরেবেশর ǘ Ēþ কের ĺï đĂ ĺĀċå একতরফাভােব নদী শাসন করেত পারেব না। তেব পিরতােপর িবষয় হেলা, ä ȭöŪđĒþ ï আইন
মানেত ĺï đĂ ĺĀċ ąđāƟ নয়। এখােন ĺö đĉ যার ćĔɨ ïĔ তার িহেসেবই এই আইন ƵĘĈđö Ɵ। ভারেতর তু লনায় আমােদর ã ÿ ęŪĂĒþ ï -সামিরক
বা ðĔDž ĉ ĺö đĉ ã ɤ বেল, আমােদর মার ĺðĘĠ ĺĈĘþ å ĎĘDZ ।

উঃ ăĔą Ūভারেতর অিধবািসেদর নােকর সামেন Dž ăđåćĔĒð বােধর মুেলা ঝু িলেয় রাখা হেলও, তারা পঃ ąĘǩĉ অিধবািসেদর মত ĺĆ đĘĊĂĒĂ ।
তাই এই বােধর ĒąĉĔĘȝ ĺčðđĘĂ þ ēƷ ƵĒþ ąđĀ ĎĘDZ । মিনপুেরর ২০Dž ƵĆ đąċđĒĊ সামািজক রাজৈনিতক সংগঠন, “একশন ï ĒćDž ëĘñåĂʁ
Dž ăđåćĔð û Ɵđć” এর ąƟđĂđĘĉ রাজপেথ ĺĂĘćĘõĂ । কারণ এেত ç âăĔą Ūভারেতর লােভর ĺôĘĠ ĺĊđï čđĂùđå ĺąĒċ হেব। আর ƵĆĔþ ǘ Ēþ হেব
পিরেবেশর।

It is being said that this dam is being built for the greater interest of the people of North
Eastern India by controlling the rivers to prevent flood in the Asam region and producing
electricity. An information for the readers: according to international laws, without the
consent of the downstream river nation and causing environmental damage no one country
can control the multi-nation rivers alone. But the sad fact is that nobody cares for these
international laws. The might is always right while interpreting these laws. As Bangladesh is
not so powerful like India in economic and military contexts we always are pushed aside.

Residents of the North Eastern parts of India were pampered with many baits of the
Tipaimukh dam project, but they kept their cool. About 20 influential socio-political
organizations in Manipur have united in the banner of “Action Committee against Tipaimukh
Project” and are protesting against the project. The reason - this dam will bring more
miseries to those people than the profits pledged. And there will be severe damage to the
environment.”

From India Namdingpou Kamei at E-Pao lists the losses and destruction this dam will bring
to the local people.

# A total area of land 286.20 sq. km will be submerged forever.

# Barak waterfalls and Zeilad Lake, which are connected with the history of the Zeliangrong
people, will be forever underwater and all folklores and legends will have no monuments'
proof and it will become a make up story for the next generation.
# More than, 40,000 people will be rendered landless.
# Eight villages situated at the Barak Valley will be completely underwater.
# More than 90 villages mostly of Tamenglong district will be adversely affected.
# About 27,242 hectares of cultivable land will be lost. [..]

The Indian government has offered the Manipur state 10% free electricity (i.e. 40 MW) from
the project in exchange of above.

The Hmar indigenous population of North East India fears that:

if the government plows ahead with its proposed dam “thousands of outsiders” will come to
settle in the area and as a result the Hmars will be exposed to changes like never before to
new culture, economy and politics.

Dr. Soibam Ibotombi of Dept. of Earth Sciences, Manipur University says that the dam will
be a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions:
The site selected for Tipaimukh project is one of the most active in the entire world,
recording at least two major earthquakes of 8+ in the Reichter Scale during the past 50
years. The proposed Tipaimukh HEP is envisaged for construction in one of the most
geologically unstable area as the proposed Tipaimukh dam axis falls on a ‘fault line’
potentially active and possible epicenter for major earthquakes.

At BanglaPraxis the impact of Tipaimukh dam in Bangladesh has been discussed.

Paribartan Bangla writes [bn] that several campaigns are ongoing in Sylhet, Bangladesh
protesting the Tipaimukh dam. The blogger describes:

এই বাঁধ ĒĂĒćŪþ হেল িসেলট, čĔĂ đćñǻ , ĺćĝĊĆ ēąđö đĉ, ĎĒąñǻ , Ʒđʒ ýąđĒĞ Ġđ, Ēï Ęċđĉñǻ , ĺĂƯĘï đĂđ, নরিসংদী ও ĂđĉđĠýñǻ ĺö ĊđčĎ
ĺĀĘċĉ čćƣ ç ȑĉ-ăĕą đŪǹ ĘĊ ćđĉđȕ ï পিরেবশ ও ä Ēÿ ïŪ ĒąăĈŪĠ ĺĂĘć আসেব। কৃ িষ, মˊʒ , ö ēąęąĒôƯƟ হু মিকর মুেখ পড়েব।
ąČŪđï đĘĊ ƵąĊ ąĂƟđ আর শীতকােল পািনর ö ĂƟ হাহাকার ĺĀðđ িদেব।

If this dam is built then the whole North Eastern Bangladesh, especially Sylhet, Sunamganj,
Moulavibazar, Habiganj, Bramhonbaria, Kishoreganj, Netrokona, Norshingdi & Narayanganj
districts will face severe environmental and economical consequences. Agriculture, fisheries
and wildlife will be under threat. There will be more flood in rainy season and less water in
dry season.

No to Tipaimukh Dam

Blogger Agami calls other bloggers [bn] to engage in online and offline campaigns to stop
the project. A Facebook group has already been created by the bloggers. An online petition
has been launched by the “Action Committee against Tipaimukh Project”.

Anandomoye writes [bn]:

ç ȵþ ĺĀċñĔĘĊđ যখন ˰ɤ ও ĀēòŪĘćĠđĒĀ ʛ Ą েলর কথা িবেবচনা কের বাঁেধর মেতা অবকাঠােমা ĒĂćŪđĘýĉ ćđāƟĘć Ƶï ĖĒþ Ęï ĒĂĠȫĘýĉ ĀĔą ĒĔŪȝ
ĺÿ Ęï িপিছেয় আসেছ, ĺčðđĘĂ ভারেতর এমন ëï Dž বাঁধ ĒĂćŪđĘýĉ Ƶ˥ Ēþ আেরা গভীর ăĈŪđĘĊđôĂđĉ দািব রােখ।

When developed countries are backing out from controlling the nature through
infrastructures like building dams, keeping the long term effect on environment in mind, the
decision of India to build this dam requires more introspection.
 Tipaimukh Dam Won't Harm: India
Wednesday, 20 May 2009

The Indian high commissioner has admitted for the first time that a dam will be built on the
proposed Tipaimukh hydropower project over the cross-boundary river Barak but said it will
not harm Bangladesh.

The Tipaimukh hydropower project was not like the Farakka irrigation project. A little
amount of water will not be trapped to produce hydroelectricity and the water will be
released soon, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty said on Tuesday.

Bangladesh should not be wary of the project, he told reporters after meeting with shipping
minister Afsarul Amin at the Secretariat.

He said bilateral discussions have long been on-going on the project. Indian government
has invited Bangladesh to see the dam site and its design, Chakravarty said.

Environmentalists fear the dam will dry up the Meghna river in the greater Sylhet region.

Indian foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon had invited Bangladesh to send the
delegations at a recent visit.

Asked if India would share the power produced from the proposed project, the high
commissioner said it was a possibility.

But, he added, India had no power-sharing mechanism with Bangladesh. It has power grids
with Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan, the envoy added.

Amin, the shipping minister said, "If there is an attempt to stop the waters, then we would
look into the matter. But, Bangladesh will not be harmed with the project."

Water resources minister Ramesh Chandra Sen, when contacted, said, "We know that India
will build a hydropower plant on Tipaimukh. Bangladesh knows nothing about any dam
there."

If any dam is built there, Bangladesh will be harmed and, in that case, will protest, Sen
said.

He said the foreign ministry will decide about sending a delegation to see the project.

India in 2003 initiated the move to construct the dam over the cross-boundary river, which
enters into Bangladesh through Sylhet region before meeting the Meghna.

It started the construction later last year without consulting Bangladesh.

Bangladesh gets 7 to 8 percent of its total water from the Barak in India's northeastern
states. Millions of people are dependent on hundreds of water bodies, fed by the Barak, in
the Sylhet region for fishing and agricultural activities.

Environmentalists in Bangladesh have held many talks on the adverse impact of the
proposed dam. They say the dam would dry up the river and the water bodies in the
downstream, leaving millions jobless and upsetting the ecological balance.

India’s Tipaimukh dam: another Farakka for

Bangladesh in the offing?
June 12-18, 2009

Mohiuddin Alamgir reveals the implications and consequences awaiting Bangladesh and
the Manipur state of India through the completion of the Tipaimukh Dam.

When completed in 1970 by India, the Farakka Barrage, around 18 kilometres upstream of
Monohorpur, seemed a rather innocent venture by India at just ‘saving the Calcutta Port
from silting’.

The reality was felt by the Bangladeshis over the next few decades as the entire south-
western region of Bangladesh was affected due to the dearth of water. The country also
faced long term losses in the agricultural, fisheries, forestry, industry, navigation and other
sectors.

The barrage also caused some fatal damages over the years through floods, droughts,
excessive salinity and depletion of groundwater. The then-Bangladesh government tried to
solve the impending problem through bilateral talks immediately following the formation of
the Indo-Bangladesh joint river commission (JRC) in 1972.

After being assured in the 1974 summit between the two countries that the Farakka
barrage would not be put into operation before an agreement was reached on sharing the
dry season flow of the Ganges between the two countries, Bangladesh allowed India to test
the feeder canal of the barrage in 1975.

India commissioned the barrage and continued unilateral diversion of the Ganges flow,
beyond the stipulated test period. The barrage had been operational without a water-
sharing agreement till 1997, before the then-Awami League government finally managed to
make the Indian government concede. In the meanwhile, Bangladesh’s economical activity
and ecological health had been hugely affected.
 Bitter experience has taught that the historic friendly relations Bangladesh and India
share through their experience in the war of independence in 1971 have not always
translated into deeds. Farakka, enclaves, killing of innocent civilians by BSF, maritime and
land border demarcation, smuggling, subversive activities by the intelligence wings, both
nations harbouring each others’ high profile criminals, the river linking project have been a
thorn on the side of the apparent ‘friendly’ relations.

And now, the construction of Tipaimukh Dam threatens to affect north-eastern

Bangladesh the way south-western Bangladesh had been affected by the Farakka. Despite
India’s insistence that the dam has only been built to generate electricity and a lukewarm
response from the government in power, in Bangladesh, citizens and environmentalists feel
extremely concerned and many have vowed to resist the construction at all costs.

The Indian government recently resumed construction of the Tipaimukh on the Barak
River, just a kilometre north of Jakiganj in Sylhet, which resulted in the recent, renewed
interest on its affects. The construction work was stalled in March 2007 in the face of
protests within, (people of the Manipur state of India are slated to be worst-affected) and
outside, India for not following international conventions about the international rivers. The
completion of the dam in 2012 will virtually dry up the Surma and the Kushiara rivers, thus
choking the north-eastern regions of Bangladesh, say experts.

The Tipaimukh dam would also affect, while compounding the losses caused by Farakka,
the country’s fisheries, agriculture, environment and water supply.

Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, the finance minister of Bangladesh and also the founder
president of the green non-government organisation Bangladesh Paribesh Andalan (BAPA)
points out, ‘India will be worse hit than Bangladesh and so the general people of India are
also against the project.’

‘The region of Sylhet will be adversely affected if the Tipaimukh project is completed and
most dangerously, if they make a barrage at Fulertala and withdraw water from Barak
River, the whole region will have to face scarcity of water,’ says Major (retd) Hafiz Uddin
Khan, vice chairman, Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and former minister of water resources.

‘The free flowing Surma and Kushyara rivers will turn dry,’ he adds.

Due to the protests from the Bangladesh side, Shiv Shankar Menon, the Indian foreign
secretary visited Bangladesh last month. He requested Bangladesh to send a group of
dignitaries who will visit the Tipaimukh area to observe the actual scenario of the
controversial project, as the Indian government is thinking seriously about the
implementation of the project.

Given the current developments, it is rather understandable that the dam will be brought
to reality. The overall implications and consequences brought about by the project may be
even more fatal than we can perceive at the moment, as pointed out by experts.
The project

To be located 500 metres downstream from the flowing rivers of Barak and Tuivai rivers,
the Tipaimukh dam lies on the south-western corner of the Manipur State of India. The rock
filled structure, with a central impervious core, has a height of around 180 metres above
the sea-level. Its reservoir will have a storage water capacity of 15,900 million cubic m with
a maximum depth of 1,725.5 m.

Although originally considered, to only contain the flood water in the Cachar plains of
Assam, the emphasis of the dam was also later placed on hydroelectric power generation.
The dam will have an installation capacity of 1500MW with only a firm generation of 412MW
(less than 30 per cent of installed capacity).

