REPORT OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES
Background, Logistics and Procedures
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF PAKISTAN PART-I
Government of Pakistan Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad November 15, 2003
No. W.III-I(1)2002-Vol-IV. The following Technical Committee on water resources has been constituted in pursuance of the directive of the President of Pakistan:
Mr A.N.G. Chairman Ex-Minister Irrigation, Province of Sindh
1. Dr Iqbal Ali Member Chief Design Engineer, ehwan Barrage Complex, Karachi
2. Mr Sardar Ahmad Mughal Member Ex-Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Power Department
1. Mr Mazhar Ali Member Adviser Irrigation Department
2. Mr Mehmood-ul-Hassan Siddiqui Member Consultant Irrigation Department
1. Mr Shams-ul-Mulk Member Ex-Minister Irrigation, NWFP
2. Sardar Muhammad Tariq Member Pakistan Water Partnership (PWP)
1. Mr Abdul Razzak Khan Member Ex-Secretary Irrigation and Power Department
2. Mr Muhammad Azam Baloch Member Ex-Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department
Secretary (To be notified later)
2. Ther Terms of Reference of the Committee are attached as Annexure-I.
Deputy Secretary (W)
The Manager, Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press, Islamabad.
Terms of Reference
1. Review issues relating to distribution of water according to 1991 Water Apportionment Accord and submit recommendations for streamling water distribution amongst the Provinces.
2. Assess the need for constructing dams / reservoirs for future requirements and to make up for the shortages of water due to silting of Tarbela and Mangla dams and recommend sequencing of future storages.
3. Review the progress achieved so far regarding study on escapages below Kotri and recommend measures to expedite the completion of the study.
4. Ascertain actual quantity of water passed downstream Kotri from 1976-2003.
5. Examine the filling criteria of Mangla reservoir and make recommendations in this regard.
6. Complement the Parliamentary Committee on Water Resources in the discharge of its function.
7. The Committee shall submit its report / recommendations within six months.
SUMMARY FOR THE PRESIDENT / PRIME MINISTER
Subject: Technical Committee on Water Resources
On 5th August 2003, the President called a meeting of technocrats and agriculturists from Sindh at Governor’s House, Karachi to discuss matters relating to water management and distribution, construction of future reservoirs and irrigation schemes, water availability, outflow to sea etc. While addressing the participants, the President announced the appointment of A.N.G. Abbasi as Chairman of the Technical Committee to examine the contentious water issues and submit recommendations to the Federal Government.
2. On the directives of the President, Lt. Gen. (Rtd) Zulfiqar Ali Khan, the then Chairman WAPDA, hold a meeting with the Chairman designate of the Technical Committee (A.N.G. Abbasi) on 26th August 2003 at WAPDA rest house, Karachi to discuss and decide the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Committee and other matters related thereto. A copy of the TOR and other matters decided in the meeting is enclosed as Annexure I. Most of the points mentioned in the Annexure I were proposed by the Chairman, WAPDA himself and agreed to by me.
3. A notification has now been issued by the Ministry of Water and Power on 15th November, 2003 in which the names of the Chairman and Members of the Committee and its Terms of Reference (TOR) have been notified. A copy of this notification is enclosed as Annexure II. This notification has been issued after nearly three months from the date on which the President announced the appointment of the Chairman of Technical Committee.
4. Neither Chairman, WAPDA, nor any one from the Ministry of Water and Power contacted me (Chairman-designate) during this period. It was therefore presumed that the TOR and other matters decided in the meeting held by Chairman, WAPDA with me (Chairman- designate) on 26th August, 2003 at Karachi, would have been approved by the competent authority, because if any changes were to be made, the concerned Ministry should have consulted me before issue of the notification. However a perusal of notification issued on 15th November, 2003 by the Ministry of Water and Power (Annexure II) indicates the following variations:
(i) It has not been mentioned in the notification that the Chairman would be full-time and the members part-time. Moreover 8 members of the Committee have been notified instead of four decided in the meeting held on 26th August 2003. Also the four co-opted members have not been notified.
(ii) The terms of reference as notified are not complete and comprehensive in accordance with the decisions taken in the meeting of 26th August 2003.
The following points seem to have been either inadvertently omitted, or not mentioned in proper context:
(a) Determination of water availability for future reservoirs and irrigation schemes has been omitted from the notified TOR;
(b) Whereas filling criteria for Mangla reservoir have been included in the notified TOR, but the operational criteria of other reservoirs and Indus Link Canals, which are an integral part of the system have been mentioned. Moreover the operational criteria of future reservoirs have also not been mentioned (These criteria have to be as far as possible similar to the recommended criteria for the existing reservoirs);
(c) Review of progress of study on escapages below Kotri Barrage has been mentioned in the notified TOR of the Technical Committee. However nothing has been indicated about approval of the TOR by the Technical Committee, for the proposed study downstream Kotri Barrage which has been pending for 10 years.
(iii) Other matters related to the Technical Committee viz. logistics, budget, status of the Chairman, appointment of the Secretary etc, as decided in the meeting held by the Chairman WAPDA with the Chairman-designate Technical Committee on 26th August 2003 (Annexure I) have not been notified at all.
(iv) A time period of only six months has been allowed for submission of the report of the Committee, which is too tight, considering that the issue of notification has taken nearly three months, and that the job to be done requires lot of efforts to collect and analyze the data, meet and discuss matters with concerned persons / agencies etc. The time period may therefore may be extended to at least one year.
5. In consideration of the above, it is proposed that:
(i) The membership of the Committee though different from the agreed pattern may be allowed to remain unchanged to avoid embarrassment. However it may be notified that Chairman will be full-time and members part-time. Also the four co-opted members as indicated in the Annexure I may be notified.
(ii) Terms of Reference (TOR) may be modified and other matters relating to the Technical Committee may be notified as decided in the meeting held on 26th August 2003 by Chairman WAPDA with the Chairman Technical Committee, under instructions of the President of Pakistan (Annexure I).
(iii) The time period for submission of the report / recommendations may be extended to one year.
(iv) The provision regarding complementing the work of Parliamentary Committee may be retained.
6(i) It will be extremely difficult for the Technical Committee to start its work without the logistics and without complete and comprehensive TOR. The President / Prime Minister may therefore kindly approve the proposals in para 5 above and direct the Ministry of Water and Power to issue revised notification(s) accordingly, so that the Committee may be able in start its work.
The Ministry of Water and Power may also advise all concerned agencies in the Federal and Provincial Governments to assist the Committee in its work and provide full facilities, data / records etc.
(ii) If considered appropriate, the President / Prime Minister may kindly call me for discussions on the subject at any time convenient to them.
Technical Committee on
Matters relating to Technical Committee on Water Resources as decided in the meeting held under the instructions of President of Pakistan at Wapda Rest House, Karachi on 26th August 2003, between Lt. Gen. (rtd) Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Chairman Wapda and Mr A.N.G. Abbasi, chairman designate of the Technical Committee.
1. The Technical Committee will consist of a full-time Chairman and the following part time members:
(i) One technical member from each province to be nominated by the President / Prime Minister on the recommendations of the Chairman, Technical Committee from amongst a panel of three persons proposed by each Province.
(ii) The following co-opted members to assist the Technical Committee whenever invited by the Chairman:
(a) The Secretary, Planning Division, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad;
(b) Chief Engineering Advisor, Ministry of Water & Power, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad;
(c) Chairman, IRSA, Islamabad;
(d) Member (Water), WAPDA, Lahore.
B. TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Technical Committee will have the following Terms of Reference (TOR):
(i) To review the issues relating to distribution of water according to 1991 Water Apportionment Accord and submit recommendations for streamlining water distribution amongst the Provinces;
(ii) To determine the water availability for future development projects, i.e. future reservoirs and irrigation schemes;
(iii) To assess the viability of construction of future dams / reservoirs and irrigation schemes in consideration of water availability, also keeping in view the silting of reservoirs, and also recommend sequencing of the future storages;
(iv) To finalize the TOR for study for outflow to sea and recommend measures to expedite completion of the study;
(v), Examine operational criteria for existing reservoirs and Indus Link Canals and make recommendations so that these operations do not create shortages in lower riparian provinces. Further, to make recommendations for adoption of similar criteria for future reservoirs.
