Fatehullah Gandapur
Dams' advocate
Interview published by THE NEWS on Sunday circa 2006
I emphasise on the construction of Katzara Dam because it costs nearly as much as Kalabagh Dam does but it can store 35 million acre feet of water and generate 15,000 megawatts of power.
By Raza Rahman Khan
The News on Sunday: Why do you oppose the construction of Kalabagh Dam?
Fatehullah Gandapur: I am opposing Kalabagh Dam purely on technological grounds. Being a professional, I will only give professional reasons for my opposition.
The life of its reservoir will be very short, 20 years to be precise, and it will not add any acres to Pakistan's irrigated lands. Claims in this regard are wrong. It will only make up for the storage losses caused by the silting up Tarbela and Mangla dams. In this sense, it is a replacement dam. It will not generate 3,600 megawatts of electricity, as is wrongly claimed by the government. It will only produce 1,460 megawatts, which will be its dependable power-generation capacity. To generate the additional 2,000 megawatts of power, the government has a plan to install a thermal power plant near the dam site.
Moreover, the area earmarked for Kalabagh Dam falls in a high risk seismic zone. The dam's consultant agrees that its foundation will be unsafe for any structure 160 feet high. The height of Kalabagh Dam is 260 feet. So, I suggest to the government that if it still wants to utilise the site, it should instead construct a raised barrage there. This barrage will have a capacity to store 3.5 million acre feet of water. But unlike Kalabagh Dam it will last forever. Its power generation capacity will also be same -- 1,460 megawatts -- as that of Kalabagh Dam. Above all, the construction cost (of the barrage) will be relatively very low and it can be completed quickly.
On the other hand I emphasise on the construction of Katzara Dam because it costs nearly as much as Kalabagh Dam does but it can store 35 million acre feet of water and generate 15,000 megawatts of power. The life-span of Katzara Dam will be more than 1000 years because it is out of the monsoon range and, therefore, will not be flooded with silt. (The water flowing into it) is snow-fed. Katzara Dam can control floods and can be helpful in coping with calamities expected in future as a result of environmental degradation. Above all, if this dam is built, it will stop soil erosion in Skardu valley, the most susceptible place for soil erosion. This will, in turn, stop silt from flowing downstream the Indus river -- something which silts up Tarbela Dam. Had Katzara Dam been constructed before Tarbela Dam, the latter's life-span would have been 1000 years instead of the present 50 years.
The life-span of Bhasha Dam, according to its consultant, is 80 years. But if Bhasha Dam is built after Katzara Dam, then this period will stretch to almost 1000 years.
I may add that in Kalabagh Dam, silt will not come from the Indus river alone. It will also flow into the dam from the Kabul river. Priority should be given to building dams in the upper riparian areas of the Indus river in order to control silt.
TNS: When you say that Katzara Dam should have been built before the Tarbela Dam, are you suggesting that the danger of silting was not properly calculated?
FG: No, they were not. I did a pre-feasibility study on Katzara Dam in 1962 but nobody was interested.
TNS: Are dams good or bad?
FG: The argument put forward by Sindh against the construction of dams is completely illogical. Dams are good; they must be built. They do not consume water. They are like banks. You can withdraw whatever amount of water (after it is stored by a dam) whenever you need it. They also generate power at a low cost.
Pakistan should have constructed at least 20 dams by now. No (big) dam has been built after the commissioning of Tarbela Dam in 1974. The government should have put Kalabagh Dam aside as soon dispute arose over it. Another dam should have been built instead to overcome the scarcity of water.
Now, Pakistan is facing critical times ahead. If (big) dams are not built within a decade, famine will sway the country. Planning (for big dams) should immediately start because water projects are time consuming and costly.
TNS: So you are not concerned with the social impact of mega dams...
FG: In China, the construction of one mega dam displaced 1.5 million people. But they were given alternative places to live even before they were dislocated. People do everything they can for their countries. If some populated area comes under water as the result of a dam's construction, no one should raise hue and cry because (people living in these areas) can be shifted to other places.
TNS: You have worked as Irsa's chairman. What do you say about the authority's working? Is it sloppy? Does the authority lack mechanism to enforce its writ?
FG: Irsa simultaneously have too much powers and no powers at all. It is Irsa's mandate to implement the 1991 water accord but the authority does not have financial, administrative or judicial powers to get it implemented. Irsa is dependent on the finance department for its salaries and other running expenses. It was founded in good faith but due to the lack of these powers it has been rendered ineffective. Irsa should have powers to build dams and resolve water-related disputes.
TNS: If Irsa is that powerless, how can the provinces resolve the issue of water pilferage?