Tipaumukh Dam was first thought of in 1954 when the government of Assam requested
its construction to the Central Water and Power Commission of India for ways to manage
floods in the Barak river basin. The commission surveyed and rejected three sites by 1965
on two grounds. The sites were geologically unsafe and large-scale submergence of
cultivable land made it economically unviable.

The North-Eastern Council of India intervened and after discussion with Assam, Manipur
and Mizoram, the states through which the river flows, the Central Water Commission began
investigations in 1977. In 1984, it identified a new site. The dam, it was then estimated,
would cost Rs 1,078 crore. The project was shelved as it did not have the requisite
environmental and management plans.

In 1995, the Brahmaputra Board, responsible for managing the water of Brahmaputra and
Barak river basins in India, carried out studies and revised the plan totalling the estimated
cost to Rs 2,899 crore.

People of Manipur began to take notice as the completion of the dam would immediately
result in their eviction from the area where they had lived for the past hundred years. In
order to appease them, environment minister Kamal Nath assured that resettlement issues
would be taken care of and nothing would be done in haste, in 1995. In 1995, chief minister
Rishang Keishing made a statement declaring that the state cabinet did not approve of the
dam.

In 1998, the Manipur assembly passed a resolution not to implement the project.
However, in 1999, the central government handed over the project to North-Eastern
Electronic Power Co-operation (NEEPCO) under circumstances, which many social
organisations allege are questionable. They claim that during a spell of the president’s rule,
imposed in 2001, the governor approved the project.

Then in 2003, the Public Investments Board and the Central Electricity Authority of India
cleared the project by which the costs had been revised to Rs 5,163.86 crore by NEEPCO.

Currently, the information fed to the Indian public details that the project is to be built
primarily for flood control and power generation. Irrigation and other benefits will be spin-
offs. Flood control will benefit some plain areas in Assam.
 However, Manipur and Mizoram, are likely to bear the brunt of submergence. But they are
to equally share, as the central government stipulates to the Manipur government, 12 per
cent of the power from the project, free of charge while the rest will be taken by NEEPCO.

Bangladesh in peril

Adverse effects of the Tipaimukh dam, including environmental deprivation, economic

crisis and drought, will be rather irreversible as pointed out by the education, primary and
mass education minister Nurul Islam Nahid. ‘If India withdraws water from the Barak river,
the free-flowing Surma and Kushiara rivers will dry up,’ he mentions.

Abdul Karim Kim, an organiser of the Sylhet Paribesh Andolon feels that besides other
parts of Bangladesh, Sylhet will be gravely affected. ‘The dam’s completion will disrupt
agriculture, irrigation, drinking water supply, and navigation and ground water levels. Sylhet
will face the same consequences faced by the south western regions of Bangladesh.’

He explains that Surma-Kushiara, and its 60 branch and distributaries support agriculture,
irrigation, navigation, drinking water supply, fisheries, wildlife in numerous haors and low
lying areas in the entire Sylhet division and some peripheral areas of Dhaka division. The
river system also supports internal navigation, wildlife in haors, industries like fertiliser,
electricity, gas etc.

‘Around five crore people of Sylhet and Dhaka division will face problems as Surma and
Kushiara will lose five feet water in the rainy season. Environmental degradation will take
place massively, severely affecting weather and climate, turning a wet cooler environment
into a hot uncomfortable cauldron,’ he says.

‘Within 15 years, after starting the project and withdrawing water from the Barak, there
will be no water in the rivers,’ informs MA Matin, general secretary, BAPA.

‘Scarcity of water will cause siltation on river beds,’ says Engineer Muhammad Hilaluddin,
chief director of Angikar Bangladesh. He explains that when high rainfall will occur in the
catchments area of the dam, enormous quantity of sediment-laden flood water will be
released. He adds, ‘this will cause a severity of flood in the Surma and Kushiara channels,
already raised for low flow. This will further raise the water level causing floods in adjoining
additional areas.’

Also, navigation in river channels in the Meghna will be affected due to depletion of water
flow and consequent sedimentation and severity of flooding during the monsoon season.
Surface irrigation will also be in danger. The Meghna-Padma river will have lower flow,
accentuating saline backwater intrusion in the Padma channel.

‘The total agricultural sector of around 20 districts, directly and indirectly, will be
affected,’ says Professor Anu Muhammad from the economics department in Jahangirnagar
University. He adds, ‘The Barak-Surma-Kushiara-Meghna river system stretches about 946
km. Around 669 km of this is in the Bangladesh portion. If India withdraws water, the fate
of this whole river system will be threatened.’

Many scientists, engineers and green activists feel that the completion of the Tipaimukh
dam will increase the frequency of earthquakes in the adjoining region of both India and
Bangladesh. ‘The north-east region of India is one of the six major seismically active zones
of the world that includes north-east India and suburbs, and Bangladesh. The huge
reservoir of the dam will create pressure on the ground of this region which is already a
high alert zone for earthquakes,’ shares Hilal.

Protest in India

The people of Manipur state protested from the very beginning of the dam’s conception as
they are to sacrifice the most. The unanimous verdict of the peoples’ affirmation was that
the Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project is not for the people, by the people or of
the people of the Manipur.

As has been pointed out by the intellectuals and experts of the state, the 900 km long
Ahu (Barak River) is a constant source of the socio-political, economic and cultural
sustenance for the indigenous Zeliangrong and the many indigenous and non-indigenous
communities, who live along its course in India and Bangladesh. These cultures have grown
up along these rivers over the past few centuries.

The mega-dam proposed at Tipaimukh (Ruonglevaisuo to the Hmar people) will smother
this particular source of life for them while also affecting their culture, anthropology,
ecology and economy. As per estimates of the authorities, the project will also totally affect
311 sq km area of the state. More than 40,000 people will be rendered landless as 16
villages at the Barak Valley will be submerged while around 90 villages will be adversely
affected.

As such, academicians, politicians, students and civil society organisations have formed
the Action Committee against Tipaimukh Project (ACTIP) to oppose the project which will
further deepen the cracks in Manipur’s already fissured society. The construction of the dam
will also benefit some groups at the cost of others.

Matin says ‘more than 20 social and political organisations, representing the largest
communities, ethnic groups and political interests are protesting against the dam. We have
a good understanding with them.’ The leaders of the groups believe that the unviable
project design will also drive a wedge between communities that live in a state of
unremitting conflict between themselves and with the state.

He points out, ‘the Indian government is playing hide and seek with their people as they
are, not only making hydro electric power plant to produce electricity, but also planning to
make a barrage at Fulertala, located slightly upstream of the river Barak.’ He mentions that
the original plan is to supply water to the areas of Rajasthan and other states from the
Barak river, around 900 kilometres away from the Manipur state.
 ‘This is actually a good strategy by the Indian government as although around 180 MW of
power has been offered to the Manipur state, it needs only 150 MW of power. The rest will
be distributed to the other states,’ informs Hilal.

‘Besides these, the Indian government has already initiated works in the seven north
eastern states, widely known as seven sisters of India, for 24 irrigation projects or dams,’
says Baki Billah, a member of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. He adds, ‘200 more are
at the planning level. The construction of these dams or projects will also affect Bangladesh
as these will eventually choke around 54 rivers in Bangladesh.’

Abul Mal Abdul Muhith expresses his doubts about the project, when he says, ‘the Indian
government claims that the dam is simply a project to help the power problem of their
country. How can we trust this after the bitter experience we have had with the Farakka
barrage. Furthermore, when even the ordinary Indians are protesting against the project, it
is worth contemplating how much it may affect Bangladesh.’

International river convention

The Tipaimukh Dam project was en- tirely developed and approved without informing the
government of Bangladesh or involving its people in any meaningful exercise to assess the
downstream impacts of the dam.

Since the river Barak is an international river, Bangladesh as a lower riparian country
should have an equitable share of water. Moreover an access to the design details of the
project, planning and design etc also is a right of the country.

‘We do not know what is going on there,’ says Mir Sajjad Hossain, member of Joint River
Commission (JRC). He adds, ‘we came to know from our sources that India is planning a
hydroelectric plant. India has not sent any official documents about the proposal.’ Ministers
Abul Mal Muhith and Nurul Islam Nahid reiterated the same point.

‘The Indian government was asked to give data about the Tipaimukh Dam twice during
the JRC meeting- in 2003 and in 2005, but they did not provide us with the data,’ said
Hafiz.

As such, this is clearly a gross violation of co-riparian rights of Bangladesh. India has
disregarded some major provisions of the 1997 UN Watercourse Convention on the Article
5(1) Equitable Utilization, (7) No Harm Principle, (9) Exchange of Information.

‘India is taking the privilege of being a big country,’ says Professor Nazrul Islam, chairman
of the University Grants Commission and a renowned environmentalist of the country. He
adds, ‘Bangladesh can do nothing but complain to the international communities.’

JRC and going international

‘JRC is a dead horse and good for nothing. They should be renamed Jhuliye Rakha
Committee (Hanging on a matter),’ says Matin. He adds, ‘we were told that the Bangladeshi
part of the committee could not produce satisfactory data due to their Indian counterparts
non-cooperation in the JRC meeting.’
 Nazrul Islam feels that the solution to the problem is through mutual understanding
between Bangladesh and India and a more efficient role of the JRC. ‘Our government and
JRC can request India to postpone or, better yet, stop the construction of the Tipaimukh
Dam if possible. This can be done through bilateral diplomacy or through UN intervention,’
he says.

‘JRC should soon start negotiation on equitable sharing of water, according to our
entitlement as a lower riparian of the international river Barak-Surma-Kushiara, through
international forums and the UN,’ suggests Anu.

‘Unilateral withdrawal would be a gross violation of the UN Convention that regulates the
use of water of international rivers/water courses. This should be done as soon as possible.
Any delay in negotiation might end up in a pathetic situation, causing irreversible
environmental, economic and hydrological chaos,’ urges Matin.

Muhith feels that data exchange between the two countries’ governments will help at
solving the issue. ‘Bangladesh needs to have the design, survey data, drawings, maps etc.
prepared by the dam authority in order to verify the adverse effects and also to initiate
mitigation measures for the lower riparian Bangladesh.’

‘We are waiting for the official invitation from the Indian government that Shiv Shankar
Menon, Indian foreign secretary, told us about during the visit,’ says Mir Sajjad.

‘Bangladesh will obviously respond to the invitation and will take the right decision
through mutual co-operation, through which the general public of both countries will be
benefited,’ hopes Nahid, the education minister and a member of parliament from Sylhet.

The Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Pinak Ranjan Chakrabarti, while talking to
the media recently said that although India will have sole control over water flow at the
proposed dam site, it will not hold it back.

‘The flow of river water and flood control will remain in the hands of India’, he told
reporters after a courtesy call on communications minister Syed Abul Hossain at the
ministry.

‘Tipaimukh Dam is a hydro-electric project that will generate electricity from the flow of
water, and then will release the water back,’ he added.

Prime minister Sheikh Hasina said on May 27 that her government would form an all-
party committee to report on the pros and cons of the proposed Tipaimukh barrage in India,
before taking a decision on the disputed project.

‘We have to send a technical committee rather than a parliamentary committee to find out
what is actually going on,’ says Hafiz.

‘The nation has to fight together to protest this project,’ he adds.

Choking north-eastern Bangladesh

* India has resumed construction of the Tipaimukh Dam on the Barak River which will
virtually dry up the Surma and the Kushiara rivers, thus choking the north-eastern regions
of Bangladesh
* The construction will disrupt agriculture, irrigation, drinking water supply, navigation
and ground water levels. Sylhet will be worst hit
* Tipaimukh to be used only for hydroelectric power generation, say India
* The people of the India state of Manipur to be affected the most
* The parliamentary committee on water resources and technical experts to visit
Tipaimukh

Start talks with India to stop Tipaimukh dam, govt

told
Wed, May 20th, 2009

The government has been urged by Islamist and Left parties to immediately engage in
dialogue with India to halt the construction of Tipaimukh dam.

Opposition Jamaat-e-Islami suggested that the government formed an all-party panel to sit
in talks with India.

Tipaimukh is located 500 metres downstream from the confluence of Barak and Tuivai rivers
and lies on the south-western corner of Manipur state in India.

"The destruction will be as grave as that of a nuclear bomb explosion in Bangladesh if dam
is erected at Tipaimukh, Jamaat-e-Islami chief Matiur Rahman Nizami said on Wednesday.

"This dam will render one-one third of our country desert," he said at a rally in Dhaka.

He pointed out that the northern region of Bangladesh has been devoid of vegetation and
the flora and fauna after India built Farakka dam.

"Indian made many promises to Bangladesh before Farakka dam was erected. But those
were not later kept."

"India has to be forced to stop erecting the dam at Tipaimukh," he said.

Two left parties also protested the remarks of Indian high commissioner on Tuesday that
the Tipaimukh hydropower project over the cross-boundary river Barak would not harm
Bangladesh.

"The high commissioner's statement does not hold ground amid common perception and
expert opinions," Bangladesh Samajtantrik Dal convenor Khalequzzaman said in a
statement on Wednesday.
He said if the Tipaimukh dam is built, the water flow in Bangladesh's Surma-Kushiara will
lessen in the winter and the agriculture will face serious catastrophe.