C. OTHER MATTERS
(i) The Chairman will have the status of Federal Minister. He will report to the Prime Minister / President;
(ii) An adhoc allocation of Rs 5.0 million will be released to the Technical Committee;
(iii) The logistic support to the Technical Committee will be provided by the Ministry of Water & Power;
(iv) Mr Ghulam Sarwar Khichi, retired Joint Secretary to Govt. of Pakistan will be appointed as Secretary of the Technical Committee. His address and telephone numbers are given below:
KDA Officers’ Co-operative Housing Society,
near National Stadium, Karachi,
Telephone 021-4824509 & 4989334, Mobile 0320-5052829;
(v) The concerned agencies of Federal / Provincial Govt. will be advised to provide all assistance and facilities to the Committee.
Government of Pakistan Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad 11th February 2004
No WIII-1(1)2002-Vol.IV: In partial supersession of this Ministry’s notification of even number dated November 15, 2003, the following modifications are approved in the public interest with immediate effect.
1. The Committee may co-opt Secretary, Planning & Development, Government of Pakistan, Chief Engineering Adviser, Ministry of Water and Power, Chairman IRSA and Member (Water), WAPDA as members of the Committee.
2. Mr Ghulam Sarwar Khichi is appointed as Secretary of the Technical Committee on Water Resources.
3. The terms of Reference of the Technical Committee are modified to include the following additional items:
a) Determination of water availability for future reservoirs and irrigation schemes.
b) Examination of operational criteria of link canals and future reservoirs.
4. The Committee shall submit its report / recommendations within one year.
Deputy Secretary (W)
Report of Technical Committee on Water Resources
including report of seven members of the committee with comments of the chairman.
1. Examination of TORs, Conclusions and Recommendations
1.1. Terms of Reference of Technical Committee on Water Resources.
1.1.1. The terms of Reference of the Technical Committee notified by Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power in the two notifications No. W.III-1(1)2002-Vol-IV dated 15th November, 2003, and No. W.III-1(1)/2002-Vol. IV dated 11th February 2004, as consolidated and renumbered are as under:
1. “Review issues relating to distribution of water according to 1991 Water Apportionment Accord and submit recommendations for streamlining water distribution amongst the Provinces.”
2. “Assess the need for constructing dams/reservoirs for future requirements and to make up for the shortages of water due to silting of Tarbela and Mangla dams and recommend sequencing of future storages”.
3. “Review the progress achieved so far regarding study on escapages below Kotri and recommend measures to expedite the completion of the study”.
4-a. “Determination of water availability for future reservoirs and irrigation schemes”.
4-b. “Ascertain actual quantity of water passed downstream Kotri from 1976-2003”.
5-a. “Examine the filling criteria of Mangla reservoir and make recommendations in this regard”.
5-b. “Examination of operational criteria of link canals and future reservoirs”.
6. “Complement the Parliamentary Committee on Water Resources in the discharge of its functions”.
1.1.2. TORs 1 to 3, 4(b), 5(a) and 6 were notified in the first notification dated 15th November 2003 and TORs-4(a) and 5(b) were notified in second notification dated 11th February 2004.
1.2. Objections to the inclusion of two additional TORs.
1.2.1. In the first meeting of the Technical Committee held on 11th March 2004, Mr Mazhar Ali member, Technical Committee on Water Resources raised an objection that the availability of water for dams was never the issue. Chairman of the Technical Committee without any consultation with other members has got two contentious issues included under Additional Terms of Reference regarding water availability for future reservoirs and operational criteria of link canals since constructed with prescribed design and operation criteria under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, Mr Mazhar Ali also raised this point in the second meeting of Technical Committee held on September 4, 2004, Mr. Mazhar Ali raised the same point once again in the third meeting held on September 28, 2004, and stated that two TORs for Technical Committee were got added by the Chairman, on his own.
1.2.2. In the first meeting of the Technical Committee on Water Resources, Senator Nisar A. Memon, Chairman, Parliamentary Committee on Water Resources, advised that TORs as notified by the Government should be followed for further proceedings of the Committee. In the third meeting of the Technical Committee Mr Shams-ul-Mulk, member Technical Committee on Water Resources said that we should follow the decision on the TORs faithfully.
1.2.3. The Chairman, Technical Committee on Water Resources explained that the TORs of the Technical Committee were decided in August 2003, immediately after the President’s announcement nominating him as Chairman of the Technical Committee on Water Resources. The TORs included the matters about which people have apprehensions regarding present handling of affairs by concerned organizations in Water Sector and the future programmes. In the notification of November 2003, some of these TORs and other decided matters were missing. A summary was therefore submitted to the President/Prime Minister for their approval to correct the omissions. This was done in the notification of February 2004. The Technical Committee has therefore to follow the TORs as notified by Government, in its proceedings.
1.3. Order of consideration of TORs
1.3.1. During the proceedings of Parliamentary Committee on Water Resources the Chairman and the members of the Parliamentary Committee and the representatives of the provinces attending meetings of the Parliamentary Committee requested the Chairman, Technical Committee to start consideration of TOR relating to water availability, being more important, on priority basis. It was therefore considered proper that the TOR-4(a) “Determination of water availability for future reservoirs and irrigation schemes” may be taken up first. It was also felt that TOR-5(a) “Examine the filling criteria of Mangla reservoir and make recommendations in this regard” and TOR-5(b) “Examination of operational criteria of link canals and future reservoirs”, may be taken up next so as to prepare the ground for consideration of TOR-2 relating to construction and sequencing of future reservoirs.
1.3.2. In view of the above it was decided to arrange the presentations and take up the consideration of the TORs of Technical Committee in the following order.
4-a. “Determination of water availability for future reservoirs and irrigation schemes”.
5-a. “Examine the filling criteria of Mangla reservoir and make recommendations in this regard”.
5-b. “Examination of operational criteria of link canals and future reservoirs”.
2. “Assess the need for constructing dams/reservoirs for future requirements and to make up for the shortages of water due to silting of Tarbela and Mangla dams and recommend sequencing of future storages”.
1. “Review issues relating to distribution of water according to 1991 Water Apportionment Accord and submit recommendations for streamlining water distribution amongst the Provinces”.
The TORs will be discussed in this report in the same order.
1.3.3. The following TORs were excluded from the presentations and detailed discussions due to reasons indicated against each:
These TORs will also be dealt with in report keeping in view the available information and material.
1.4. It was decided in the meeting held at President’s House on May 25, 2005, that the Ministry of Water and Power will get the report containing views of the members of Technical Committee on Water Resources duly signed by them and send it to the Chairman, Technical Committee on Water Resources for incorporating the same in the report of Technical Committee on Water Resources alongwith his comments. The Chairman, TCWR received the report of the seven members of TCWR including a separate note of the eighth member of TCWR from the Minister for Water and Power on June 9, 2005. This report of seven members of Technical Committee and the note of the eighth member has been enclosed as an attachment with this report.
1.5. The issues relating to each of the TORs 4(a), 5(a), 5(b), 2 and 1 have been examined in subsequent paras of this report in the light of the data and material supplied and deliberations held in the meetings of the Technical Committee. The views of the members contained in their report of May 2005 have also been incorporated in this report under each TOR, alongwith the comments of the Chairman. No detailed examination was considered necessary for TORs 3, 4(b) and 6 and therefore no presentations were arranged as mentioned in para 1.3.3 above. However a brief report on these TORs is also included in this report.
1.6. The Conclusions and Recommendations by the Chairman, Technical Committee of Water Resources, in respect of TORs 4(a), 5(a), 5(b), 2 and 1 have been given at the end of each TOR. A summary of the Conclusions and Recommendations has also been prepared and it is presented as a separate compilation.
TOR-3: “Review the progress achieved so far regarding study on escapages below Kotri and recommend measures to expedite the completion of the study.”
The position paper already supplied by the Chief Engineering Adviser in March 2004 was considered adequate. It was felt that progress of the three studies could be monitored through monthly progress reports.TOR-4(b): “Ascertain actual quantity of water passed downstream Kotri from 1976-2003.”
The information supplied by WAPDA regarding outflow to sea in post-Tarbela period was based on recorded data and therefore considered acceptable.TOR-6: “Complement the Parliamentary Committee on Water Resources in the discharge of its functions”.No information, data or presentation is required for this TOR.
