Consequences of not implementing Water Accord

Reference “The Daily News”, news item titled “Controversial Canal” dated 18.7.2010, written by Khalid Mustafa of the Daily The News referring to the views of Engr Fateh Ullah Khan former Chairman IRSA in 1994. I repeat with my opinion what is revealed in the Newspaper.

Water dispute between Sindh and Punjab is century old. No amount of IRSA re-composition to 7 members with Chairman as Supreme Court retired Judge would solve the issue as the dispute is due to shortage of water and for no other reasons. One of the reasons of water shortage is that reservoirs have silted up by 6.6 maf and no dam is built after Tarbela in 1974.

Former President Musharraf gave Federal Member IRSA to Sindh, in addition to its own Member in violation of the Water Accord and the IRSA Act. Federal Member IRSA should not be from any province but it should be from Federally administered area, Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir. IRSA Act does not allow to appoint Supreme Court Judge in a technical body. This would show distrust and doubtful integrity of Members. It requires vast technical knowledge. Moreover, it will be in violation of Article 4 of IRSA Act as that requires a high ranking irrigation engineer as Member and Chairman.

The dispute would remain perpetual for which Federal and Provincial Governments are responsible besides all other concerned including IRSA. All failed to implement the 1991 Water Accord as required under para 13, in 19 years. All seems to be inert to implement the basic Water Accord paras 2, 4. 6 and 14 (e). The acting Chairman (from Punjab) was of the opinion that it is not IRSA’s duty to initiate implementation of schemes under these paras. IRSA’s duty is only confined to water regulation and distribution. If the above vital paras of the Water Accord were implemented by the Government, there would have been no water dispute between the two politically powerful provinces.

I as former Chairman IRSA in 1994 (first batch 1993 to 1998), requested the Government to implement these vital paras under para 13 of the Water Accord and reminded the Government but it appears no heed was paid. I am of the opinion that it is IRSA’s duty to initiate implementation of Water Accord under para 13 by advising the Government and inviting the attention of the CCI to implement Water Accord to remove shortage of water and make available 117.35 maf of water as distributed under para 2. 

In Water Accord para 2, 117.35 maf of water was distributed in 1991. At that time, the average available annual rivers flow was 142 maf. The total water requirements of the provinces, and the canals system capacity was 105 maf. Water Accord para 4, provides to store (142-105)= 37 maf of “balance floodwater” that goes waste to sea. If Water Accord would have been implemented and floodwater under para 4 stored, there would have been no dispute between Sindh and Punjab. Sindh and Punjab both have equal share of 37% in floodwater para 4. Each of them would get 13.69 maf of additional water, though Sindh has less irrigated area than Punjab.

Again, water Accord para 6, provides to create storage wherever feasible on the Indus and other rivers in confirmation of para 4 to implement para 2 by making available 117.35 maf of water distributed under para 2. If this water was made available, there would have been no water dispute. Presently water availability is very short. It is only between 90 to 95 maf against 105 maf as required. This shortage can only be removed by building the 35 maf Katzarah Dam otherwise dispute will continue. Basha is no solution to the problem as so far we have already lost 6.6 maf of water due to silting of reservoirs. The entire Water Accord is storage based.

Water Accord para 14 (e), requires to avoid all wastages. This means to store floodwater by dams and to carry out Water Management of the 150 years old, obsolete, wasteful and incompatible canal irrigation system that wastes 50% of 105 maf of water due to seepage and as system wastages.

Regarding Chashms-Jehlum Link Canal (CJLC), built under the Indus Waters Treaty, its basic function is to transfer water from the Indus River to the Jehlum River system to make up the deficiency of water transferred to India under the Treaty. CJLC is not a regular canal. It is basically, a LINK CANAL to transfer water of the Indus to Jehlum River system when there is shortage of water. Link Canal may serve as floodwater channel.

If Punjab do not exceed its share of water, then Sindh should not object to receive its share through CJLC. Sindh considers Jehlum River water belongs to Punjab, and Indus River to Sindh. Baluchistan always suffer at the hands of Sindh. Surprisingly, Sindh is against building dams though paras 2, 4, 6, and 14(e) clearly indicate to build dams to avoid all wastage.

Opening of CJLC was not violation of Water Accord as it is built under the Indus Waters Treaty to transfer water. But the arbitrary action taken by the acting Chairman was against Water Accord and the IRSA Act article 4, as Chairman alone does not constitute Authority by himself alone. Under such circumstances, CCI must be called for to decide. Now the chronic problem of water dispute must be referred to the CCI to under take implementation of paras 2, 4. 6 and 14(e) of the Water Accord at the earliest.  

A permanent solution to remove shortage of water lies in building the unique, multipurpose, 35 maf Katzarah Dam, generating up to 15000 MW hydropower on the Indus 20 miles downstream Skardu Town. Katzarah Dam site was discovered by me in 1962 and confirmed by Dr Pieter Lieftnick of the World Bank in 1968.

WAPDA committed to submit the feasibility report of Katzarah Dam by September 2005 before the Parliamentary Committee under the chairmanship of Nisar Memon. Later on AGN Abbassi also recommended to build Katzarah Dam. Chairman WAPDA is ex-officio Member IRSA. He should be called to explain why this dam appears nowhere even in papers.      

Punjab is warned, as it is sitting on a time bomb of underground saline drainage effluent, pumping 50 maf of injurious saline drainage effluent for irrigating lands through one million small tube wells. Punjab is invisibly, and gradually destroying its lands. Punjab must ask for sub-surface tile drainage and for building Katzarah Dam to replace the use of saline groundwater drainage effluent if it wants to save the Indus basin irrigation system from destruction by salinity.

 I am of the opinion that it is very unfortunate for all that happened in IRSA when Chairman IRSA from KP resigned prematurely. This was followed by the withdrawal of Member Sindh, Member Federal and Member Baluchistan. Member Punjab remained in the field to become acting Chairman. He by-himself decided to open Chashma-Jehlum Link Canal rightly or wrongly under those difficult circumstances. IRSA is autonomous body, It is only the CCI that can direct IRSA or over rule its decision.

All this happened shaking the Government but the water availability could not be increased to settle dispute. No one can settle this dispute unless Water Accord paras 2, 4, 6, and 14(e) are implemented to make available at least 105 maf of water if not 117.35 maf during the keen demand period. Water Accord para 13 requires to implement these paras and others. Who will order or arrange to implement Water Accord is to be decided if it is the CCI or the Federal Government or both? The confusion could not be removed in 19 years since the signing of the Water Accord. The Government may take action to implement Water Accord to remove shortage of water otherwise there seems to be no possibility to end the perpetual water dispute.

It is known that 50,000 cusecs of water is stolen or lost between the reach from Chashma to Kotri. If this is controlled by the provinces, I hope the situation will improve. May inform the CCI.