Khalequzzaman urged the government to protest the issue immediately and if necessary,
take it to the international forum.

A separate statement, signed by the president of Bangladesher Biplobi Communist Party

Khandker Ali Abbas, said the proposed Tipaimukh dam was going to be another Farakka.

The high commissioner, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, had said the Tipaimukh project was not
like the Farakka irrigation project. A little amount of water will be diverted to produce
hydroelectricity and the water will be released soon.

Bangladesh should not be wary of the project, he had said. Bilateral discussions have long
been on-going on the project and the Indian government has invited Bangladesh to see the
dam site and its design.

Environmentalists fear the dam will dry up the Meghna river in the greater Sylhet region.

India in 2003 initiated the move to construct the dam over the cross-boundary river, which
enters into Bangladesh through Sylhet region before meeting the Meghna.

It started the construction later last year without consulting Bangladesh.

Bangladesh gets 7 to 8 percent of its total water from the Barak in India's northeastern
states. Millions of people are dependent on hundreds of water bodies, fed by the Barak, in
the Sylhet region for fishing and agricultural activities.

Environmentalists in Bangladesh have held many talks on the adverse impact of the
proposed dam. They say the dam would dry up the river and the water bodies in the
downstream, leaving millions jobless and upsetting the ecological balance.

To: Prime Minister of India

“Let the AHU run Free”
CANCEL THE TIPAIMUKH DAM

14 March 2007
International Day of Action against Dams and For Rivers, Water & Life

MEMORANDUM
TO
DR. MAN MOHAN SINGH
PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA

SUBMITTED BY
ACTION COMMITTEE AGAINST TIPAIMUKH PROJECT (ACTIP)
with
ZELIANGRONG UNION (ZU)
and
Nungba Area Village Authority Chairmen’s Association (NAVACA)
Zeliangrong Students’ Union Manipur Nungba Zone (ZSUM Nungba Zone)
Tipaimukh Dam Affected Villages Committee (TIDAVCOM)

Respected Man Mohan Singh

The 1500 MW Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project (Tipaimukh Dam) has been a
long time coming. We the petitioners signing this Memorandum wish to recall that over the
past years, since the late 1980s, many suchlike Memorandums have been received by the
Prime Minister of India drawing the attention of the highest executive office of the
government of India to the people’s deep apprehensions, displeasure and unequivocal
rejection of this scheme on the international Ahu (Barak) River.

In a great modern democracy, Sir, such as INDIA, development must be for the people, by
the people and of the people. The common good of the Nation must include, foremost, the
good of those who are called upon to make the greatest sacrifice. The Peoples’ Affirmation
of the AHU (Barak River) was observed in the historical Puiluan (Kombirol) on the Ahu,
about 20 km from Nungba Sub-Division HQ, Tamenglong District in Manipur, India for the
10th anniversary of the peoples’ International Day of Action Against Dam and for Rivers,
Water and Life, on 14 March, 2007. The unanimous verdict of the Peoples’ Affirmation
unanimously was that the Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project is NOT for the
people, by the people or of the people.

The people who were gathered from far and near at this Affirmation of our beloved River
Ahu remembered our legendary heroes and Zeliangrong elders, Pou Jadonang and Lu Rani
Gaidinliu who were born at Puiluan Village. The legendary elders stand for the self-
determination of the people. Pou Jadonang was a warrior and spiritual leader of the
Zeliangrong, deeply revered by the people of Manipur. Lu Gaidinliu has been honoured by
the government of India for her courageous struggle against the colonial British regime.
Today, they inspire and lead us in our great efforts against all forms of oppression, including
the oppressive anti-people and anti-Nature development programme of the Tipaimukh Dam!

The 900 Km long Ahu (Barak River) is a constant source of the socio-political, economic and
cultural sustenance for the indigenous Zeliangrong and the many communities, indigenous
and non-indigenous, who live along its course in India and Bangladesh, and are today, who
they are because of this river. The mega-dam proposed at Tipaimukh (Ruonglevaisuo to the
Hmar people) will smother this river; change its age-old knowable and reliable nature; and
drown us all in sorrow forever! The project is not ‘for the people’.

The project, which has taken decades of apparently careful development and appraisal by
many technical professionals including engineers and scientists, has been repeatedly proven
to be an “Un-Planned” destructive dam in Manipur. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC)
of the Union Ministry for Environment and Forests, New Delhi has twice considered the
application by the project proponent, the North East Electric Power Corporation Ltd.
(NEEPCO) for Environmental Clearance (EC), first on 25th November 2006 and then re-
considered on 22 February 2007. The EAC has found the application by NEEPCO deeply
flawed, and containing many errors, omissions, gaps, lacking in scientific rigour and falling
far short of compliance of normative standards set by the scientific and academic
community in India and the world. The EC has not been granted and the many pertinent
questions raised by the EAC clearly show that the project is not ‘by the people’.

In spite of the fact that you, Sir, had declined to do so; in spite of the legal and statutory
truth that the two Public Hearings in Manipur were conducted in highly militarised and
violent settings to the orchestrated exclusion of the affected people; and in spite of the
proposal not granted Environmental or Forest Clearance by the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests, a Foundation Stone was laid in great urgency and isolated from
the people’s eyes, on 16th December 2006, by the Union Minister of Power, Mr. Sushil
Kumar Shinde in the company of the Union Minister of Heavy Industries, Mr. Santosh Mohon
Deb; the Chief Minister of Manipur, Mr. Okram Ibobi; and high officials of NEEPCO. This act
was a flagrant assault on long-established decorum and propriety of development projects
that are established for the benefit of the people. It was also an illegal and aggressive act
on the peoples’ sentiments and aspirations. The project is not ‘of the people’.

Under the circumstances, we, the signatories of this memorandum, and all the villages and
people to be sacrificed for this “Un-Planned” project foisted upon us, express our strong
objections to the special interest exhibited by the office of the highest executive office of the
government of India to promote this Dam as a fully funded central project. Your office, Sir,
must reflect seriously upon the will of the people and do deeds to fulfill the people’s
expressed wants and aspirations.

As our elders say, “We cannot eat electricity.” How long must we wait, while our
fundamental and basic rights are denied? When will we see you come to us to ask us what
we really want for our future, for our land, and not just to tell us what we must sacrifice and
what is good for us? Cancel the Tipaimukh Dam, let the Ahu run free and be with us to
make the right choices for ourselves, for our future generations and for our natural
heritage.

14th March 2007

Puiluan (Kombirol) Village
Ahu (Barak River)
Tamenglong District, Manipur
India
Twin Tipaimukh and Phulertal Dams: Environment,
Livelihood at Stake
May 21, 2009

Water resources experts, economists and environmentalists on Wednesday dismissed

India’s claim that the Tipaimukh multi-purpose dam would have no harmful impact on
Bangladesh, the lower riparian country. 


They said the twin dams — one at Tipaimukh and another at Phulertal, on the cross-
boundary river Barak — would dry up the rivers and the water bodies in the north-eastern
districts of downstream Bangladesh, upsetting the ecological balance and destabilising the
livelihood of the millions of people there. 


‘India has started multi-purpose interventions at the Tipaimukh on the river Barak. It will
also construct a dam at Phulertal, which is 100 kilometres downstream from Tipaimukh.
These twin interventions on the Barak will have multifarious adverse impacts on nature and
livelihood in the north-eastern districts here,’ Tauhidul Anwar Khan, an expert on regional
water resources, told New Age on Wednesday. 


He said any interference with the natural flow of rivers is bound to have adverse impacts —
sociological, hydrological and morphological — on the downstream country.


Tauhidul Anwar, also a former member of the Joint Rivers Commission of the two countries,
made this statement when his attention was drawn to India’s claim that the Tipaimukh
project across the Barak would not harm Bangladesh.


Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, however, claimed in Dhaka, ‘The
barrage by no means will have any adverse effect on Bangladesh…It will just regulate the
river’s flow. It is a project aimed at producing hydro-electricity, not at irrigation, so no
water will be withheld from Bangladesh.’ 


But Tauhidul Anwar said the Phulertal dam would have extremely adverse impacts on the
Surma, Kushiyara and Meghna rivers due to diversion of water for irrigating north-eastern
India.


He said Bangladesh had made both formal and informal protests in bilateral and JRC
meetings. ‘But they [India] never paid any heed to our protests,’ he said. 


India is constructing the Rs 6,000 crore 1,500 megawatt Tipaimukh multi-purpose projects
at the confluence of the Barak and Tuivai rivers in its eastern states of Manipur, Assam and
Mizoram in spite of heightened fears in Bangladesh about its impact on water flow to the
Meghna river system. 


The Barak feeds the Surma and Kushiyara rivers in Sylhet that flow into the Meghna, one of
the three major rivers in Bangladesh.

Experts said India would build one of the world’s highest ‘Rock Fill Dam’ (162.80 metres
high) to harness the Barak’s water for generating electricity. 


Quazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmed, president of the Bangladesh Economic Association, said

Bangladesh needs to ask India to provide adequate information on the projects in question.
‘We hardly know what India is constructing on the river Barak. If it is an electricity
generation project, we will not be affeced. But if it is a dam, it will definitely harm
Bangladesh.’ 


M Shafiqur Rahman, a Dhaka University teacher of soil, water and environment, said the
extent of damage would depend on India’s response to Bangladesh’s demand. ‘It is a major
question whether India will give us water when we are in serious need of it,’ he said. 


Bangladesh is criss-crossed by nearly 300 rivers, with 54 major ones originating from India.
It gets 7 to 8 per cent of its total water from the Barak that flows through India’s north-
eastern states.


‘Construction of the proposed high dam in a geologically very sensitive zone above the long
recognised Taithu Fault Line will only serve to provoke frequent and major earthquakes,
inviting a major tsunami-like disaster and endangering the lives, land and forests of both
India and Bangladesh,’ said the Dhaka Declaration, adopted at the International Tipaimukh
Dam Conference (ITDC-2005) in Dhaka with participants from both India and Bangladesh
expressing deep concern.

Stop building Tipaimukh dam, Zia writes to Manmohan

Singh
June 23rd, 2009

DHAKA - Bangladesh’s main opposition leader Khaleda Zia has written a letter to Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanding that India should stop building the Tipaimukh
dam in its north-eastern region.

The Tipaimukh dam on the Barak river is in India’s Manipur state.

Zia dispatched the letter Monday, The Daily Star newspaper said. The letter was sent a day
after India said that it had ‘consulted’ Bangladesh on the project and would not do anything
to harm the environment of the region.

Details of Zia’s letter to Singh were not released. The two last met in March 2006, when Zia
was the Bangladesh prime minister.
The move by Zia came even as the Sheikh Hasina government prepared to send a
parliamentary team accompanied by experts to visit the site of the proposed dam over
Barak river.

Part of the Brahmaputra river system, Barak river bifurcates on entering Bangladesh
territory and is known as Surma and Kushiyara.

In another move, five environmentalists from India’s Manipur state joined their Bangladeshi
counterparts to voice their protests at a seminar held in Bangladesh’s Sylhet.

The Indian delegation included R.K. Ranjan Sinha of Earth Science Department of Manipur
Central University, and environmentalists Ramananda, Joseph Marr, Vikramjit and Arnab
Dutta.

Engineer Muhammad Hilal Uddin, coordinator of the Jatiya Tipaimukh Bandh Protirodh
Committee accompanied the team to Sylhet.

Sinha said: “We are here to express our solidarity with the Bangladeshi people.”

The project is not at all a viable one, he said, adding: “We want Bangladesh to sit with the
Indian authorities to discuss the crucial issue. Besides, it is an issue of common rivers and
India cannot take decisions alone.”

The speakers claimed that 57 percent dams in the world responsible for environmental
degradation are in India and China.

At a discussion last Sunday in the presence of Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni,
Indian High Commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty said India has “consulted” on
construction of the Tipaimukh dam with Bangladesh after having the matter examined by
their experts.

“The perception that India has not consulted Bangladesh about building of the Tipaimukh
dam is wrong and out of line,” he said, adding: “The proposal of the project has been
provided for Bangladesh.”

“Feasibility and design of the dam has been examined by Indian experts,” he told a seminar
organised by Bangladesh-India Friendship Society.

Bangladesh and India have in the past sparred over the Farakka dam project over the
Ganga river.

The dispute was settled in 1997 when a bilateral treaty was signed during Sheikh Hasina’s
earlier tenure as the prime minister.
 Farakka to Tipaimukh
June 14, 2009

IN RECENT days, Bangladesh seems to have woken up to the danger posed by construction
of the Tipaimukh Dam in the neighbouring Manipur state of India. There are some in
Bangladesh who have a habit of translating national issues of this kind into deplorable
partisanship thereby fostering disunity when national unity is needed. In so doing they
commit acts of treason.