FG: Though the government has installed telemetry system at the cost of Rs 25 crores (to measure water levels at various dams and barrages) but this system has failed to end the allegations of water pilferage. There have been instances when 80,000 cusecs of water were pilfered out of 100,000 cusecs flowing through the Indus system but the equipment did not register it. Now if (the federal government) wants to stop water pilferage and distribute water among provinces honestly, it needs to thoroughly investigate who is stealing how much water, where and when. The mere setting up of a measuring system cannot deliver on its own.
TNS: What do you say about the observation that the 1991 Accord was unjust?
FG: The basic formula of the 1991 Accord was that the area already under cultivation will not be touched. Also, the accord did not change water schemes that were being executed and the water that was being historically used by different provinces. It meant a large amount of water given to Sindh and Punjab for irrigation without having to increase allocation of water to the Frontier and Balochistan, which do not have vast tracts of irrigated land and elaborate canal systems. I favour a first come, first serve formula. As water goes away from the source, losses increase both through seepage and evaporation. If the upper riparian lands are irrigated on priority basis, losses will will be little. It is not enough that we irrigate our lands only through gravity flow. We should also use lift irrigation techniques. Under the current situation, the Frontier province is at an extreme disadvantage because most of its land is located above the gravity level.
There is another gross mistake committed in the 1991 Water Accord. It divides 117 million acre feet of water while the actual available amount is 105 million acre feet. Thus 12 million acre feet of water have been distributed without their being present in the system. What was the purpose of this trick? Was it meant to create room for the construction of new dams or was it aimed at making every province feel happy?
TNS: You are the originator of a Grand Pakistan Canal idea. What's that?
FG: I suggested the construction of a barrage at Chashma in 1960. It was subsequently built. When Katzara Dam gets built, the water flowing through the Indus should be divided at Chashma or at some other place close to it. On the right side of the Indus, a mega-canal -- Pakistan Grand Canal, as I named it -- should be built to carry the divided waters to irrigate Dera Ismail Khan, Dera Ghazi Khan, Kachhi area of Balochistan and even upper Sindh. This will be a lined canal which minimises water losses. The rest of the water in the river should be properly channellised, by reducing the width of the river from 14 miles and confining the flow in the old river bed. This would speed up the velocity of water. It will create the added benefit of four million acres of reclaimed land on both sides of the Indus. Moreover, due to channelised bed, no one will be able to steal the water.
Dams' advocate
Interview published by THE NEWS on Sunday circa 2006
I emphasise on the construction of Katzara Dam because it costs nearly as much as Kalabagh Dam does but it can store 35 million acre feet of water and generate 15,000 megawatts of power.
By Raza Rahman Khan
The News on Sunday: Why do you oppose the construction of Kalabagh Dam?
Fatehullah Gandapur: I am opposing Kalabagh Dam purely on technological grounds. Being a professional, I will only give professional reasons for my opposition.
The life of its reservoir will be very short, 20 years to be precise, and it will not add any acres to Pakistan's irrigated lands. Claims in this regard are wrong. It will only make up for the storage losses caused by the silting up Tarbela and Mangla dams. In this sense, it is a replacement dam. It will not generate 3,600 megawatts of electricity, as is wrongly claimed by the government. It will only produce 1,460 megawatts, which will be its dependable power-generation capacity. To generate the additional 2,000 megawatts of power, the government has a plan to install a thermal power plant near the dam site.
Moreover, the area earmarked for Kalabagh Dam falls in a high risk seismic zone. The dam's consultant agrees that its foundation will be unsafe for any structure 160 feet high. The height of Kalabagh Dam is 260 feet. So, I suggest to the government that if it still wants to utilise the site, it should instead construct a raised barrage there. This barrage will have a capacity to store 3.5 million acre feet of water. But unlike Kalabagh Dam it will last forever. Its power generation capacity will also be same -- 1,460 megawatts -- as that of Kalabagh Dam. Above all, the construction cost (of the barrage) will be relatively very low and it can be completed quickly.
On the other hand I emphasise on the construction of Katzara Dam because it costs nearly as much as Kalabagh Dam does but it can store 35 million acre feet of water and generate 15,000 megawatts of power. The life-span of Katzara Dam will be more than 1000 years because it is out of the monsoon range and, therefore, will not be flooded with silt. (The water flowing into it) is snow-fed. Katzara Dam can control floods and can be helpful in coping with calamities expected in future as a result of environmental degradation. Above all, if this dam is built, it will stop soil erosion in Skardu valley, the most susceptible place for soil erosion. This will, in turn, stop silt from flowing downstream the Indus river -- something which silts up Tarbela Dam. Had Katzara Dam been constructed before Tarbela Dam, the latter's life-span would have been 1000 years instead of the present 50 years.