“Determination of water availability for future reservoirs and irrigation schemes”
2.1 Sources of water availability:
2.1.1. Water is an important resource of any country. Pakistan being predominantly an agricultural country, water plays a very significant role in its economy.
2.1.2. Pakistan depends almost entirely on the flows of the river Indus and its tributaries for its irrigation requirements. Under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, the three Eastern River (Ravi, Sutlej and Beas) of the Indus System have been allocated to India for their exclusive use whereas the three Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) have been allocated to Pakistan, will certain provisions for uses of water of Western Rivers by India in the Northern Regions of occupied Kashmir.
2.1.3. The other sources of water are rainfall and groundwater. There are about six hundred thousand tube-wells (most of them located in sweet groundwater areas, in central Pakistan) yielding over 40 MAF of water for irrigation purposes.
2.2. Overall water availability scenario:
2.2.1. The flows of the Western Rivers allocated to Pakistan are highly erratic. Maximum flow of 186.79 MAF occurred in the year 1959-60 and minimum flow of 97.17 MAF occurred in the year 2001-02. There is also seasonal variation in the flows. Major part of the flows (84%) occur in Kharif season (summer months) whereas the flows in the Rabi season (winter months) are much lower (about 16%).
2.3 Development of irrigated agriculture in Pakistan
2.3.1. The history of irrigated agriculture in Pakistan dates back to early nineteenth century. In earlier periods, irrigation water was provided from inundation canals which depended on the levels in the rivers and functioned only during floods. Later on barrages were constructed, first on smaller tributaries and then on Indus main, to provide weir controlled irrigation to the commanded areas. At the time of independence in 1947, the canal withdrawal were only about 64 MAF. Since then there has been further development and expansion in the irrigation system. The present irrigation system of Pakistan covers a culturable commanded area of about 36 million acres. The present system consists of 19 headworks, 43 canal systems and 2 large storage reservoirs. In the year 1991, the Water Accord was signed amongst the provinces. Under the Accord 117.35 MAF of water has been allocated to the four provinces for their existing canals systems.
2.4. Presentations on TOR-4(a)
2.4.1 The presentations were made on TOR-4(a) by Secretary Planning and Development Division and Member (Water), WAPDA to the Technical Committee in its second meeting held on 4th September 2004. The presentation made by Member (Water), WAPDA did not cover some points and therefore an additional presentation was made by him in the third meeting of the Technical Committee held on 27th September 2004.
2.4.2. The Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Water was requested to make presentation on the following aspects of water availability.
a) India’s entitlement of Western Rivers and flows of water from Eastern Rivers in the light of Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
b) Satisfactory observance of Indus Waters Treaty or any breaches of agreement etc., and the likely effects on Pakistan.
c) Information regarding Kabul River flows and the proposed Treaty with Afghanistan for sharing of Kabul River waters. The Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Water made the presentation to the Technical Committee in the third meeting of the Committee held on 27th September 2004.
2.4.3. Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal, member Technical Committee gave his written comments on WAPDA’s presentations dated 4.9.2004 and 27.9.2004. The Member (Water), WAPDA gave his responses to the comments of Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal. Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal then sent rejoinders to the responses made by WAPDA.
2.5 Observations on Presentation by Planning and Development Division.
2.5.1. It was observed that the TOR-4(a) relates to “Determination of water availability for future reservoirs and irrigation scheme” but the Planning and Development Division made the presentation about water availability at farm gate. Moreover, the presentation contained the data of seepage losses in the irrigation system (presumably to identify the need for lining of water courses and irrigation channels), which was not required for the TOR under consideration. Moreover, the Planning and Development Division did not mention any thing about the approval status of WAPDA’s Vision 2025 Programme. A list of the projects under implementation and those under process for feasibility and approval under the Vision 2025 programme has however been provided, but the Planning and Development Division could not clearly indicate the priority between future reservoirs and flood irrigation schemes.
2.6 Observations on Presentation by WAPDA.
2.6.1 WAPDA has not made water availability computations as a regular feature of their activities since its inception, nor have they developed may standard format for computations of water availability. Had they done so, and made water availability computations as an annual feature of their activities, the difference of opinion which has developed could have been avoided. This was pointed out to WAPDA by the Chairman, Technical Committee during the discussions on the TOR on water availability.
2.6.2. In WAPDA’s Vision 2025 Programme estimated to cost over US $ 50 billion, there are no computations of water availability. In fact, even there is no mention about water availability. In this document, storage reservoirs with capacity of 59.43 MAF have been included. It was however, explained by WAPDA that the Vision 2025 Programme only identifies the list of potential storage sites, but the actual implementation will be according to the feasibility of each project and the availability of water.
2.6.3: River Flow Data on Water Availability
220.127.116.11: In the first meeting of the Technical Committee held on 11th March 2004, it was unanimously agreed that the basic hydrological data relating to the river flow etc., as recorded and documented by WAPDA will be acceptable to the ethnical Committee. This has been rightly pointed out by the seven members of the Technical Committee in their report of May 2005.
2.6.4: Water Availability Criteria
18.104.22.168: This issue was deliberated in the meetings of Technical Committee. One view point was that the criteria of average Water Availability (50% probability) may be adopted. The other view point was that the criteria 4 out of 5 (80% probability) may be adopted, because for future reservoirs, reliable availability of water has to be ensured. The Federal Government policy documents, the latest being Ten Year Perspective Plan 2001-2011, indicate that the 4 out of 5 years criteria has to be adopted. However, in the 5th meeting of the Technical Committee held on 22.11.2004, the Technical Committee felt that under the present circumstances of diminishing of Water Availability, every drop of water whenever available has to be conserved.
2.6.5: Upstream and Downstream Approaches
22.214.171.124: The normal procedure for water availability computations is on upstream approach basis i.e. how much water is received at the rim stations. What are the abstractions, usages, system losses etc and the outflow to the sea. Thus the upstream approach enables the proper and complete accounting of the water in a river system. The concept of downstream approach was initiated by WAPDA for the first time in the year 1994. This approach on determines the net outflow to sea without indicating the total availability and how it was utilized. However, whether the water availability computations are made on upstream basis or downstream basis, the net result should be the same, if the water accounting is done correctly and meticulously.
2.6.6: Water Availability Computations by WAPDA.
126.96.36.199: WAPDA has included the following three tables in respect of their latest Water Availability computations in their presentations of 4th September 2004:
i. Average water availability on downstream approach basis, 14.95 MAF (Annexure II-I).
ii. Average water availability on upstream approach basis, 14.23 MAF (Annexure 11-2).
iii. Latest Water availability on downstream basis, 19.1 MAF (Annexure 11-3).
It is not understood, why WAPDA has included two separate computations of water availability on downstream basis (Annexure II-I and Annexure II-3) in their presentation.
188.8.131.52: There are following inconsistencies in the computations:
(i) WAPDA’s computations at (Annexure I-I) (downstream approach basis) and (Annexure II-2) (upstream approach basis) do not include the item of water requirements of projects under construction as indicated by WAPDA in the computations of water availability on downstream basis at (Annexure II-3). As decided in the fifth meeting of the Technical Committee held on 27th November 2004, provision has to be made in respect of the projects under construction in the water availability computations, and that some completed projects and those under construction omitted by WAPDA may also be included.
(ii) WAPDA’s water availability computations on downstream basis at (Annexure II-3) do not include the item of balance Accord allocation which has been included in the water availability computation on downstream basis (Annexure II-I) and the computation on upstream basis (Annexure II-2).
184.108.40.206: The above inconsistencies have been corrected in the respective Annexures and resultantly the net water availability according to WAPDA’s computations works out as under:
i. Net water availability on upstream basis 6.43 MAF
ii. Net water availability on downstream basis 7.15 MAF
2.6.7: Variations in WAPDA’s computation and non-observance of Government policies.