Before delving into the Tipaimukh project, I would like to share some facts surrounding the
Farakka Barrage. Although the construction of the Farakka Barrage was completed during
the Mujib rule in 1974-5, the decision to build this dam can be traced back to 1951. In
those days, hydroelectric dams were popular methods to generating electric power. India,
Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan planned on building hundreds of hydropower dams from rivers
that flowed down from the Himalayas. The Farakka dam was built to divert water from the
Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season (January to June), in order to
flush out the accumulating silt which in the 1950s and 1960s was a problem at the major
port of Kolkata on the Hooghly River. A series of negotiations between the Pakistani and
Indian governments failed to persuade India into abandoning the Farakka project.


After Bangladesh’s independence, the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission met over
90 times to discuss the Farakka Barrage issue, but without any results. The Bangladesh
team was headed by BM Abbas. In April 1975, Bangladesh agreed to a trial operation of the
Farakka Barrage for a period of 41 days from April 21 to May 31, 1975 to divert 11,000-
16,000cfs (cusecs) with the understanding that India will not operate feeder canal until a
final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges
water. Bangladesh was assured of getting 40,000 cusecs during the dry season. 


Unfortunately, soon after Sheikh Mujib’s assassination in August 15, 1975, taking advantage
of the political change in Bangladesh, India violated the agreement (MoU) by cheating and
diverting the full capacity of 40,000 cusecs unilaterally. The matter was brought to the
attention of UN General Assembly, which on November 26, 1976 adopted a consensus
statement directing the parties to arrive at a fair and expeditious settlement. On November
5, 1977 the Ganges Waters Agreement was signed, assuring 34,500 cusecs for Bangladesh.
The five-year treaty expired in 1982 and after several shorter extensions lapsed entirely in
1989. The JRC statistics shows very clearly that Bangladesh did not get its due share during
all those years (1977-91). There was no improvement of the situation during the first
Khaleda Zia administration (1991-96) with average water share reduced to 10,000 to
12,000 cusecs, with one extreme event of only 9,000 cusecs, during the dry season.


After Sheikh Hasina was elected prime minister, she visited India and signed a treaty with
her counterpart Deve Gowda on December 12, 1996. The treaty addressed the heart of the
conflict: water allocation (35,000 cusecs) during the five months of the dry season
(January-May). During the rest of the year, there is sufficient water that India can operate
the Farakka diversion without creating problems for Bangladesh. The treaty stipulated that
below a certain flow rate, India and Bangladesh will each share half of the water. Above a
certain limit, Bangladesh will be guaranteed a certain minimum level, and if the water flow
exceeds a given limit, India will withdraw a given amount, and the balance will be received
by Bangladesh (which will be more than 50 per cent).


The statement of IK Gujral, external affairs minister, in Rajya Sabha on December 12, 1996
on the visit of prime minister of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to India and the signing
of the treaty on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka reads: ‘[D]uring the critical period
within the lean season, i.e. from March 1 to May 10, India and Bangladesh each shall
receive a guaranteed flow of 35,000 cusecs of water in an alternating sequence of three 10-
day periods each. This is aimed at meeting the fundamental requirements of both our
countries through a just and reasonable sharing of the burden of shortage. The Treaty also
has the merit of being a long-term arrangement combined with scope for reviews at shorter
intervals to study the impact of the sharing formula and to make needed adjustments.
While the Treaty will be for 30 years and renewable on mutual consent, there is a provision
of mandatory reviews at the end of 5 years and even earlier after 2 years with provisions for
adjustments as required. Pending a fresh understanding after the review stage, Bangladesh
would continue to receive 90 per cent of its share in accordance with the new formula. We
would thus avoid a situation where there is no agreement on the sharing of the Ganga
waters between India and Bangladesh… As the House would recall, we have already taken
initiatives in the commercial sphere by extending tariff concessions to Bangladesh on a
range of products of export interest to them. We propose to extend commercial credits of
Rs. 1 billion to enhance trade relations further.’


In the light of the above facts, it is difficult to sustain accusations that the 1996 Treaty went
against the interest of Bangladesh, becoming a fait accompli. I have never heard an
intelligent person say that a treaty signed with the aim of getting fair and equitable share is
worse than not having one. Was the 1977-treaty silly, too? More outrageous is the implied
assertion by some that the AL government that had ruled only five years in the post-Mujib
era of 34 years is solely to be blamed for all the maladies facing Bangladesh today,
including the Tipaimukh Dam, soon to be constructed by India.


It is true though that India had not kept its side of the bargain since signing of the treaty.
The Joint River Commission statistics, as quoted by Syful Islam in the New Nation, March 9,
shows that in 1999 Bangladesh got 1,033 cusecs of water at Teesta barrage point against
its normal requirements of 10,000 cusecs of water. After JRC meeting in 2000 the water
flow rose to 4,530 cusecs, in January 2001 it reduced to 1,406 cusecs, in January 2002 to
1,000 cusecs, in January 2003 to 1,100 cusecs, in November 2006 to 950 cusecs, in
January 2007 to 525 cusecs and in January 2008 to 1,500 cusecs.


India’s behaviour mimics those of Israel in dishonouring every treaty that the rogue state
had signed with the Palestinian Authority. Should not it be ashamed of its iniquity?


Let’s now look at the disastrous effect of the Farakka Barrage on Bangladesh. The
immediate effects have been (1) reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water
for irrigation; (2) reduction in aquatic population; (3) river transportation problems during
dry season; (4) increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and
industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh. The long-term effects, which are already being
felt, include: (a) one fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a
shortage of water; (b) 30 million lives are affected through environmental and economical
ruin; (c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural,
fisheries, navigation and industries; (d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance
and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges. A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80
rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the
Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.


Bridge and Husain, researchers in Kansas, USA, have identified Farakka as the root cause
behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India.



As to its impact in India, the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People report
(November 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, ‘Farakka
Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of
Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on
its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and
increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large
areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes
with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperisation and marginalisation of the rural communities
living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.’ 


So, it is clear that even the supposed beneficiary – the state of West Bengal – did not
benefit from the project. Farakka Barrage has rightly been termed by some
environmentalists as the greatest man-made eco-disaster of our time. If we had imagined
Farakka was the last of such criminal calamities imposed on Bangladesh, we are wrong.

 Syful Islam mentions a study conducted by the ‘International Rivers’, a US-based NGO
that protects rivers and defends the rights of communities, which revealed that India had
already built 74 dams, Nepal 15, Pakistan 6 and Bhutan 5 in the Himalayan region in the
recent years. It also found that 37 Indian, 7 Pakistani and 2 Nepalese dams were under
construction in that area. The study also identified that India had planned to build 318
dams, Nepal 37, Pakistan 35 and Bhutan 16 to add over 1,50,000MW of additional
electricity capacity in the next 20 years. With 4,300 large dams already constructed and
many more in the pipeline, India is one of the world’s most prolific dam-builders. India is
committed to building more than 100 dams in eight states of the north-east corner alone.



If these numbers are true, it is important that the current government issues a white paper
disclosing actions taken, if any, by past and present governments to stop India from such
projects that are going to be built on international rivers harming Bangladesh.


Let’s now look at Tipaimukh. Manipur needs about 140MW of power to fulfil the unrestricted
demand at the peak hours (1700 hrs to 2200 hrs). The total availability of power from all
the central sector plants located in Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura
comes to around 105MW. The Tipaimukh Dam plan, built on the river Barak, which
bifurcates into two streams as it enters Bangladesh as the rivers Surma and Kushiara, has
been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years. According to the implementing agency,
North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, this 390-metre-long, 163-metre-high dam would
have an installed capacity of 1,500MW. As a multipurpose project, the dam also aims at
flood moderation, improving navigation, irrigation and aquaculture in the region. Efforts
were made in the past to get the World Bank or JBIC (a Japanese development bank) to
back the project, but their involvement is still elusive. It is costing India Rs 6,800 crore —
an escalation from the earlier estimated expenditure of Rs 5,163 crore. The foundation
stone of the Tipaimukh project was laid by India’s union minister for industries and Cachar’s
representative in the Lok Sabha, Sontosh Mohan Dev, along with other central ministers, on
December 16, 2006. According to a NEEPCO source there, the work in January of 2007
mainly dealt with underground drilling at the reservoir site of the project. The Brahmaputra
Board, a wing of the union water resources ministry, drilled those sites in 1997. 


The proposed dam is unpopular in the Manipur state where it is being constructed. Experts
there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions. The Indian
government’s decision to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in north-east India is not only
arrogant but also criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire
region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east
corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become
internally displaced and thereby worsening Bangladesh’s overall economy. It will harm
bilateral relationship between the two neighbouring countries. Bangladeshi people have
already suffered miserably from the Farakka Barrage and cannot afford to see another one
built to threaten them.


Our experience in the past 50 years has also taught us that humanity has brought more
harm than good by challenging the natural course of rivers. Manmade systems like
hydroelectric dams have failed to wipe out famine and hunger. More people have become
poor than rich, which often time is concentrated amongst the very few that are involved
with construction project. As Arundhati Roy has once said about dams, ‘They’re a
guaranteed way of taking a farmer’s wisdom away from him. They’re a brazen means of
taking water, land and irrigation away from the poor and gifting it to the rich. Their
reservoirs displace huge populations of people, leaving them homeless and destitute.
Ecologically, they’re in the doghouse. They lay the earth to waste. They cause floods, water-
logging, salinity, they spread disease. There is mounting evidence that links Big Dams to
earthquakes.’


What really concerned this writer the most is the stupidity of the Indian government’s
decision to go ahead with hydroelectric dams to meet its electric demand. This decision
seems too short-sighted, too irresponsible, and can only antagonise people on either sides
of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner it
would better serve the interest of its people by choosing the nuclear alternative. India has
several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable
that it cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet
its energy demand. 

Again, I want to know: what did the previous administrations in Bangladesh do about this
dam? How is the new government planning to deal with this issue? What can conscientious
human beings of our planet do to stop India from building dams that kill people? 


As hinted earlier, the very people targeted for drawing the benefits of the Tipaimukh dam
living in the Manipur State had long been fighting a losing battle to stop this project. It is
highly unlikely that demonstrations and protests inside Bangladesh would push India to
abandon the project now, especially after spending hundreds of crores of rupees in front
end loading activities. 


While we are critical of Indian government’s decision to construct dams that produce
devastating results affecting tens of millions of people, we have to be self-critical of our own
failure to bring world attention to the gargantuan harm that India’s Farakka has already
brought upon Bangladesh. If we had succeeded in that endeavour, India today wouldn’t be
building the Tipaimukh dam. Whether we like it or not, we must realise that self-interest
rules the day. In our world, there are no permanent friends or enemies. We are
continuously reminded that what is permanent is self-interest and that has to be pursued
vigorously. That says a lot about moral bankruptcy of a world that we live in and share with
our neighbours in which might is increasingly becoming right, and the powerless has no
effective means to fight against powerful enemies and nations that prey upon them. 


At this stage, what actions and programmes are meaningful for Bangladesh? Can India be
persuaded to abandon dam projects on international rivers in favour of alternative options
for energy need? Given India’s long history of dishonouring its agreements on Farakka with
Bangladesh, can it be trusted for keeping any new promise? Are the UN and/or the ICJ only
options Bangladesh has to redress its grievances? 


*Dr Habib Siddiqui is a peace and human rights activist, and chairman of the Board
of Directors of Bangladesh Expatriate Council, USA. He writes from Pennsylvania.
saeva@aol.com

Tipaimukh Dam is a future Hydroelectric project based in Manipur, India. The

project has sparked controversy as the dam is to be built 100km off the Bangladesh border.

Technical Features

The dam will be 390m long and 162.8m high, across the Barak River, 500 m. downstream
of the confluence of the Tuivai and the Barak on the Manipur-Mizoram border. The dam will
be at an altitude of about 180 m. above mean sea level with a maximum reservoir level of
178 m. The dam was originally designed to contain flood waters in the lower Barak valley
but hydro power generation was later incorporated into the project. The project will have an
installation capacity of 1500 MW and a firm generation of 412 MW. The dam will
permanently submerge an area of 275.50 square kilometres.
Controversy

Majority Bangladeshis are in anticipated fear of the probable damage that may be created if
the dam is launched.Though the current party in power, the Awami League is remarkably
friendly towards India, but there is a growing sentiment against the dam in Bangladesh.

India finalises construction of Tipaimukh Dam:

Adverse impact feared on Bangladesh environment,
ecology

National Awami Party (NAP) formed a human chain at the Muktangan area in the city on
Saturday demanding stoppage of the construction work of Tipaimukh Dam by India. Banglar
Chokh

Ehsanul Haque Jasim

The Indian government already has completed all preparations to construct Tipaimukh dam
on Borak River just a kilometer north of Zakigonj in Sylhet.

The construction work was postponed in March 2007 in the face of protests from different
quarters of their own country and outside of India.

Now the Tipaimukh dam project already been verified by the environment ministry of India.
The central government of India has taken new programme to implement the project.

According to the source, the design of the project has been completed. The government of
Mizoram State has got approval from the central government to construct Tipaimukh dam
spending 5,163.86 crore Indian Rupi cash.
At first, the people of the Mizoram State formed strong movement against the dam
construction. But the Indian government was able to convince the people of the state to
avoid the movement on Tipaimukh Dam.