The life-span of Bhasha Dam, according to its consultant, is 80 years. But if Bhasha Dam is built after Katzara Dam, then this period will stretch to almost 1000 years.
I may add that in Kalabagh Dam, silt will not come from the Indus river alone. It will also flow into the dam from the Kabul river. Priority should be given to building dams in the upper riparian areas of the Indus river in order to control silt.
TNS: When you say that Katzara Dam should have been built before the Tarbela Dam, are you suggesting that the danger of silting was not properly calculated?
FG: No, they were not. I did a pre-feasibility study on Katzara Dam in 1962 but nobody was interested.
TNS: Are dams good or bad?
FG: The argument put forward by Sindh against the construction of dams is completely illogical. Dams are good; they must be built. They do not consume water. They are like banks. You can withdraw whatever amount of water (after it is stored by a dam) whenever you need it. They also generate power at a low cost.
Pakistan should have constructed at least 20 dams by now. No (big) dam has been built after the commissioning of Tarbela Dam in 1974. The government should have put Kalabagh Dam aside as soon dispute arose over it. Another dam should have been built instead to overcome the scarcity of water.
Now, Pakistan is facing critical times ahead. If (big) dams are not built within a decade, famine will sway the country. Planning (for big dams) should immediately start because water projects are time consuming and costly.
TNS: So you are not concerned with the social impact of mega dams...
FG: In China, the construction of one mega dam displaced 1.5 million people. But they were given alternative places to live even before they were dislocated. People do everything they can for their countries. If some populated area comes under water as the result of a dam's construction, no one should raise hue and cry because (people living in these areas) can be shifted to other places.
TNS: You have worked as Irsa's chairman. What do you say about the authority's working? Is it sloppy? Does the authority lack mechanism to enforce its writ?
FG: Irsa simultaneously have too much powers and no powers at all. It is Irsa's mandate to implement the 1991 water accord but the authority does not have financial, administrative or judicial powers to get it implemented. Irsa is dependent on the finance department for its salaries and other running expenses. It was founded in good faith but due to the lack of these powers it has been rendered ineffective. Irsa should have powers to build dams and resolve water-related disputes.
TNS: If Irsa is that powerless, how can the provinces resolve the issue of water pilferage?
FG: Though the government has installed telemetry system at the cost of Rs 25 crores (to measure water levels at various dams and barrages) but this system has failed to end the allegations of water pilferage. There have been instances when 80,000 cusecs of water were pilfered out of 100,000 cusecs flowing through the Indus system but the equipment did not register it. Now if (the federal government) wants to stop water pilferage and distribute water among provinces honestly, it needs to thoroughly investigate who is stealing how much water, where and when. The mere setting up of a measuring system cannot deliver on its own.
TNS: What do you say about the observation that the 1991 Accord was unjust?
FG: The basic formula of the 1991 Accord was that the area already under cultivation will not be touched. Also, the accord did not change water schemes that were being executed and the water that was being historically used by different provinces. It meant a large amount of water given to Sindh and Punjab for irrigation without having to increase allocation of water to the Frontier and Balochistan, which do not have vast tracts of irrigated land and elaborate canal systems. I favour a first come, first serve formula. As water goes away from the source, losses increase both through seepage and evaporation. If the upper riparian lands are irrigated on priority basis, losses will will be little. It is not enough that we irrigate our lands only through gravity flow. We should also use lift irrigation techniques. Under the current situation, the Frontier province is at an extreme disadvantage because most of its land is located above the gravity level.
There is another gross mistake committed in the 1991 Water Accord. It divides 117 million acre feet of water while the actual available amount is 105 million acre feet. Thus 12 million acre feet of water have been distributed without their being present in the system. What was the purpose of this trick? Was it meant to create room for the construction of new dams or was it aimed at making every province feel happy?
TNS: You are the originator of a Grand Pakistan Canal idea. What's that?
FG: I suggested the construction of a barrage at Chashma in 1960. It was subsequently built. When Katzara Dam gets built, the water flowing through the Indus should be divided at Chashma or at some other place close to it. On the right side of the Indus, a mega-canal -- Pakistan Grand Canal, as I named it -- should be built to carry the divided waters to irrigate Dera Ismail Khan, Dera Ghazi Khan, Kachhi area of Balochistan and even upper Sindh. This will be a lined canal which minimises water losses. The rest of the water in the river should be properly channellised, by reducing the width of the river from 14 miles and confining the flow in the old river bed. This would speed up the velocity of water. It will create the added benefit of four million acres of reclaimed land on both sides of the Indus. Moreover, due to channelised bed, no one will be able to steal the water.
No comments:
Post a Comment