220.127.116.11: WAPDA’s method of water availability computations reveals the following variations:-
(i) Data base period
The data base period adopted by WAPDA for water availability computations has been different at different times, as depicted in the table included in the presentation to Technical Committee on 4th September 2004 (Annexure II-4). WAPDA has however omitted from this list the study of 1992 by their two General Managers of WAPDA, and the filling studies of Kalabagh reservoir of 1988 by Kalabagh Consultants. In both these studies WAPDA has taken the data base period of 1922 to date. Moreover, the latest policy documents of Federal Government i.e. Ten Year Perspective Plan 2001-2011 approved by the National Economic Council (NEC), and the National Water Policy Report by Federal Government (both listed by WAPDA in table at Annexure II-4), also indicate data base period to be 1922 to date. Thus adoption of any base period other than that stated in Federal Government policy documents and most of the earlier computations by WAPDA itself, is not justified in any case. Moreover, in the fifth meeting of Technical Committee held on 25.11.2004, it was unanimously agreed that the data base period of 1922 to-date may be adopted for water availability computations. (through one member, Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan Siddiqi later sent his dissent note).
(ii) Variation in computation of water availability from Eastern River Inflows.
(a) Initially in the computation of water availability for National Commission on Agriculture (1987), WAPDA has indicated the figure of 2.0 MAF to be Eastern Rivers contribution, because at that time WAPDA was of the view that though Eastern Rivers have been allocated to India for their exclusive use, India will not be able to stop all the water of these rivers. At that time WAPDA had not mentioned any thing about the regeneration of water within Pakistan. Later on, in the water availability computations of 1994, WAPDA stated that “No doubt India is entitled under the Treaty to unrestricted use of Eastern Rivers but it is limited only to run-off generated within its own territory, the lowest control points for which are Madhopur on Ravi and Ferozepur on Sutlej”. Accordingly, in the water availability computations of 1994, WAPDA did not include any inflow from the Eastern Rivers from India, but only included the provision for regenerated water within Pakistan.
(b) In their presentation at the conference held by Senator Nisar A. Memon, the then Federal Minister for Information at Bhurban on 20th June 2002, WAPDA indicated the reduction due to loss of Eastern Rivers contribution from India as 4.9 MAF, in their computation of water availability on downstream basis, thus confirming that no contribution of inflows from Eastern Rivers from India can be expected. However in the latest computations presented to the Technical Committee on Water-Resources, WAPDA has indicated Eastern River contribution both in the form of outflow from India as well as in the form of regeneration within Pakistan.
(iii) Difference in figures adopted for downstream Kotri
(a) In their first water availability computations in 1992 (by two General Managers of WAPDA), after the signing of Water Accord, WAPDA adopted a figure of 10.0 MAF for outflow to sea as indicated in the Water Accord. But in their subsequent water availability computation of 1994, WAPDA has shown the figure of 5.8 MAF.
(b) In the presentation in the Conference held at Bhurban by Senator Nisar A. Memon, the then Federal Information Minister, on 20th June 2002, WAPDA mentioned the figure of 6.5 MAF for outflow to sea.
(c) Further is the latest computation of water availability in their presentation to the Technical Committee on Water Resources, WAPDA has again indicated the figure of 5.8 MAF. It has been stated that this figure is based on graduated scale but it has not been explained what that “graduated scale” actually means. There is no rationale at all for this figure.
(d) The Water Accord provides a figure of 10 MAF pending the studies of outflow to sea, which are in progress. Moreover Ten Year Perspective Plan 2001-2011 approved by the National Economic Council (NEC) also indicate the figure of 10 MAF. Also in the presentation by the then Minister for Water and Power at Pakistan Development Forum on 18th March 2004, the figure of 10 MAF was indicated before donor agencies and the latest Federal Government document “National Water Policy 2005” also indicates the figures of 10 MAF for outflow to sea. Under the circumstances, the figure of 10 MAF has to be adopted for outflow to sea, pending completion of studies by consultants and international experts which are in progress and in final stages and the decision of the Government thereon.
2.7 Computations of Water Availability by seven members of Technical Committee
2.7.1 The computations of Water Availability made by WAPDA in the presentations to the Technical Committee were discussed in detail in the subsequent meetings of the Technical Committee. The seven members of the Technical Committee fully supported WAPDA’s computations during the deliberations in these meetings. Six members also supported WAPDA’s computations in their letters to the Secretary, Technical Committee, Mr. Shams-ul-Mulk who could not attend earlier meetings of the Technical Committee in which the TOR-4(a) regarding Water Availability was being discussed, stated in the seventh meeting of Technical Committee held on 11th January 2005, that he entirely agrees with the presentations made by WAPDA in this regard. No separate computations were presented by any of the seven members for consideration by the Technical Committee.
2.7.2 Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal, member Technical Committee offered his written comments on the presentations of WAPDA. In his comments, Mr. Mughal also gave his own computations regarding water availability on upstream and downstream basis with reasons for disagreeing with WAPDA’s figures on certain components of the computations.
2.7.3 The report of the seven members of the Technical Committee of May 2005, includes computations of Water Availability on upstream and downstream basis at pages 35 and 37 of the “Elaborations”. As mentioned at para 2.7.1 above, the distinguished seven members did not present any separate computations in the meetings of the Technical Committee in which the TOR-4(a) on Water Availability was deliberated, but they supported WAPDA’s computations. In their computations now given in their report of May 2005, the seven members have compared their computations with those of Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal. However, they have not made any comparison of their computations with WAPDA’s figures, with whom they had fully agreed during the proceedings of the Technical Committee.
2.7.4 The seven members of TCWR in their report of May 2005, have stated regarding TOR-4(a) as under:-
”Various aspects of the issue have been the subject of criticism and exhaustive documentation and observations by Sardar Ahmad Mughal from Sindh, the only dissenting Committee member, and supported by the Chairman, TCWR. These dissenting views were in conflict with detailed presentations / documentations by WAPDA, Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters, Chairman IRSA, Planning Division, Water Sector Master Plans, WAPDA Vision 2025, and numerous national / international studies and plans on Development of Pakistan Water Resources by World Bank, Asian Development Bank, JICA etc. The main thrust of the dissenting views was to present an assumed bleak scenario for Pakistan of Nil are Negative surplus river flows for any future development, in contrast to exhaustive documentation to the contrary.”
2.7.5 It is unfortunate that the seven members have singled out Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal for criticism. They have mentioned that Mr. Mughal’s views were in conflict with WAPDA, PCIW, IRSA, Planning Divisions etc. but they have not made any comparison of the views and figures adopted by Mr. Mughal and other agencies. The seven members have also not realised that their own computations show a vast variation from WAPDA’s figures.
2.7.6 The seven members have even accused the Chairman, TCWR of supporting Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal. This is both incorrect and unfair. During the deliberations of Technical Committee, the Chairman, encouraged every member, and every other participant to freely express their views. He never supported or opposed the views expressed by any member or participant.
2.7.7 The seven members have also stated that the main thrust of dissenting views was to present an assumed bleak scenario for Pakistan of Nil or Negative Surplus River flows for any future development. In this respect the comparison given in the table under para 2.7.3 is self explanatory. This table reveals that as against the net average water availability of 6.43 MAF and 7.15 MAF computed by WAPDA on upstream and downstream approach basis respectively, the seven members have calculated the water availability of 31.6 MAF and 32.7 MAF respectively. This is notwithstanding the fact that all the seven learned members had supported and endorsed WAPDA’s computations of water availability during the proceeding of the Technical Committee. So if the computations of Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal are termed as “bleak”, can the computations of seven members be considered “realistic”?
2.8 Item-wise comparison of Water Availability computations by WAPDA, seven members, TCWR and Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal, and comments of Chairman, TCWR.
2.8.1 There has been consensus amongst WAPDA, seven members of Technical Committee and Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal on the figures adopted for the following components:-
i. NWFP’s diversions above Rim-stations including un-gauged civil canals 5.65 MAF.
ii. System Losses 15.00 MAF.
2.8.2 The Water Availability
computations on upstream and downstream basis by WAPDA in the presentation before the Technical Committee have been described in para 2.6.6 and 2.6.7 above. The seven members of the Technical Committee had generally agreed with the computations of WAPDA during the deliberations of the Technical Committee and they had not given any separate computations. However in their report of May 2005 the seven members have given their own computations of Water Availability on upstream and downstream basis. The net Water Availability now computed by the seven members shows wide variations from WAPDA’s computations. Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal had given his own computations earlier in his comments on WAPDA’s presentation. It is therefore necessary to examine the details item-wise by comparing the figures adopted by WAPDA, seven members and Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal. The component-wise figures are discussed in the following paragraphs:
2.8.3 Period of Water Availability Computations.
18.104.22.168 The following periods of Water Availability computations have been adopted:
WAPDA 1976 to-date (post-Tarbela)
Seven Members ......do.....
Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal 1922 to-date
22.214.171.124 Views of WAPDA
WAPDA has adopted the post-Tarbela period from 1976 to-date in their computations of water availability.
126.96.36.199 Views of seven members, TCWR
The seven members of Technical Committee have expressed the view that the data from 1922-1940 was not so consistent and reliable as it had been recorded by using earlier procedures outdated now. They have also stated that the rivers and canals have been subjected to substantial changes due to construction of new hydraulic works, storages and link canals.
188.8.131.52 Comments of the Chairman, TCWR
(i) This item has been fully discussed in para 184.108.40.206 (i) above. In most of the earlier computations by WAPDA and in the policy documents of the Federal Government, the data from 1922 to-date has been adopted and this should have been continued till now.
(ii) It has not been mentioned by seven members what was actually wrong with the earlier river flow measurements and why and on what basis these are being discarded. As regards construction of new works on the Indus River System, the construction of any dam or any other structure on a river does not change the total water availability in the river system, and the useful long term data cannot be disregarded on that account.
(iii) In the fifth meeting of the Technical Committee held on 25.11.2004, it was unanimously decided to adopt data base period for Water Availability computations from 1922 to-date. However, later on only Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan Siddiqi, member Punjab sent a letter of dissent. It is not understood how the seven members are now resiling from the unanimous decision of the Technical Committee. Under the circumstances it is prudent that the data- base for Water Availability computations from 1922 to-date should be adopted.
2.8.4 Eastern Rivers Run-off generated from within Pakistan and Eastern River Inflows.
220.127.116.11 Views of WAPDA
WAPDA has expressed the view that India has already constructed number of dams on Eastern Rivers and therefore the water that is coming to Pakistan from India will not be reduced hereafter. WAPDA has also stated that the water regenerated in Pakistan Territory will be available for use in Pakistan.
18.104.22.168 Views of seven members, TCWR
In their report of May 2005, the seven Members of the Technical Committee have not made any comments on the Eastern Rivers Inflows from India (4.94 MAF as given in WAPDA’s presentation), though they have included this item in the table of their water availability computations. The seven members have however supported WAPDA’s version about regeneration of water within Pakistan.
22.214.171.124 Comments of Chairman, TCWR
(i) In this respect the comments in para 126.96.36.199 (ii) are referred. As observed therein, in the earlier computations, WAPDA has not included the Eastern Rivers contributions from India but they have only incorporated regeneration in Eastern Rivers within Pakistan and that also later on, after 1994.
(ii) The Thein dam (2.65 MAF) has recently been commissioned on River Ravi in the year 2000. The flows of water from Ravi after construction of this dam have greatly reduced.
(iii) Since the three Eastern Rivers have been allocated to India for their exclusive use, there is no bar on India to utilize remaining available waters of Eastern Rivers, by remodelling of their exiting canals or construction of new works. Moreover the flows of Eastern Rivers are highly erratic. During post-Tarbela period the maximum Eastern Rivers contribution was 17.3 MAF in the year 1978-79 and the minimum was 0.41 MAF in the year 2000-2001. The maximum flows from Eastern Rivers generally comes at a time when the Western Rivers are already in high flood and therefore the water of Eastern Rivers cannot be utilized in these periods.
(iv) According to the presentation made by Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters before Technical Committee on 27th September 2004, regarding Eastern Rivers, he has stated:-
“Pakistan is allowed limited Agriculture Use of 45,500 acres from tributaries of Ravi, namely Basantar, Bien, Tarnah and Ujh.”
Thus the total entitlement of Pakistan for use of water on these Nullas will therefore be only about 0.2 MAF.
(v) The quantity of re-generation of water within Pakistan according to the figures of WAPDA, is also highly erratic i.e. maximum re-generation of 9.65 MAF in 1991 and minimum of 0.67 MAF in 2000-01.
(vi) A realistic view has therefore to be taken in respect of Eastern Rivers contribution from India and regeneration of water within Pakistan in consideration of above. We cannot expect any water to come from Eastern Rivers from India, as these rivers have been allocated for India’s exclusive use.
2.8.5 Indian uses on Western Rivers and Kabul River Shortfall
188.8.131.52 Views of WAPDA and seven members of Technical Committee
In their report of May 2005, the seven members of Technical Committee have supported WAPDA’s version that India can use only 2.0 MAF additional water for irrigating the remaining area according to their entitlement under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960. The learned members have also expressed the view that Afghanistan can only use 0.5 MAF of Kabul River water to meet its consumptive uses for irrigation development, because the valleys in Afghanistan are narrow, steep and barren.
184.108.40.206 Comments of Chairman, TCWR
(i) According to Indus Waters Treaty 1960, India is entitled to irrigate 1,343,477 acres of land from Western Rivers. This was also stated by the Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters in his presentation before the Technical Committee on 27th September 2004. No quantity of water has been prescribed in the Indus Waters Treaty for irrigation of this area. The figure of 2.0 MAF shown by WAPDA in their computation and supported by seven members is based on water allowance of Chashma Right Bank Canal. It is for consideration whether India’s uses can be restricted to the figure indicated by WAPDA and seven members.
(ii) As stated by the Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters, India cannot be restricted to use lesser quantity of water to share the shortages with Pakistan during the periods of low flows. We are more concerned about water availability in shortage periods, because in high flow periods, adequate water will be available in any case.
(iii) According to presentation of Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters, there have been many violations on Indus Waters Treaty by India, as they have already constructed some structures and they are also planning to construct some more works on Jhelum and Chenab Rivers in violation of the provisions of Treaty. This will mean further reduction in the water available to Pakistan. The case of Baglihar dam has already been referred by Pakistan to World Bank and is now being examined by neutral expert appointed by the Bank. Similar is the case of Kirshan Ganga Project.
(iv) In consideration of above, WAPDA’s assumption that India can be restricted to use only 2.0 MAF of Western Rivers for developing their remaining area as entitled in the Indus Waters Treaty, appears to be unrealistic.
(v) As regards the water uses by Afghanistan on Kabul River, the figure adopted by WAPDA and supported by seven members of Technical Committee (0.5 MAF) pertains to only one project in Afghanistan (KAMA Project). Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters has given a list of some other projects which Afghanistan proposes to develop, though their details are not known to him. It is also known that International Agencies are assisting Afghanistan in a big way for development of their water resources. In this connection, some excerpts from Inter-net, which were also circulated to the members of Technical Committee in its third meeting held on 28.9.2004 are given in (Annexure II- 5).
(vi) Kabul River makes substantial contributions to the flows of river Indus, particularly during low flow periods. There is no Treaty so far with Afghanistan, though the Government of Pakistan has initiated the process. It is important that this Treaty should be expedited. In initiating the Treaty the existing uses of Kabul River waters both on Kabul River itself in NWFP as well as in lower riparian areas of the country must be protected. It is pertinent to say that most of the waters of Kabul River are already being utilized in Pakistan, in the existing canal systems.
(vii) Under the circumstances Afghanistan cannot be restricted to use only 0.5 MAF for their development uses on Kabul River. More realistic figure has to be adopted.
(viii) In the presentation before Pakistan Development Forum on 18th March 2004, the then Minister for Water and Power has indicated the figure of anticipated water uses by Upper Riparian States (India and Afghanistan) to be 5.0 MAF. As against this WAPDA has indicated the figure of only 2.0 MAF for use on Western Rivers by India and 0.5 MAF for Kabul River in Afghanistan i.e. total 2.5 MAF. This needs clarification.
2.8.6 Kotri Outflow to Check Sea Water Intrusion
220.127.116.11 Views of WAPDA
WAPDA has adopted the figure of 5.8 MAF on “graduated scale”
18.104.22.168 Views of seven members, TCWR. (i) The seven members of Technical Committee in their report of May 2005, have shown zero provision for downstream Kotri mentioning IRSA’s ruling (neither specified nor copy enclosed) that provinces should use its allocated share to meet the needs of environment and ecological control of checking sea intrusion etc.
