Mullaiperiyar: 'Kerala’s line on dam unfounded'

04 Feb 2010

NEW DELHI: Senior advocate Harish Salve, told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that there were two issues concerning the Mullaiperiyar dam. One was on maintaining the maximum water level and the other on the structure of the dam in view of its age.

There were three major floods in the river during the dam’s lifetime. The first one was in 1924, the second in 1943 and the third in 1961.

Though the spillway was open, with that kind of rains, there was flood. And when the water overflowed, it imperiled the safety of the dam, Salve, appearing for the State of Kerala, pointed out.

The senior advocate told a Bench comprising Justices D K Jain, B Sudershan Reddy, Mukundakam Sharma, R M Lodha and Deepak Verma that during the floods, the exit rate of water was less than the inflow. “In the case of a cloudburst, how much water do you expect? What kind of degree of safety do you want?” the Bench asked.

Skirting the question, Salve replied that the safety and structure of the dam would be at stake.

At this juncture, Justice Sharma remarked: “So, you want to construct a new dam and control.” Salve only nodded and said: “India is an earthquake prone country. It is in zone 3. When the quake hits, we have a huge body of water. One mathematical calculation says the body would go this way, another mathematical calculation says it would go the other way.”

Justice Jain asked, “If you go up to 142 feet, how much additional area would be submerged? That is not answered here. Justice Lodha said: “According to you there were floods three times, in the year 1924, 1943 and in 1961. Are any statistics available on the extra submergence? he asked.

“During conditions of flood, backwaters surge and they would submerge areas that are not part of the lease. The Central Water Commission (CWC) said 27 years ago to keep the water level at 136 feet. Our law also says so,” Salve stated.

As the Bench did not get the answer it was looking for, Justice Lodha told Salve that the arguments sounded unfounded, misconceived and like jugglery of words. “I’ll answer it straightaway,” he said and successfully dodged it till the end of the hearing.