After that, the Indian government wants to convince Bangladesh for shunning the restriction
from Bangladesh to construct the dam and for this reason the Foreign Minister of India Shib
Shankar Menon recently visited Bangladesh.

During the visit he met with Foreign Minister of the country Dr Dipu Moni, her deputy Hasan
Mahmud and others concerned.

He discussed about the dam and proposed some facilities from India for Bangladesh if the
government of Bangladesh agrees to accept the project of Tipaimukh dam. India is ready to
give some facilities to Bangladesh including supplying electricity.

He told that Bangladesh should send a delegation comprising technical and political people
to witness the project.

The optimism of the Indian government is that they will be able to convince Bangladesh.

The proposed Tipaimukh dam is to be located 500 metres downstream from the confluence
of Barak River, and lies on the south-western corner of Manipur State.

Bangladesh gets 7 to 8 percent of its total water from the Barak in India’s north-eastern
states. Millions of people are dependent on hundreds of water bodies, fed by the Barak, in
the Sylhet region for fishing and agricultural activities.

The environmentalists expressed deep concern if the project is implemented it could deprive
Bangladesh of its share of the international river that supplies waters to hundreds of water
bodies in the region. They fear that the dam would ultimately dry up the Meghna River in
the greater Sylhet region and nearely districts.

The dam will kill all common rivers of the country particularly the Meghna River, the biggest
river of the country.

The construction of the dam when completed in 2012 would bring about a major disaster for
Bangladesh, virtually drying up the Surma and the Kushiara rivers in winter season, which
water most of the north-eastern regions of Bangladesh.

The Tipaimukh dam would seriously affect not only agriculture, particularly in winter, but is
also going to bring about negative ecological and environmental changes in vast areas in
both Bangladesh and India.

Among the common rivers, the most rivers affected by Indian barrages and their networks
of canals, reservoirs and irrigation schemes are the Ganges, the Meghna and the Teesta.

Although India and Bangladesh have water-sharing agreement for the Ganges, there are
none for the other 53 common rivers. With the Tipaimukh dam now underway, India would
be diverting river waters from its north to its south and east, thereby putting Bangladesh
under serious stress.
The environmentalists in Bangladesh have held many talks on the adverse impact of the
proposed dam. They say the dam would dry up the river and the water bodies in the
downstream, leaving millions jobless.

It may be mentioned that Water Resource Ministry knows nothing in advance about the
construction of the dam and the Minister is also unaware of the dam.

There is no information in the ministry about the dam except for some cutting of
newspapers.

The Dam at Kaptaimukh in Bangladesh: Proposed

Extension Plan and Issues of (non-) compliance

[Presented to the Dams and Development Project (DDP) workshop “Addressing Existing Dams”, June 14-16, 2004,
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya]

zakir kibria
Executive Director, BanglaPraxis
Dhaka, Bangladesh
E-mail: banglapraxis@gmail.com

“At the same time importance of power generation should not be surrendered. Thus a compromise formula has
been evolved and a modified Rule Curve has been developed...”

Bangladesh Power Development Board

Introduction:
The dam at Kaptaimukh1, known as Kaptai dam on the River Karnafuli in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
(CHT) is the only hydro-electric power project in Bangladesh. This earth filled dam, constructed
without consultation with the local indigenous communities, displaced more than 100, 000 people.
Very few of them got compensation. Many of them had to migrate to neighboring country India where
they have been living a miserable life. It has become a symbol of hegemonic majority Bangali
community’s unjust and racist policy towards indigenous community of the country. A proposed plan
to install two new generators has raised new fear. This paper will briefly discuss the history of human
and environmental disaster caused by the dam, it will also raise questions and issues of no-compliance
in the new plan.

A brief history of Kaptai dam:

The construction of the Kaptai dam and Karnafuli Multipurpose project started in 1957 with export
credit assistance administered by USAID to then Pakistan. The Kaptai dam was supposed to provide
‘benefits’ in terms of hydropower, flood control, irrigation and drainage and navigation. It was
commissioned in 1962. The Dam initially had two hydropower units with a total capacity of 80 MW.
Currently, the dam has five units with a total capacity of 230 MW and it produces approximately 5% of
the electricity in Bangladesh. See the table bellow for the basic feature of the dam.

1
The village where the dam is situated was originally known as Kaptaimukh (Kharat, 2003).
Table 1. Basic features of the Kaptai dam

Feature Size/type
Body of the Dam Earth
Length 670.6 m
Height 45.7 m
Crest width 7.6 m
Maximum water level 33. 5 [110 feet above mean sea level (MSL)]
Minimum water level 20.1 m (66 feet MSL)
Capacity 33 m MSL 6477 10 6 m3
Reservoir at 33 m MSL 777 km2
Spillway length 227 m
Maximum spillway discharge 16 000 cumecs
Installed capacity (five units) 230 MW

Bara Parang or the Great Exodus

The dam flooded an area of 655 square km (Faisal & Pervin, 2002), inundating 22 000 ha of cultivable
land which was 40% of all such land in the CHT. The reservoir submerged 18 000 house and displaced
100 000 indigenous people, 70% of which were Chakma (Faisal & Pervin, 2002). The dam also
submerged the Rangamati town2 and the palace of the Chakma Raja (king). There was no systematic
rehabilitation plan for this large group of people, almost 25% of the local population. According to the
official document, the majority of the displaced people were rehabilitated on the upper reaches of the
rivers Kasalong and Chengi during the early phases of the project. But the reality is that the displaced
people, “environmental refugees” in development discourses, moved to the low-lying areas of Langdu,
Barkal and Bhaghaichari as per the advice of the officials. Later this area had gone under water by
1962 as the reservoir gradually filled up, causing most to be displaced for the second time.

Most of the displaced people had left the country, according to some estimate that 40 000 of them
went to the Indian states of Mizorum, Tripura, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Another 20 000 may
have gone to Burma (Samad, 1998). The Chakma people call this event Bara Parang or the Great
Exodus (Chakma et al.). There were systematic attempts by All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union
(AAPSU) of Arunachal Pradesh in India to drive out the Kaptai displaced people settled in Arunachal
Pradesh. Despite the Indian Supreme Court directives against the drive (Chimni, 2000).

Issues of non compliance in the past

The dam was constructed without any consultation with local indigenous comminutes. There was no
informed prior consent from the communities. The issues of resettlement of the displaced were done
in an abominable way. The Pakistan government and donor agency USAID did not paid adequate
attention to understand the culture and lifestyle of the indigenous communities. The authority wrongly
assumed that local indigenous communities were “nomadic” hill people practicing jhum (slash and
burn) cultivation and it was unnecessary to design a permanent resettlement program for them.
Though the indigenous people did move from hill to hill but they had a long cycle of jhum cultivation.
Before the submergence of the area by the reservoir, the average cycle of jhum cultivation was 7-10
years, in some cases 10-15 years. After the inundation of the river valleys, which took away 40% of
the fertile land, this cycle was shortened to 3-5 years as thousands of people, who used to grow rice,
were forced to take back jhum cultivation.

This lack of understanding of local indigenous culture contributed non-compensation. The dam project
did not have any adequate budgetary provision for resettlement. Initially, some compensation was
paid for the loss of land, trees and structures, most of which never reached the people.

Biodiversity loss due to the reservoir

The reservoir created by the dam has submerged a vast area of vegetation with rich biodiversity. The
reservoir has been home to a number marine species. Highlighted here will be one of them. Locally
know Shushuk, Platanista gangetica, or the dolphin is an endangered species according to IUCN

2
There is another Rangamati town now in CHT, but the original one was submerged by the Kaptai reservoir.
(IUCN, 1996). These dolphins have been reported from Kaptai reservoir (Ahmed et al. 2001). In a
recently conducted survey no dolphins were observed. This is a matter of concern. The reservoir has
been gathering silt. There has been no known study to assess the loss of biodiversity and degradation
of the reservoir.

The proposed extension plan

The Bangladesh Power Development Board (PDB) has recently announced a plan to install two new
hydropower units, 50 MW each, in the dam. These unites are to be installed with financial assistance
from Japan Bank of Investment Corporation (JBIC), in the form of a 30-year soft loan. According to
the PDB officials, these new units will be operated using the excess water that is released through the
spillway. And they can do it using the current rule curve. It has to be maintained that the current rule
curve was last revised in 1981 before installing the third unit and the rule curve needs updating.

However, there are doubts as to whether the reservoir level can be maintained at the current level.
The economic analysis done by the consulting agency, the Tokyo Electric Power Services Company
(TEPSCO), indicated that the project internal rate of return (IRR) is most favorable if the lowest
reservoir level is kept at 96 feet MSL (mean sea level). This will cause permanent flooding of about
7500 ha of fringe land. The indigenous comminutes of the Kaptai area, justifiably based on their long
and bitter experiences with authorities in the past, are apprehensive about the possibility of losing
their income from the fringe land should the water level exceeds the 90 feet MSL limit. This issue has
already been raised in various forums including JBIC.

In another official report, a social impact assessment study for the Kaptai hydroelectric plant
extension project, it is said that, “...importance of power generation should not be surrendered. Thus
a compromise formula has been evolved and a modified rule curve has been developed...”. They
propose a new rule curve at 88 t0 90 feet MSL during the period from March to July. According to the
report, the new rule curve has been designed in consideration of the “equilibrium between power
generation and crop cultivation”. Probably without surrendering the importance of power generation?
In the social impact assessment study a rather vague attempt was made to gather people’s
participation. The complicated rule curve was presented to groups of people who were hearing it for
the first time. There is no explanation in the report how these groups of people were gathered. There
was serous gender imbalance in the composition in the groups. Women’s participation were ensured
with women categorized in the report as “destitute women”, whatever that means. Indigenous
comminutes and their political parties have been raising concern about this new extension plan.

The issues of compliance

1. There has to be complete resettlement and compensation to the people displaced by the dam.
2. There is committee to operate the reservoir. It is called Reservoir Operation Committee (ROC).
Astonishingly, this ROC has not been able to meet even for once since the commissioning of the
dam in 1962! The ROC has to be made functional with meaningful participation and representation
from the indigenous communities.
3. There should be no extension without prior informed consent of the community.

References:

2003, Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB), Completion (Final) Report, Consulting Services for Social
Impact Assessment (SIA) Study for Kaptai Hydroelectric Power Plant Extension Project (6th and 7th). Unpublished
report.

2003, Kharat, Dr. Rajesh S. “From internal Displacement to Refugees: The trauma of Chakmas in Bangladesh”, a
research paper presented at Trondheim, Norway.

2002, Faisal, I. M. & Parveen, Saila. “People versus Power: The Geopolitics of Kaptai Dam in Bangladesh”, in Water
Resources Development, Vol. 18, No. 1, P. 197-208, Carfax Publishing.

2001, Ahmed, Benazir, Ali, Muhammad Edrise, Braulik, Gill & Smith, Brian D. “ Status of the Ganges river dolphin
or shushuk Platanista gangetica in Kaptai Lake and the southern rivers of Bangladesh" in Oryx, Vol. 35, No. 1,
January. P. 61-72.
2000, Chimni, B. S. (ed), International Refugee Law: A Reader, Sage Publishing, New Delhi, India.

1995, Chakma, H., Chakma, T., Dewan, P. & Ullah, M. Bara Parang: The tale of the Development Refugees of the
Chittagong Hill Tracts, Centre for Sustainable Development (CFSD). Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Tipaimukh Dam FAQ : Effects and Politics

June 8, 2009 — Diganta

Of late I have been reading about Tipaimukh dam and a lot more about dams themselves. I
have gathered a lot of information about that dam in particular. I would like to share it with
the readers. If anyone is afraid of reading the whole article, he/she can get a short form of
the same from a Bangladesh expert – published in 2006 in the Daily Star.

Where is Tipaimukh Dam located?

Tipaimukh is located at South-Western Manipur bordering Mizoram. Most of the people

living here are actually of minority Hmar tribe. The proposed Tipaimukh dam is to be located
500 meters downstream from the confluence of Barak and Tuivai rivers. It is a huge earth
dam (rock-fill) having an altitude of about 180 M above the sea-level with a average
reservoir capacity of 15.5 BCM.

What is the technical purpose of the dam?

The Flood prone areas in East India

There are a couple of basic purposes – flood control and hydropower generation. It has
been projected as a hydropower dam because of political purposes. Most of the inundation
is in Manipur and Mizoram states, whereas it would moderate floods in lower Assam. To
ensure fare share of benefits to those two states, hydropower generation is also taken into
account. The states in North-East are having severe power shortage over years (peak
shortage upto 25% in Arunachal). Once Arunachal starts producing hydroelectricity from
giant Subansiri projects, the North-East India will become energy sufficient. On the other
hand, there are no alternative to dams for flood-control of a rainfed river. Incidentally, both
flood-control and hydropower generation reservoirs work in similar way – they retain water
during Monsoon and release more during lean season, i.e. reservoir is filled up during rainy
season and used up in dry season.

The Barak valley, consisting of three of the forty highly flood prone districts in India, goes
under water three to four times (2002, 2004, 2007) in a decade. In 1995, plan for flood
control Dam in Tipaimukh and reactions in Bangladesh were reported. Very often Barak
flood is more devastating than that of Brahamaputra. A detailed assesment (2007 flood
report) of floods in Assam can be found here. It has long been alleged that North-East has
been neglected in terms of development and lack of flood control is one of the evidences.

