Mullaperiyar Dam Controversy

Mullaperiyar Dam Controversy

Context: Recently, Tamil Nadu accused Kerala in the Supreme Court of delaying essential maintenance on the Mullaperiyar dam while raising safety concerns. Kerala allegedly postponed routine upkeep for up to a year. Tamil Nadu requested the court to direct Kerala to allow completion of necessary strengthening work on the dam and smaller dams, including the felling of 15 trees. They also noted that the supervisory committee under the Dam Safety Act, 2021, did not ensure Kerala\'s cooperation in these matters.

About:

• Mullaperiyar dam is situated at the confluence of the Mullayar and Periyar rivers.
• The dam is located entirely within the state of Kerala.
• It was constructed in the late 1800s during the princely state of Travancore (present-day Kerala).
• In 1886, it was leased to the British-ruled MadrasPresidency for 999 years.
• The agreement granted Tamil Nadu full rights to construct irrigation projects on the leased land.
• The primary purpose of the dam was to divert a portion of the west-flowing Periyar river eastwards to irrigate arid regions of Tamil Nadu.
• After independence, the Kerala government declared the earlier agreement signed between the British Raj and Travancore as invalid and sought its renewal.
• Consequently, the agreement was renegotiated and renewed in the 1970s.
• Under the renewed agreement, Tamil Nadu was granted rights to the land and water from the Mullaperiyar dam.
• Tamil Nadu also received authority to develop hydro-power projects at the dam site.
• In return, Kerala received rent payments from Tamil Nadu as per the renewed agreement.

About Dispute:

o Safety concerns arose in 1979 following reports in Kerala that a minor earthquake had caused cracks in the Mullaperiyar Dam.
o The Central Water Commission was tasked with assessing the dam\'s condition and recommending strengthening measures.
o As an interim measure, the commission advised reducing the water level in the reservoir to 136 feet from approximately 142 feet, pending structural improvements.
o Divergent Perspectives Leading to Dispute:
o Tamil Nadu asserts that despite conducting periodic repairs, Kerala has prevented raising the water level of the dam.
o Kerala argues against raising the water level, citing seismic risks in the Idukki district where the dam is situated.

• Supreme Court Judgements:

o In 2006, the Supreme Court allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the water level to 142 feet, dismissing Kerala\'s concerns as unfounded.
o Kerala responded by amending the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act in 2003 to designate the dam as endangered and limiting the water level to 136 feet.
o The Supreme Court declared this amendment unconstitutional in 2014.
o In the same year, the Supreme Court ruled that Kerala could not obstruct Tamil Nadu from raising the water level to 142 feet.
o To address Kerala\'s apprehensions, the court directed the formation of a three-member supervisory committee to oversee the process of raising the water level, conduct routine dam inspections, and address safety concerns