22.214.171.124 Comments by Chairman, TCWR.
(i) At page 5 of their report, the seven members have mentioned that “due to lack of adequate storage capacity, on an average annually over 39 MAF escapes below Kotri varying from 8 MAF to 92 MAF. However the data provided by WAPDA shows that the average outflow to sea for the post-Tarbela period 1976-77 to 2003-04 is 35.2 MAF. Also WAPDA’s statistics indicate the minimum outflow to sea has been 0.79 MAF during 2000-01. It seems that the figures mentioned by the learned members, have been indicated without proper verification.
(ii) During the deliberations in the meetings of Technical Committee on Water Resources, five out of seven Members of Technical Committee supported WAPDA’s figure of 5.8 MAF. Two Members from Punjab, Mr Mazhar Ali and Mr Mehmood-ul-Hassan Siddiqi stated that no outflow to sea is necessary and that if any flow is to be allowed for downstream Kotri it may come from Sindh’s share. Now in the report of May 2005, all the seven members of TCWR, have stated that zero provision should be made for outflow to sea.
(iii) The views of seven members as an afterthought to make zero provision for downstream Kotri and to suggest that the requirement may be met from the allocations of the province is not understandable. The Accord allocations under para 2 are for existing canal systems and distributed canal wise for each canal in the 10 daily statements approved by the Council of Common Interests (CCI). Also a figure of 10 MAF has been separately indicated in the Accord for outflow to sea, pending studies to be conducted by consultants. The Federal Government has since initiated the studies by consultants / international experts, after getting TORs agreed by all provinces, which are in final stages, and the reports are excepted in October 2005. This very fact that studies are being conducted by Federal Government indicates that the requirements of outflow to sea as decided on the basis of recommendations of consultants and international experts have to be met from the total available river flows after meeting Accord allocations of existing canals, and not from the share of a province.
(iv) This item has also been discussed in detail in Para 126.96.36.199 (iii) above. As explained therein, the figure of 10.0 MAF outflow to sea has to be adopted pending the recommendations of the consultants / International experts and decision of Federal Government thereon.
2.8.7 Requirements of Projects under construction.
188.8.131.52 Views of WAPDA
WAPDA has included the water requirements of Projects under construction in their water availability computations. However, they have made some omission which need to be added.
184.108.40.206 Views of seven members of Technical Committee on Water Resources.
(i) During the deliberations on the TOR-4(a) in the fifth meeting of Technical Committee, held on 27th November 2004, it was unanimously agreed that the provision of requirements of projects under construction in the Water Availability computations be made, and that provision should also be made for the projects omitted by WAPDA in their presentation. However, in the report of the seven members of Technical Committee of May 2005, they have not indicated any provision for the projects under construction and stated that the requirement of the projects can be adjusted against the additional Water Accord Allocation of 12 MAF under para 2 of the Accord.
220.127.116.11 Comments of Chairman, TCWR
(i) In the Water Availability computations presented to the Technical Committee on 4th September 2004, on upstream and downstream basis (Annexure II-2 and II-1), WAPDA has not shown the requirement of projects under construction. However in the last computation of Water Availability by WAPDA on downstream basis (Annexure II-3), WAPDA has rightly shown the requirement of projects under construction (7.8 MAF), but WAPDA has not included completed LBOD Project and ongoing Gomal Zam Dam Project in the list of projects under construction. The requirements of these two projects (2.2 MAF and 1.0 MAF respectively) therefore need to be included in the computations. It is also necessary to include the requirements of projects under construction in all the computations of Water Availability both on upstream and downstream basis.
(ii) It has been unanimously decided in the fifth meeting of the Technical Committee on Water Resources held on 27th November 2004, as under:
“At this stage, it was pointed out that WAPDA has shown the water requirement of the projects under construction i.e. flood canals (Kachhi Canal, Rainee Canal and Greater Thal), Mangla Raising and Pat Feeder Extensions in their computations for water available on downstream basis as per their table at page 21 of the presentation dated 4th September 2004. This water requirement may also, therefore, be included in the computation for water availability on upstream basis. Moreover the provision for LBOD completed scheme (2.2 MAF) Gomal Zam Dam (1.0 MAF) and Urban and Industrial Uses (5 MAF) has also to be made in computations both for upstream and downstream basis. The consensus was reached that these provisions should be made in the water Availability computation”.
Therefore provision for new projects under implementation has to be made in water availability computations and that the omissions in WAPDA’s lists have to be corrected.
It is not understandable how the seven members have given different views in their report of May 2005.
(iii) The view of the seven members that the 117.35 MAF Water Allocation to the provinces under the Accord includes future development projects is not correct. This quantity (117.35 MAF) has been allocated to the provinces under para 2 of Water Accord for the existing canals, and the 10-daily statements for allocating these supplies to each of the existing canal systems have also been approved by the Council of Common Interest (CCI) in its meeting held on 16.09.1991.
(iv) The existing canal systems of Pakistan command an area of 36 million acres which has to be sustained. The Accord allocations meant for these canals cannot be denied to them and the water allocated to the existing canals cannot be diverted to be used for new projects.
2.8.8 Balance Water Accord Allocation.
18.104.22.168 WAPDA’s position
WAPDA has indicated the figure of 117.35 MAF as per para 2 of Water Accord.
22.214.171.124 Position of seven members, TCWR.
During deliberations of Technical Committee, the seven members supported WAPDA’s computations. However in their report of May 2005, the seven members have indicated the figure of 105.4 MAF, being average system uses for the period 1977-82.
126.96.36.199 Comments of Chairman, TCWR.
It is not indicated any where in Water Accord that the para 2 of Accord allocations of 117.35 MAF include any development component. These allocations are for existing canals, as also discussed under para 188.8.131.52 above. It is emphasized that Water Accord is sacrosanct as also unanimously agreed in the first meeting of Technical Committee. The Water Accord Allocations must therefore be implemented in letter and spirit.
2.8.9 Urban and Industrial Uses.
184.108.40.206 No specific views have been expressed by WAPDA or seven members of Technical Committee in this regard.
220.127.116.11 Comments of Chairman, TCWR
(i) During the deliberations of Technical Committee, it was emphasized that the requirement of Urban and Industrial uses have to be provided for. Sardar Muhammad Tariq Member, NWFP was very emphatic in advocating this provision and he stated “it is now growing trend in the world to give priority to further urban and industrial quota for urban and industrial uses from 35% to 40% of available fresh water. He suggested that in view of growing population of Pakistan and improvement in standard of living, we should have sufficient provision for urban and industrial use. He further said that we can not depend on tubewell water because subsoil water levels are depleting and quality of water is also deteriorating. Moreover many areas do not have sweet ground water.”
(ii) It was also unanimously decided in the fifth meeting of the Technical Committee on Water Resources held on 27th November 2004, that “Urban and Industrial uses (5 MAF) has also to be made in computations both for upstream and downstream basis.”
(iii) In the report of seven members of May 2005, they have not given any specific views regarding Urban and Industrial uses in the water availability computations, although in the table for computation of Water Availability on Page-37 of their report, no provision has been made for it and it has been mention that this item may be included in balance supply for development without clarifying this view.
(iv) The provision of water supply for Urban and Industrial uses is highly important and can not be ignored. Adequate provision has therefore to be made for this purpose. Sardar Muhammad Tariq member NWFP, one of the learned seven members, during deliberations in the meetings of TCWR has suggested 35-40% of River Inflows to be earmarked for Urbana and Industrial Uses. The provision for Urban and Industrial Uses is therefore fully justified as unanimously decided in the fifth meeting of Technical Committee held on 27th November 2004. It is not understandable how this item can be covered under “balance supply for development”, as suggested by the seven members.
2.9 Views of Chairman of Technical Committee based on the overall scenario emerging from the divergent views on each component of water availability computations.
2.9.1 It is not possible to accurately forecast the future water availability. All we can do is to study the past trends from the available records of river flows data and estimate the future scenario from the analysis of this database.
2.9.2 Separate water availability computations have been made for average water availability on upstream and downstream basis. However, the seven members of the Technical Committee and WAPDA have shown their preference that water availability computations may be based on downstream approach. This aspect has been discussed in para 2.6.5 above. However, in consideration of the views of distinguished seven members, the computations of water availability based on downstream approach are being considered for the purpose of this report.