The Tipaimukh dam is planned to produce 450MW in lean season and 1500MW in peak. All
three states would have 12% share of the electricity and rest would go to the North East
grid.

What are the objections to this dam in Indian side?

1. Displacement of people especially of vulnerable minorities

2. Vast forestland to be inundated along with the biodiversity

3. Dams are not fruitful solution to any problems

4. Possible earthquake could have devastating effect

What are the objections to this dam in Bangladesh?

1. Possible river drying and devastation of wetland (Haor)

2. Possible flood in summer/winter in lowlands causing damage to agriculture

Are Dams bad?

Shasta Dam, California

There is a widespread belief in India that dams are useful. On the other hand, the World
Commission on Dams report on Indian dams has shown that they do more harm than help.

The report has a lot of loopholes in it. While reading, I saw it projects loss of Government
(for example – tax on irrigated land did not produce as much revenue as projected) after
building the dam as one of the key factors. However, in India, these are calculated as
subsidies, i.e., where Government pays on behalf of its citizens. Also, it undermines the
food security that has been obtained through irrigated land. It categorizes the agricultural
land in two major divisions – rain-fed and irrigated. It shows that irrigated land has little
contribution (~20%) to overall growth production. I don’t know how they classify land in
West Bengal, where most of the agricultural land uses rainwater in in rainy season and
irrigation in winter.

The Central Water Commission report praises dam-oriented water planning and plans for
building more dam to hold onto monsoon water in big reservoirs. The purpose is to reuse
the precious freshwater resource in dry season and moderate flood in rainy season.
Both of these reports fail to discuss in length the alternative of dams for these purposes and
a comparative analysis of dams vs other methods of achieving the benefits. Hence, the
entire policy calls for a widespread survey and comparative analysis.

One example of the above set of suggestion is to replace dam based hydroelectricity with a
“run-of-the-river” type project. The former does not require a dam to hold water and
depends on natural river-current. The problem with that in India is very low flow in the lean
season and virtually no water flows through them during that period. The former projects
are only feasible to work during rainy season and not over the year.

For flood control, the alternative proposal is to dredge the river and maintain the depth.
While the dredging itself is a costly affair, this could also add to the lower riparian problems.
If river channels are deep in India, the lower riparian Bangladesh would face the floodwater
since the river needs land to dissipate its additional water. It’s the see-saw climate in India
that makes the dams viable, not in other countries.

There are reports that advanced nations are not interested anymore in building dams. This
is actually true. But this does not necessarily be replicated by India. Most of those advanced
nations also have abundant resources. By resources I do not only indicate alternative
sources of energy and water, but also per capita land availability and skills required to
effectively utilize these. India gets only 1800 cubic meter water per person per year. India
has already over 4000 large dams. The only comparable country with similar resources is
China, who has built 22,000 of them. At the same time, there is a significant decrease in
dam building efforts in India. Between 1971 and 1990, the number of large dams
constructed was 2256 and the same after 1990 is only 695. Nowadays, the dams are built
only if there is a compulsion for it.

Does the Dam reduce water flow in the river?

Not necessarily. If the dam also have one or more reservoirs attached to it and they actually
hold the excess water during rainy season and release them in the dry season, then the
dams don’t actually change the total water released.

A picture taken when the dam is not releasing water can be daunting to the lower riparian
and is a material of propaganda. The picture of the Shasta Dam, California shows the case.
Although this dam augments lean season flow, the picture projects it as a “take all” dam.

One proposal from Bangladesh (when Farakka was being built) was to add a reservoir dam
in Nepal to augment the flow of Ganges during the lean season. It would generate electricity
also. Water experts from Bangladesh are still in the view that it is the best possible solution
for problems in lower Ganges in dry season. If dams were such that they always reduce
water flow, they would not have proposed it.
What’s the possibility that Tipaimukh would end up drying the Surma-Kushiyara
rivers?

A Typical Flood Control Dam outflow graph

It’s highly unlikely. The dam can be used in its full potential without withdrawing any river
water. A dam with a reservoir actually augments the flow of a river during dry season, while
it withdraws the same during rainy season. One typical flood control dam outflow graph is
shown in the picture.

Also, to consider Hydropower generation, a limited discharge has to be there during lean
season also. This discharge will add to the flow and increase lean season flow.

Is there any other dam in nearby region that achieves similar goals?

Inflow Outflow graph for Karnaphuli

Yes, the Kaptai dam (Bangladesh) on Karnaphuli achieves the similar goals with a much
larger reservoir. It controls flood, generates hydropower and increases navigability in
downstream Chittagong port. The Karnaphuli river is also a rainfed river and has high
seasonal variation in discharge. A reservoir with a dam was able to moderate and coltrol its
flow. It is interesting to note that this dam did not “dry up” the downstream flow at all,
rather it augmented the flow during the lean season and buffered the additional flow during
the rainy season.The picture shows the inflow (blue pillars in the graph) to Kaptai lake (the
reservoir) and outflow (maroon pillars in the graph) from the dam . The inflow amount
would have been the same as the outflow, had there been no Kaptai dam. In the second
picture, one can see how the total volume of water in the river basin has been augmented
using a reservoir. It shows the Karnaphuli river before and after the dam has been erected
and the area inundated to create space for reservoir water.

Another river in context can be discussed since it has also been planned to moderate floods.
It’s the Damodar river in West Bengal. It used to be the “sorrow of Bengal” in pre-
Independence Bengal but was controlled successfully after DVC project with a series of
dams and barrages. There are many periods in several years when the reservoir acted as a
cushion and prevented catastrophic floods downstream.

The picture below shows the reservoir filling pattern in one of DVC’s storage facility named
Maithon. Kaptai and Tipaimukh should follow similar patterns to fillup reservior. From
October to May the reservoir releases more water than it receives, hence the reservoir
water volume goes down. The rest of the period, the reservoir gets filled in.

Maithon reservoir filling strategy

Why is there such a huge difference between lean season and rainy season flow?

Cherapunji rainfall variation by month

The Barak river basin region receives a lot of rainfall. The highest rainfall area – Cherapunji
– is located nearby. However, virtually all of these rain comes during three months of rainy
season due to Monsoon. The picture shows monthly variation of rainfall in Cherapunji. The
flow in these rivers, apart from a small component of water resulted from glaciers, is from
monsoon rain. Hence, in the rainy season the rivers exceed the capacity of the channel and
overflow. In the lean season (summer and winter), the same river is barely seen. It is
estimated that the contribution of glaciers in Himalayan rivers is mere 5%. The rest is rain
water.

What could be the effect of Fulertal barrage 100 km downstream?

A barrage can be thought as a tool of diverting water. In this case, water could be diverted
to irrigate the Barak valley farmlands. This could be done during the lean season when the
river flow is augmented, i.e., we have more water than we used to have. This would make
good use of the additional flow coming out of the reservoir.

However, the amount of water to be withdrawn at the barrage site, is the key criteria
whether it would harm the downstream. If it takes away the augmented portion of the lean
season flow – it should not cause any issue. If it takes more, damages are done.

At this point we can do a reality check on how much water can be withdrawn for irrigation.
We need to remember that irrigation is not for inundating the landscape, but for effective
use of additional water during dry season. Hence, there is an optimal limit of how much
water can be withdrawn of a river. The area under cultivation in Barak valley is 220,000
Hectares (in 1992-93). I found that Sudan has similar area under irrigation and uses 1.6
BCM of water per year from river Nile. Although, Barak valley is not as arid as Sudan is, we
can assume at most similar amount of water will be withdrawn from the river. At the same
time, the river water volume would be augmented by 15.5 BCM, of which at least 10 BCM
would be live storage water. So, even after withdrawal for Barak valley irrigation, the flow
downstream would be higher in dry season.
There is a widely held belief among lower riparian states that any amount of water could be
diverted from the river upstream. This is not true. The amount of water diverted from a
barrage is proportional to the Population (drinking and sanitary needs) and agricultural land
available in the river basin. In this case, neither of these two are large enough to take even
the water volume augmented by the reservoir.

Why Farakka causes damages downstream, where this barrage should not cause
similar harm?

Farakka does not have any reservoir upstream to augment its lean season flow. So, it’s
merely the same amount of water that comes to farakka which is then diverted to the
feeder canals. This results in reduced flow downstream.

As i mentioned earlier, one of the proposals from Bangladesh side when Farakka was being
built, was to add a reservior dam in Nepal to augment the flow of Ganges during the lean
season. The World Bank was ready to fund the project. It did not happen because India
stuck to its position to augment flows from Brahamaputra basin. Interestingly, I read that
India has of late initiated works on what Bangladesh had proposed. Had this been done a
little earlier, Bangladesh would not probably been hurt so much.

In case of this (Fulertal) barrage, the flow is augmented in the lean season. Hence it should
not reduce the downstream flow in Surma and Kushiyara. Of course, there should not be
any desertification with full potential dam and barrage as I argued in the previous section.
The irrigation potential can be fully utilized without harming the lower riparian.

Another aspect of Farakka makes it different from Tipaimukh. The water diverted in Farakka
is sent to the Bay of Bengal through a separate channel (Bhagirathi-Hugli). However, the
flow of Barak can not be diverted in similar fashion to any of other areas – it has to come
downstream. Apart from that small amount of water taken for irrigation of 220,000 Ha of
land, the rest is virtually non-consumptive use, i.e. it would be passed downstream. The
Tipaimukh dam would only change the temporal distribution of river flow.

What’s the possibility that an Earthquake would cause the dam to collapse or at
least create a few cracks in it?

Damage due to earthquake cannot be ruled out though the possibility is remote. In case
there is a really high intensity earthquake, it could cause the dam to have cracks. I believe
Indian designers would take necessary steps to prevent any damage to the dam since it is
known to be located on a geo-tectonic faultline. A basic text literature on dams says -

“If the dam site is located in a seismic zone, the most suitable type of the dam is one which
can resist the earthquake shock without much damage. Earth dams and rockfill dams are
generally more suitable for such sites, provided suitable modifications are made in the
design. However, by adopting suitable measures and considering various forces and factors
affecting the seismic design, other types of dams can also be provided.”

To add to the above literature, the Tipaimukh dam is indeed a rock-fill dam to mitigate the
risk of a possible earthquake.
I would also like to add here that Japan has more than 2000 dams even though the whole
of Japan is Earthquake prone. There were many earthquakes in Japan for last 100 years and
no news of dam failures due to earthquake yet. Last 150 years of history did not record any
incident of dam failure anywhere in the world due to an earthquake. In these days, building
an earthquake safe dam is merely a choice of technology.

How the 15.5 BCM capacity of the reservoir would be filled up and what would be
its consequence?

The first time it would be filled up from the empty position. Hence, it would require 15.5
BCM of water. Most likely, it would be filled up over a few years depending on flow during
the rainy season. However, till the fill up is completed, the downstream flow will be lower.
Dam fill up is generally done during high flow so that the effect is moderated downstream.

It also needs to be mentioned that reservoir fill up is a one time process. This would have
no effect over long term yearly flow of the river. Some of the experts projected that 15.5
BCM of reservoir would cause 491 cumec (which is equivalent of 15.5 BCM per year)
reduced flow downstream. This is not true. The dam is filled up only once and the water is
used dynamically to fill up in rainy season and to release in dry season (look at Maithon
reservoir graph and Karnaphuli inflow-outflow statistics).

Recently there was a contention between India and Pakistan regarding this first time fill up
of the reservoir.

How would this affect the ecological balance of the region?

Dams, like all other man-made infrastructures, are actually disasters for ecological balance
of a region. When a dam creates it’s own rule of ecology, the existing one is demolished. A
brief overview of how Dams cause damage to ecological balance can be found here.

In this particular case, there are a couple of major ecological balance shifting. In India, this
could potentially cause destruction of a vast forestland. In Bangladesh, it could potentially
damage a vast natural wetland, known as Haor. Although, the extent of the damage to the
Haors could not be measured at this point, the damage due to inundation is obvious.

I need to add a point on ecological balance in general. Shift in ecological balance does not
always mean a problem in short term. It causes problem in the long term. Any flood
moderation structure would cause damage to ecology – be they embankments or dams – as
floods are part of ecological balance. There are two options – the first is to allow people to
live with the floods and cause no damage to the ecology. The second is to establish a flood
moderation embankment and damage the ecology for the long term. In this part of the
world, building a flood moderation structure is more popular because of high population
density in the floodplains. The problems of flood affected people generally exceeds by far
the concern of damaging the ecology even in the long term. People assume that by that
time, they would probably have sufficient technology to counter the backlash of Nature.
Also, the democratic society creates pressure on the Administration to act proactively
towards moderation of human problems. If humans are illiterate and unaware of long term
damages, the short term solutions get political preference.
Of late, there are a lot of proposals floating against traditional flood moderation structures
like river training, embankments and dams. However, the alternatives floated with those
arguments are not significantly different than the structures they argue against and the
alternatives do actually retain a lot of problems those are created by current structures.
Although the alternatives are claimed to be more sustainable in Nature, a complete
feasibility study along with their long term effects are yet to be observed, i.e. they are not
yet tested to be sustainable, only claimed to be sustainable.

What are the Haors and how they are going to be damaged by this project?

A haor is a wetland ecosystem in the north eastern part of Bangladesh which physically is a
bowl or saucer shaped shallow depression, also known as a swamp. It receives surface
runoff water by rivers and channels. Consequently, a haor becomes very extensive water
body in the monsoon and dries up mostly in the post-monsoon period. The haor basin is an
internationally important wetland ecosystem, which is situated in Sunamganj, Habiganj and
Moulvibazar districts and Sylhet Sadar Upazila, as well as Kishoreganj and Netrokona
districts.

During the rainy season, haors turn into a vast inland sea within which the villages appear
as islands. Occasional high winds during July to September generate large waves in the
haor, which may cause considerable damage to homesteads. During the dry season, most of
the water drains out leaving one or more shallow beels which become mostly overgrown
with aquatic vegetation or completely dry out by the end of dry season exposing rich alluvial
soils extensively cultivated for rice. As population increased in Bangladesh, boro (a rice
variety) cultivation expanded onto these haors, leading to a large area being drained. Thus,
the very existences of these wetlands are now threatened.

As the dry season flow would increase and rainy season flow decrease due to the dam –
these wetlands would be impacted. The amount of inundation during the rainy season would
reduce the water-logging of villages. At the same time, during boro cultivation, less water
would be drained out, i.e. less land would be reclaimed to start cultivation. So, there are
both threats and opportunities with the new seasonal variation of flow. A lot has been said
on effect of Tipaimukh on haors. It is argued that the change in flow would eventually cause
haors to dry up. I do see a possibility of haors getting dried up but not as a result of change
in flow variation. The haors are already drying up as more and more population is trying to
reclaim them. A couple of reading on this topic can make my point clear.
 Bird's eye view of Haor Basin

A brief look at where the Government of Bangladesh priorities are throws some different
aspects of haors. As per the Daily Star, Govt has started a massive flood control measure in
Sylhet. This includes raising embankments and creating irrigation channels to divert water
from the river flow. These would also do the same with the haors, reduce the inundated
area dry up haors as flood water would not be allowed to enter those. The long term flood
action plan (FAP) of Bangladesh clearly mentions eleven goals of flood moderation. The
clause (7) says -

“Reduction of flood flows in the major rivers by diversion into major distributaries and flood
relief channels; “

However, this goal also would have adverse effect on haors since river diversion implies less
water for wetlands.

Tipaimukh dam would do the same that Government of Bangladesh already planned for – it
would damage the current water cycle of haors. Haors are replenished by the floods and any
effort to moderate the flood would cause the same – be it is done in India or in Bangladesh.
The choice between “letting people to live with the floods” and “saving haors” – is open to
individual personal views. It’s a choice with threats and opportunities.

Are there any other effects of the Dam?

Like the haors in Bangladesh, a lot of small wetlands exist in Barak valley also. Once the
flood moderation kicks in, those would also probably dry up due to lack of replenishment.
The valley would become dependent on irrigation water during dry season. Since the
irrigation water is more regular – it would actually improve the consistency of cultivation in
that area.
Similarly, Bangladesh plan for flood moderation and river diversion can also utilize the
augmented flow in dry season. But a lot of these benefits would actually depend on how
efficient the irrigation planning would be.

On the other hand, a lot of sediments carried by the river would now get deposited under
the reservoir. The same would have been deposited to the haors and added fertility to the
land, had there been no dams present. At the same time, less sediment would mean better
navigability of the river.

How does this case goes as per International Water Laws?

Neither India nor Bangladesh is a signatory of any of the International Water Laws (Such as
Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses and
Berlin Rules). However, neither of these are very specific laws – these are just framework of
cooperation.

As I discussed in details in my earlier post, the equitable share of benefits can be claimed
by any of the river basin countries. The obligation not to cause significant harm is a “best
effort” clause and to achieve flood control a minimum extent of harm is justifiable. About
the equitable distribution of the benefits, I am optimistic. Once the North-East India
produces surplus electricity, a fair share of that can be exported to Bangladesh at a reduced
price. For the time being, the barrage at Fulertal could divert some of the water to irrigate
in Bangladesh, as suggested by B. G. Verghese (Member of Center for Policy Research) in
his presentation to World Bank. He also noted -

“Indeed, Tipaimukh was the first flood moderation study suggested by Bangladesh when the
Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission was established in 1972.”

In this context, I need to mention that lower riparian does not have a veto power over a
river development project upstream even if it harms them. For example, only 25% of
Nepalese population has access to electricity. A huge population of Nepal is displaced every
year due to floods. If Nepal plans to add 10,000 MW of electricity and want to achieve flood
control in its rivers – the lower riparian India and Bangladesh cannot object without a
mention of less harmful alternatives.

The project at Tipaimukh is still waiting for clearance from the state of Mizoram (Official
status). Once that happens, I hope we would see the planners and designers would publish
detailed data on the site and will not violate the obligation to exchange information. (update
– Data exchange on June 19th)
How are the protests in India?

Protest in Manipur against Tipaimukh

In India, protests are taking place mostly in Manipur and Mizoram, where most of the
displacement would take place. Despite the promise of 12% free electricity, a lot of people
stood against the dam. I saw a lot of newspaper editorials, blogs and pictures of protest
from Manipur and Mizoram. However, the issue had little impact on the 2009 Indian Election
as the ruling parties won again in both of these states. The Govt of Manipur has already
picked up 5% stake in the project. I don’t see any reason why Barak valley in Assam is not
happy with it. In fact Barak valley people are strongly in favor of Tipaimukh Dam. The
author from Bangladesh noted that as many as 95% of Barak valley population are in favor
of the dam. In fact when Silchar was under water in 2008, the Institution of Engineers in
Silchar prepared a 13 page document to suggest mechanisms for flood control – Tipaimukh
dam was the main point there too.

I mentioned in my writing that dams do have short term benefits and it seems people are
more interested in those.

Why are there so many protests in Bangladesh against this dam?

I saw protests has basically two categories. The first one is by environmentalists – who
always protest any dam construction as they oppose damage to ecology. These people are
in India as well as in Bangladesh, and their voice is the same. Whereas a lot of Bangladesh
based authors have emphasized on lower riparian effects (such as damages to haors), the
environmentalists based in India mostly have protested the loss of forest and biodiversity.
 Protest in Bangladesh against Tipaimukh

The other section of protest in Bangladesh is alarmist in nature. They project Tipaimukh to
be another Farakka. They also claim that dry season flow would be significantly down after
the Tipaimukh project is completed. These people mostly also attack the current Bangladesh
Govt. for their alleged inaction against the dam as they clearly have political motive. I found
they are similar to one launched by a lot of Pakistanis during Baghlihar dam. Later, it was
cleared by International experts and one major Pakistani newspaper wrote about “Lower
Riparian Alarmism.”. It discusses that any dam in upper-riparian upsets their lower
counterpart with a lot of speculation about the water security. Politics actually latches on
this insecurity.

The ruling party does the opposite. They try to defend the dam by merely saying it would do
good for Bangladesh. That’s another extreme position and it seriously dilutes country’s
ability to bargain a deal. I saw it in Pakistan and Bangladesh is merely repeating the same.
Even a graduate knows that any dam can cause problems downstream. They should get all
the information required and take necessary action downstream to prevent problems caused
by the dam. The internal politics damages every cause of the downstream nation. I am
hopeful that I won’t see it when China would dam Brahmaputra. They should get the data
and take necessary action to build water-store or barrages to hold excess water of
monsoon.

One important aspect of bilateral politics in Bangladesh (and India) is noticeable. The
opposition does not at all own the international treaties, neither it is responsible for any
international relations of Bangladesh. Only the ruling party is the international face of
Bangladesh. For years, Bangladesh has asked for and got loans from ADB and UN for flood
prevention and post-flood disaster recovery. Not only that, Bangladesh has also asked India
to augment the lean season flow for years. After all these, if Bangladesh internationally
disagrees with a plan that would reduce the rainy season flow as well as augment the lean
season flow – it would become an example of double standard. It would weaken their
position to ask for any flood recovery loans from any organization. The current Govt knows
this very well and that is what is keeping them away from taking it to any international
organization. It’s totally untrue that they are less patriotic than their opposition
counterparts are.

I mentioned before that Farakka remains to be one of the major breach of trust by India
against Bangladesh. To add to that, India had claimed Farakka would not cause any damage
to Bangladesh before they started the project. A project targeted at reducing dry season
river-flow by 50% had to damage the lower riparian and that’s exactly what has happened.
To add to that injury, India and Bangladesh did not have a water-sharing treaty between
1982 and 1995. India channelled water unilaterally in this period, reducing the lean season
flow to as low as 10,000 cusec at times. Till date, India failed to initiate any meaningful
measure to the promise it made in Ganges Water Treaty to augment lean season flow in
Ganges. If the affected country refuses to believe the promise by India this time, I don’t
blame them.

These alarmist allegations though, most of the times, carry little fact. A widespread claim of
“desertification” of Western Bangladesh is baseless. The Indian North-East region does
neither have much arable land nor a huge population though it is water-surplus. Bangladesh
can safely assume the water available from western rivers to be constant in lean season and
plan according to them. India doesn’t have any utility of that water until it connects its’
rivers.

Interestingly, The New Nation newspaper in Bangladesh, who has copied my writing, has
copied only the “Damage to ecology” part of my writing. They avoided the other parts –
especially augmentation of lean season flow due to the dam. A careful pick-and-choose is
signature of an alarmist nature and it betrays the true notion of debate based on facts, data
and priority.

Windows are open for future politics too. All rivers in Indian subcontinent have largely
varied flow in different years. I have seen the data for Ganges, where the maximum is more
than three times of that of the minimum flow for a given month between 1934 and 1964.
Surma, one of the affected rivers, recorded lowest flow of just 487 cusecs between 1950
and 1960. If the river flow goes down to that level once more due to natural causes, won’t
these people accuse Tipaimukh? Also, wouldn’t there be an effort to project the drying up
rivers once the first fill up of the reservoir happens?

I do blame Indian Government for not caring for Bangladesh’s woes. They could have done
so much better. They could have modelled the input-output waterflow and predicted the
effect on the environment more accurately. They could have published monthly expected
water flows projected after Tipaimukh completion. They should have promised a minimum
flow during first fill up of reservoir. A farmer in haor basin would have benefitted directly or
indirectly from each of these data. Keeping the data closed to public eye only causes public
suspicion to grow. It is also a breach of International law and in a way refusal to cooperate
with the lower riparian. Last but not the least, we, as citizens of India, want more
transparency in Indian way of development. I am hopeful that India Govt would look into
these issues very soon.
 The Ecology of Dams

Rivers possess a delicate ecology that depends on a regular cycle of disturbance within
certain tolerances. The plant and animal communities that inhabit the river and river
margins have evolved to adapt to their river's own peculiar pattern of flood and drought,
slow and fast current. Dams disrupt this ecology.

There are several types of dams. Check dams prevent flooding of small areas.
Diversion dams divert river water to irrigate crops. Large dams may be built for flood
control or electrical generation, or both. Flood control dams are often earth dams--made
of huge mounds of clay, sand, gravel, and rock--but often made of concrete. Hydroelectric
dams are concrete marvels of engineering. This section will examine mostly the large
dams: flood control and hydroelectric dams.

Interrupting Natural Cycles

The first effect of a dam is to alter the pattern of disturbances that the plants and
animals of a river have evolved for. Many aquatic animals coordinate their reproductive
cycles with annual flood seasons. Every flood is valuable in that it takes nutrients from the
land and deposits them in the river, providing food for the stream's residents. Floods also
provide shallow backwater areas on vegetated and shaded riversides; the young of many
animals depend on these backwaters to protect them from large predators.

As an example, a fish on a certain river may only reproduce during April of every year so
that its offspring will have abundant food and places to hide. If the flood never comes
because a dam holds the river back (because people want the water for themselves), the
offspring may be produced during a time when they cannot possibly survive. If the fish can
wait until the next flood, which may be in July or may be in October, its young will be born
during the wrong time of year, and will have to contend with the absence of their normal
food supply and temperatures for which they are not prepared.

Vegetation, too, depends upon these regular cycles of flood. Quite often, people will
decide that they can spare no water at all and no flooding will occur. Or they may have built
the dams specifically to stop flooding, so they can build houses in the floodplains. When this
happens, riparian vegetation, the vegetation bordering the river, changes forever. An
example of this may be found in much of the Southwest United States, where enormous
floodplains of cottonwood and marsh have been replaced by dry, barren areas of tamarisk
and grass.

Armoring the Riverbed

If the dam is allowed to release water from its reservoir, it will often do so only once in
awhile, rather than in frequent, small floods as are seen in nature. This leads to scouring
and armoring of the riverbed. The higher energy of the sudden floods picks up and
removes smaller sediments like silt, sand, and gravel, as well as aquatic plants and animals,
leafy debris, and large woody debris. Complex sets of habitats are erased. The riverbed
below the dam becomes like a pavement of cobbles and loses its value as habitat for plants,
macroinvertebrates, and fish.