2.9.3 As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the water availability figures of each component by WAPDA, seven members of Technical Committee and by Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal show vast differences. The Chairman, Technical Committee on Water Resources feels greatly embarrassed in such a situation. He has therefore given deep consideration to the matter and is of the view that the maximum weightage may be given to the figures of WAPDA and the seven distinguished members, even though his views mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs have depicted a different position. The Chairman, Technical Committee has accordingly prepared a revised table of water availability on downstream basis on the following considerations:
(a) The components for which there is agreement between WAPDA and seven members may be adopted as such in spite of different views of Chairman mentioned in paras indicated against each.
These components on which there is agreement between WAPDA and seven members of the Technical Committee are given below:-
1. Eastern River run off generated from within Pakistan
(Ref. para 18.104.22.168) 3.53 MAF
2. Eastern River inflows
(Ref. para 22.214.171.124) 4.94 MAF
3. Indian Right on Western Rivers
(Ref. para 126.96.36.199) 2.00 MAF
4. Short-term possible flows on Kabul River by Afghanistan
(Ref. para 188.8.131.52) 0.50 MAF
5. Future Urban and Industrial uses
(Ref. para 184.108.40.206) 0.00 MAF
(b) As regards the components in which there is difference between the figures of WAPDA and report of seven members, the Chairman, TCWR has adopted WAPDA’s figures (given below) as given in WAPDA’s presentation, except that downstream Kotri figure of 10.00 MAF has been adopted because this cannot be changed pending completion of study by consultants/ international experts and decision of Government.
(i) Requirement of Projects under construction 11.00 MAF
(ii) Shortfall in Accord allocations 11.95 MAF
2.9.4 The table of water availability on downstream basis prepared by Chairman, TCWR on the above considerations, (as compared with figures of WAPDA, seven members and Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal) is given below.
This table is based entirely on WAPDA’s figures, except S.No. 2.3 relating to Kotri outflow to sea.
2.9.5 The above table reveals that even according to the projections of WAPDA, there is no surplus water availability on average year basis. However, this does not mean that no water is available for storage at all. It is re-iterated that surplus water is available for storage in flood years and it is this surplus water which has to be conserved and stored. Unfortunately enough consideration has not been given to the year to year water availability which depicts the correct picture of the water availability scenario.
2.10 Pattern of Water Availability on downstream basis
2.10.1 A table has been prepared (Annexure II-6) showing the figures of outflow to sea for 28 years post-Tarbela period from 1976-77 to 2002-03. These figures have been arranged in descending order. The mean (average) outflow to sea during this period has been 34.65 MAF. This table shows that there have been only 11 above average years and 17 below average years in the 28 years period. However, the median (mid point) value is 29.68 MAF, which is 5 MAF less than the average value.
2.10.2 In this table the outflow to sea during 28 year post- Tarbela period has also been analysed by four, 7-year periods. This analysis indicates that in the highest seven years period, the outflow to sea was 50.70% of the total, whereas in the lowest seven years period outflow to sea was only 5.31%.
2.10.3 The other table (Annexure II-7) has been prepared in which the capability of the proposed future reservoirs to trap the available surplus flows has been examined. Study of this table indicates that storable surplus water is available for only 10 years out of 28 years. The study further reveals that a dam of 6.0 MAF will be able to trap only about 22% of the surplus flood flows and another dam of 6.0 MAF will be able to trap additional 18.9% of the flood flows. The two dams of 6.0 MAF each together will trap about 41% 59% of surplus flows will still remain un- utilized after two dams are built. The study further indicates that carryover dam of 35 MAF will utilize 84% of the surplus water. According to the study, one dam of 6.0 MAF is likely to be filled for 10 years during flood years out 28 years and the second dam of 6.0 MAF will be filled for 7 years out of 28 years and partly filled for 3 years, and the carryover dam will be filled for 3 years out of 28 years and partly filled for 7 years out of 28 years.
(d) The position emerging from the above analysis of river flow data indicates that in periods of floods, when the surplus water is actually available for storage, the adoption of different figures for individual components, of water availability computations, as has been done by WAPDA, seven members and Mr. Sardar Ahmed Mughal, do not matter so much. In most of these flood years, whatever values are adopted for these component items, sufficient surplus water is still available for storage. It is this undisputed large quantity of surplus water which requires to be trapped and stored.
2.11 Inter-seasonal and Inter-year transfer of surplus flows for storage
2.11.1 The seven members of Technical Committee in their report of May 2005, have mentioned the following categories for storage of surplus water:-
(i) Storage of surplus water in high flow season (Kharif) for use in subsequent low flow season (Rabi) of the same year.
(ii) Storage of surplus water in high flood years for use in subsequent low flow years.
2.11.2 Our present storages i.e. Mangla and Tarbela are of the first category. These store the surplus water by inter- seasonal transfer from Kharif season for use in subsequent Rabi season of the same year. The storage capacity of the existing dams is about 15.0 MAF. The average annual Rabi flows of the Western Rivers are about 23 MAF. Thus the Rabi water availability has increased by about 65% after the construction of Mangla and Tarbela reservoirs.
2.11.3 In this respect it is appropriate to consider the season-wise canal withdrawals for post-Tarbela period to know what has been season-wise water use after construction of the two reservoirs. A statement showing the post-Tarbela season-wise canal withdrawals 1976-77 to 2002-03 as compared to the Water Accord Allocations is enclosed as (Annexure II-8). This statement is based on the figures given in the table at (Annexure-7) of the presentation by WAPDA in the third meeting of Technical Committee held on 27th September 2004. The study of the table shows that out of 27 years post-Tarbela period, Rabi canal withdrawals have been more than 100% of the Water Accord allocations for 14 years. Further in 9 more years, the canal withdrawals have been above 90% of the Water Accord allocations. Thus during Rabi, the canals have been receiving full Water Accord allocation or even more during most of the years in post-Tarbela period, and only in a very few low flow years, there have been Rabi shortages.
2.11.4 As compared to the Rabi canal withdrawals, more shortages have occurred during Kharif. There is not even a single year in the 27 year post-Tarbela period in which Kharif withdrawals have exceeded the Water Accord allocations. In 5 years, the Kharif withdrawals have been less than 80%. In 16 years the Kharif withdrawals have been between 80% and 90%. Only in 6 out of 27 years the Kharif withdrawals have been above 90%.
2.11.5 The above figures reveal that the Rabi requirements of the existing canals are adequately met by the existing river flows and present storages. In fact there is no more surplus water for season to season transfer, and the surplus availability is only for year to year transfer, from flood years to dry years. The surplus flows are of higher magnitude but with lesser frequency of occurrence. Thus the filling of future dams will be an occasional event, as compared to existing dams in which even partial filling in any year is considered as an unusual phenomenon. This aspect needs to be considered in planning of future storages and deciding their operational criteria.
Sr. No.Name of Irrigation SchemesEstimated Cost
(Rs)Water requirement (MAF)
i.Greater Thal Canal (Punjab)30.46 billion2.5ii.Kachhi Canal (Balochistan)31.20 billion1.2iii.Rainee Canal (Sindh)18.86 billion1.1
2.12 Future Irrigation schemes
2.12.1 According to the presentations of Planning and Development Division and WAPDA the following three irrigation schemes have been approved for construction and the work is in progress:
2.12.2 The seven members of Technical Committee have not given any views about future irrigation schemes in their report of May 2005.
2.12.3 Para 4 of the Water Accord reproduced below prescribes the shares of the provinces in the balance water supplies:
“Balance river supply (including flood supplies and future storages) shall be distributed as below:
2.12.3 The comparative priority between future storages and irrigation schemes has not been indicated in the Accord. This aspect was however discussed in the fifth meeting of Technical Committee held on 27th November 2004, and it was unanimously agreed that “first priority from balance surplus water available should go to the future reservoirs and the flood canals should have lower priority than the future reservoirs”.
2.13 Sustenance of existing developed agriculture and coastal ecosystem
2.13.1 It is important to sustain and consolidate, if not further develop and improve the agriculture in the 36 million acres commanded by existing canal systems. The allocated water of 117.35 MAF under the Accord for existing canals therefore needs to be fully protected. The shortfall in the low flow years may be provided from the new reservoirs.