Removing Sediment

Another reason that riverbeds become scoured and armored is that dams remove all the
sediment from the river. It is natural that the river, which is accustomed to carrying
sediment and now has none, will pick up the sediment from the streambed below the dam.
It is almost as though the river has been "starved" of its sediment. As in everything else in
nature, balance will be achieved one way or the other, often at the expense of one or more
species.

What happens to the sediment in a dammed river? It reaches the slow-moving reservoir
above the dam and drops out, settling behind the dam. If this seems worrisome to you, it
should. Dams are engineered to withstand the force of a certain number of tons of water--
however large the reservoir is planned to be. They are not engineered to withstand the
additional force of tons of wet sediment pressing on their backsides. The muddier the river,
the faster this heap of sediment will build up. What happens when it builds up too high?
Either the dam bursts, killing people and destroying settlements downstream, or the
reservoir's water pours over the top of the dam. In effect, a huge man-made waterfall has
been constructed, and will remain there for thousands of years.

Can we not remove the sediment from behind dams? Unfortunately, the answer is "No--
not yet, we can't." There appears to be no safe and economic way to do it.

What about the river downstream of the dam? Isn't its nice clear, cold water a great
improvement--especially in regions like the American Southwest where rivers tend to be
muddy? The answer is only "Yes" if you have decided the original ecology of the river
doesn't matter. If you only want water to look at and drink, then you will be happy enough.
If you want a living river ecosystem filled with fish and birds, you will be sadly disappointed.
This cold, clear water will be starved of nutrients and provide little or no habitat for animals.
In addition, animals that once used the "muddiness" of the river's water to conceal them
from predators are now overly vulnerable to predation, and may quickly go extinct. A river
with dams eventually becomes little more than a dead channel of water.

Starving the River

Dams hold back not only sediment, but also debris. The life of organisms (including fish)
downstream depends on the constant feeding of the river with debris. This debris includes
leaves, twigs, branches, and whole trees, as well as the organic remains of dead animals.
Debris not only provides food, it provides hiding places for all sizes of animals and surfaces
for phytoplankton and microorganisms to grow. Without flooding and without a healthy
riparian zone, this debris will be scarce. Adding to the problem, although debris might come
from the river above the dam, it is instead trapped in the reservoir, and never appears
downstream. The bottom level of the food web is removed. All in all, the loss of sediment
and debris means the loss of both nutrients and habitat for most animals.
Changing Temperatures

Temperature is another problem. Rivers tend to be fairly homogenous in temperature.

Reservoirs, on the other hand, are layered. They are warm at the top and cold at the
bottom. If water is released downstream, it is usually released from the bottom of the dam,
which means the water in the river is now colder than it should be. Many
macroinvertebrates depend on a regular cycle of temperatures throughout the year. When
we change that, we compromise their survival. For instance, a certain stonefly may feel the
cold temperatures and delay its metamorphosis. This may mean that at a certain lifestage it
will be living in the depth of winter rather than in autumn as it should have been.

Stopping Fish Migration

Fish passage is a concern with dams. Many fishes must move upstream and downstream
to complete their lifecycles. Dams are often built without fish ladders. When fish ladders
are provided, they seldom work as needed. If enough adult fishes do manage to climb
above a dam, there remains the issue of their young: how will they get back downstream?
Many are killed by predators while they wander, lost, in the reservoir above the dam. Many
are killed in their fall downward through the dam to the river below. They aren't killed by
the fall itself, but by the high levels of nitrogen gas at the base of the dam. In other words,
like divers who go too deep, they get the "bends."

There are many fishes that cannot climb dam ladders or leap over low dams. Some of
these fishes swim upstream every year to breed, then let the water carry them back
downstream. The eggs of pelagic spawners float downstream, too, which is why the
adults must swim far upriver to breed. Otherwise, the baby fish would soon end up out to
sea!

Erosion

Perhaps deadliest of all to salmon and steelhead species is the typical hydropower
practice of releasing large amounts of water in powerful surges during the day in order to
provide electricity when demand and prices are highest, and cutting down flow during the
night in order to replenish reservoirs for the next day. The cyclic floods caused by this
popular practice contribute to the extinction of salmon by flushing away their spawning
gravels during the day and leaving them high and dry at night. Riverbeds become scoured,
stripped of their organic materials, sediment, vegetation, and macroinvertebrates.

Why We Always Seem to Need More Dams

Government institutions such as the United States's Army Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamation campaign mightily for each new dam. They do this because they
have no other reason for existing. Their survival depends on building and maintaining dams,
as well as other water-conserving projects. Politicians often want to make certain of their
constituents wealthy by encouraging "growth," (construction of new buildings and roads)
and will join in pressuring for new dams to be built.

But why do we keep needing more of them? This is where the irony lies. Once a dam is
built and its reservoir is formed, the region that is served by the dam will be developed. In
other words, it will be filled with cities, roads, parking lots, and houses. This, unfortunately,
lowers the water table due to water extraction and urban runoff. And that lowers the
river even further. Eventually, the new human populace will run out of water--but they will
still want to "grow" (sell land for profit). At this point, they will demand yet another dam.

In other words, the building of dams leads to the building of more dams--until there is
no water left to take. At this point, the region around the river will be packed with buildings,
asphalt, and cement, but the reason people began moving there--often because of the
river's beauty--will be gone.

Embankment dam

San Luis Dam - Embankment dam

Tarbela Dam, the world's fifth largest embankment dam in Pakistan

An embankment dam is a massive artificial water barrier. It is typically created by the

emplacement and compaction of a complex semi-plastic mound of various compositions of
soil, sand, clay and/or rock. It has a semi-permanent waterproof natural covering for its
surface, and a dense, waterproof core. This makes such a dam impervious to surface or
seepage errosion. The force of the impoundment creates a downward thrust upon the mass
of the dam, greatly increasing the weight of the dam on its foundation. This added force
effectively seals and makes waterproof the underlying foundation of the dam, at the
interface between the dam and its stream bed. Such a dam is composed of fragmented
independent material particles. The friction and interaction of particles binds the particles
together into a stable mass rather than the use of a cementing substance.

Types

Pothundi Dam, India

Embankment dams come in two types: the earth-filled dam (also called an earthen dam or
terrain dam) made of compacted earth, and the rock-filled dam. A cross-section of an
embankment dam shows a shape like a bank, or hill. Most have a central section or core
composed of an impermeable material to stop water from seeping through the dam. The
core can be of clay, concrete or asphalt concrete. This dam type is a good choice for sites
with wide valleys. Since they exert little pressure on their foundations, they can be built on
hard rock or softer soils. For a rockfill dam, rockfill is blasted using explosives to break the
rock. Additionally, the rock pieces may need to be crushed into smaller chunks to get the
right range of size for use in an embankment dam.

Safety

The building of a dam and the filling of the reservoir behind it places a new weight on the
floor and sides of a valley. The stress of the water increases linearly with its depth. Water
also pushes against the upstream face of the dam, a nonrigid structure that under stress
behaves semiplastically, and causes greater need for adjustment (flexibility) near the base
of the dam than at shallower water levels. Thus the stress level of the dam must be
calculated in advance of building to ensure that its break level threshold is not exceeded.
Overtopping or overflow of an embankment dam outside of its spillways will cause
disastrous flooding through the eventual failure of the dam. In the failure process the
sustained hydraulic force and pressure caused by an overtopping surface runoff;
immediately erodes the dam's material structure as it flows over the top of the dam. Even a
small sustained overtopping surface flow can remove thousands of tons of overburden soil
from the mass of the dam within hours. The removal of this mass unbalances the forces
that stabilize the dam against its impoundment. The mass of water still impounded behind
the dam presses against the lighter mass of the embankment, (made lighter by surface
erosion). As the mass of the dam gets lighter, the impoundment begins to move the whole
structure. The embankment, having almost no elastic strength, begins to break into
separate pieces, naturally allowing the impounded water to flow between them eroding and
removing more material as it goes. In the final stages of failure the remaining pieces of the
embankment offer almost no resistance to the flow of the water; as they continue to
fracture into smaller and smaller sections of earth and/or rock. The overtopped earth
embankment dam literally dissolves into a thick mud soup of earth, rocks and water.

Therefore safety requirements for the spillway are high, requiring the spillway to be capable
of containing a maximum flood stage. Specifying a spillway able to contain a five hundred
year flood is common.

Tipaimukh Dam in Manipur driving a wedge?

Imphal, Manipur’s capital, came to a grinding halt on August 28, with a strike being called.
Imphal’s people are habituated to bandhs, and most of them are successful. But this was a
bandh with a difference — more than 20 social and political organisations, representing the
largest communities, ethnic groups and political interests. Almost unheard of, in a badly
divided society.

Academics, politicians, students and civil society organisations united that day for one
reason: to demand that work on the proposed Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydel Project be
stopped, convinced the project would deepen the cracks in Manipur’s already fissured
society because it would benefit some groups at the cost of others. They formed a joint
front called the Action Committee against Tipaimukh Project (actip) to oppose the project.

It’s not that Manipuris are not aware of the commitment the centre has to the project —
after all it has been in the pipeline for the best part of half a century. Despite that the
widespread opposition to the dam shows no sign of abating, as the unprecedented unity of
August 28 abundantly demonstrated.

nitin sethi explores the complex social and political matrix that comprises Manipur and
examines the impact the proposed dam in Tipaimukh will have on the ethnic mosaic of the
state.

Octopus

Too many arms, too many aims

Work on the Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydel Project (tmhp) is yet to start. For the past five
decades the Union government has been working on it. The North Eastern Electric Power
Corporation (neepco), the government agency entrusted with the responsibility of building
power projects in the northeast, has been handed the project. In November 2005, it floated
a global tender for the project. In July 2006, the pre-bid qualification of the tender for the
first phase was opened. The ball was finally rolling.

tmhp, as it is now envisaged, is to come up in the hills of Churachandpur district in Manipur

(see map: Conflict zone). A 1,500-mw project, one of the largest in the region, it is to
generate power from the Barak river, the second largest river in the region. The site of the
dam is almost on the border with Mizoram. The proposed 164-m-high dam will come up 500
m downstream of the confluence of the Barak and Tuivai rivers. Its reservoir will have a
storage capacity of 15,900 million cubic m with a maximum depth of 1,725.5 m.

Long gestation

The project has a long history. According to the reworked detailed project report, a project
on Barak was first thought of in 1954 when the government of Assam requested the Central
Water and Power Commission for ways to manage floods in the river basin. The commission
surveyed and rejected three sites by 1965 on two grounds. The sites were geologically
unsafe and large-scale submergence of cultivable land made it economically unviable.

Then the North-Eastern Council intervened and discussed the project with the three states
through which Barak flows — Assam, Manipur and Mizoram. On its request, the Central
Water Commission began investigations in 1977. In 1984, it identified a new site, where the
river takes a 220 degree bend from southwest to a northerly direction flowing through a
gorge. The stretch was 24 km downstream of Tipaimukh. The dam, it was then estimated,
would cost Rs 1,078 crore. But the project was put in the cold storage because it did not
have the requisite environmental and management plans, say observers.

Then the Brahmaputra Board jumped into the fray. It is a government body that was at that
time meant to manage the Brahmaputra and Barak river basins. The board also carried out
studies, revising the plan until the estimated cost went up to Rs 2,899 crore in 1995.

Yet, the project was nowhere near taking off. The Naga Women’s Union says: “People of
Manipur began to take notice. In July 1995 environment minister Kamal Nath ensured
resettlement issues would be taken care of and nothing would be done in haste. In 1999,
Pranab Mukherjee, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, gave similar assurances.”

In 1995, chief minister Rishang Keishing made a statement declaring that the state cabinet
did not approve of the dam. In 1998, the Manipur assembly passed a resolution not to
implement the project.

In 1999, the central government handed over the project to neepco, under circumstances
which many social organisations allege are questionable. They claim that during a spell of
president’s rule, imposed in 2001, the governor approved the project.

Then in 2003, the Public Investments Board and the Central Electricity Authority cleared the
project by which time its cost had been revised by neepco to Rs 5,163.86 crore.
The rationale

The project is to be built primarily for flood control and power generation. Irrigation and
other benefits will be spin-offs. Flood control will benefit some plain areas in Assam.
Manipur and Mizoram, on the other hand, will bear the brunt of submergence. But they are
to equally share, as the central government stipulates, 12 per cent of the power from the
project, free of charge, while the rest will be taken by neepco and the centre.

The problem is that of the installed capacity of 1,500 mw, at any given time only 412 mw
will be generated, usually in the monsoons when the river is in spate.

The plant load factor — calculated at 28 per cent — is also a worry, because it implies heavy
losses due to inadequate utilisation. neepco believes the centre should help make the dam
economically viable.

The leaders of the groups comprising actip and academics in Manipur believe that the
unviable project design will also drive a wedge between communities that live in a state of
unremitting conflict between themselves and with the state.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Ashis roy

Mechanical Engineering,BUET