2.13.2 It is also important to provide the requirements of downstream Kotri, after meeting Accord allocations of existing canals (117.35 MAF), to the extent of 10 MAF as indicated in the Water Accord, or any other quantity decided by Government on the basis of the outcome of studies in progress.
2.13.3 The new schemes, i.e. future reservoirs and irrigation schemes should be considered out of balance water availability, after meeting Accord allocations of existing canals and requirements of outflow to sea.
2.14 Conclusions and recommendations
1. WAPDA have not made water availability computations as a regular feature of their activities since inception, nor have they developed a standard format for computation of water availability. Had they done so, the differences of opinion which have developed could have been avoided. Moreover, WAPDA has been adopting different figures for components of water availability at different times, which has created confusion.
2. Normally the water availability computations are done on upstream basis to depict the proper accounting of the water available in a river system, and its utilization. The computation on downstream basis only indicates the outflow to sea. However, whether the computations are done on upstream basis, or downstream basis the net result should be the same if proper water accounting is done. For the purpose of this report, downstream approach is being considered in deference to the opinion of WAPDA as well as the seven members of TCWR.
3. WAPDA and Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal have given different computations of water availability, indicating net average water availability on downstream basis as 7.15 MAF and minus 11.6 MAF respectively. During the 6. A study of the pattern of water availability for post- Tarbela period from 1976-77 to 2002-03 reveals that during the 28 years period, more than 50% of the outflow to sea has occurred in seven years of highest flows, whereas in the lowest seven year period outflow to sea has been only about 5%. This study also shows that during most of the flood year when large quantities of surplus water are available for storage, the adoption of different values for computation of surplus water availability do not matter so much.
7. A study has also been carried out to examine the capability of the proposed future reservoirs to trap surplus water whenever available. This study indicates that storable surplus water is available for only 10 years out of 28 years of post-Tarbela period. The study also reveals that dam of 6.0 MAF will be able to trap only about 22% of the surplus flood flows and another dam of 6.0 MAF will be able to trap additional 18.9% of the flood flows. The two dams of 6.0 MAF together will trap about 41% 59% of surplus flows will still remain un-utilized after two dams are built. The study further reveals that carryover dam of 35 MAF will utilize 84% of the surplus water. According to the study, one dam of 6.0 MAF is likely to be filled for 10 years out 28 years and the second dam of 6.0 MAF will be filled for 7 years out of 28 years and partly filled for 3 years, and the carryover dam will be filled for 3 years out of 28 years and partly filled for 7 years out of 28 years.
8. The average Rabi flows of Western Rivers are 23 MAF. The present two storages i.e. Mangla and Tarbela have a capacity of about 15 MAF. The Rabi water availability has therefore increased by about 65% after construction of Mangla and Tarbela Reservoirs. A study of post-Tarbela data of canal withdrawals provided by WAPDA reveals that during Rabi the canals have drawn even higher than their Accord allocations, and there have been Rabi shortages only in a few very dry years. However, during Kharif there have been more shortages in canal supplies. Thus no more surplus water is available for transfer from Kharif season to Rabi season of the same year. Moreover, Rabi requirements of existing canals are fully satisfied by the normal river flows and the two existing reservoirs.
9. The future storages have to be planned for storage of surplus water in occasional flood years for use in subsequent low flow years. These surplus flows are of higher magnitude but with lesser frequency of occurrence. Thus the filling of future dams will be an occasional event, as compared to existing dams in which even partial filling in any year is considered as an unusual phenomenon. The prime factor for future reservoirs should be capability to store maximum quantity of surplus flood water when available. The distribution of water from future reservoirs should not be considered according to their full capacity, but keeping in view the fact that the stored water will need to be used over a number of subsequent low flow years.
10. Three flood irrigation schemes i.e. Greater Thal canal, Kachhi canal and Rainee canal are under construction. The TCWR has unanimously agreed that the flood irrigation schemes should be given lower priority than future storages.
11. It is important to sustain and consolidate, if not to further develop and improve the agriculture in 36 million acres area commanded by existing canal systems. The allocated water of 117.35 MAF under the Accord for the existing canals therefore needs to be fully protected. The requirements of downstream Kotri to the extent of 10 MAF as indicated in the Water Accord, or any quantity decided by the government on the basis of outcome of the studies in progress, has also to be provided. The balance water whenever available should be stored. TOR-5(a)
3. TOR-5(a) “Examine the filling criteria of Mangla reservoir and make recommendations in this regard”
3.1 Importance of reservoir operational criteria
3.1.1 Whenever a reservoir is constructed on a river, it is important that its operational criteria should be laid down. These criteria should be clearly and comprehensively spelt out while planning the construction of a reservoir or at least before start of the operation of the reservoir. Mangla reservoir was completed in the year 1967 i.e. 38 years ago but its operational criteria have not been prescribed so far.
3.1.2 Reservoirs are water banks where a water is stored in the periods when it is surplus to be used during the periods of shortages. This basic consideration should not be ignored while prescribing the operational criteria of a reservoir.
3.1.3 In the absence of specifically laid down operational criteria of Mangla reservoir, its operations are being carried out in an adhoc manner with the result that the lower riparian provinces have expressed their apprehensions and concerns particularly in the periods when water is stored in Mangla reservoir during shortage periods. Moreover reservations are also being voiced against construction of future reservoirs due to unsatisfactory management of Mangla reservoir. It is therefore that this TOR has been included in the TORs of Technical Committee on Water Resources for examination.
3.2 Presentations and deliberations on TOR-5(a)
3.2.1 The presentations on TOR-5(a) were made by Indus River System Authority (IRSA) and WAPDA in the fifth meeting of the Technical Committee on Water Resources held on 23rd November 2004. Detailed deliberations on the TOR were held in the subsequent sessions of the fifth meeting and continued in the sixth meeting of TCWR held from 20th to 22nd December 2004. Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal member, Sindh submitted his written comments on the presentations. IRSA and WAPDA provided their responses. Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal submitted rejoinders to the responses of IRSA and WAPDA. These rejoinders were also responded to by IRSA and WAPDA.
3.3 Views of WAPDA/IRSA and seven members of Technical Committee on the points relating to TOR-5(a), and comments of Chairman, TCWR.
3.3.1 80% filling of Mangla reservoir by 30th June.
220.127.116.11 IRSA/WAPDA’s views.
WAPDA and IRSA have expressed the view that Mangla reservoir has to be filled upto 80% by 30th June, each year, i.e. upto the level of 1180 otherwise it may not be filled. They have stated that Jhelum is an early riser river and there are more flows during early Kharif (April to June) which is 57% of seasonal flow, and lesser flows in late Kharif (July to September) which is 43%. In their presentations, WAPDA and IRSA have also given a table in which they have listed nine years from history of Mangla Dam i.e. 1970, 1971, 1974, 1979, 1985, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2004 in which maximum reservoir level of 1202 SPD could not be attained because the reservoir level on 30th June was less than 1180 SPD.
18.104.22.168 Views of seven members, TCWR
The seven members of Technical Committee, in their report of May 2005, have supported the version of WAPDA/IRSA. They have also given the same list of nine years in which maximum reservoir level of 1202 SPD could not be attained as in those years the reservoir level on 30th June, was less than 1180 SPD. The seven members have further stated that partially filled Mangla resulted in significant shortages of water in Northern Punjab canals during ensuing Rabi seasons.
22.214.171.124 Comments of Chairman, TCWR
(i) It is unrealistic and un-workable proposition that if any reservoir is constructed, it must be filled even during shortage periods without regard to the current requirements of the existing canal systems. Reservoirs are water banks where water is stored when it is surplus to be used in subsequent periods of shortages. If the flows of Jhelum River are such that more water is available in April - June than in July - September, surely the water can be stored in April - June but only after the current requirements / allocations of canals on Indus Rivers System are met.
(ii) During the deliberations, WAPDA has stated that water is stored in Mangla after meeting 80% of the requirements of canal systems, but even this criteria has not been followed in the regulation of Mangla reservoir.
(iii) The seven members of Technical Committee have mentioned of Rabi shortages in the Upper Punjab Canals in the nine years when Mangla could not be filled, but they have not given any attention to the shortages occurring in other provinces during the corresponding periods. However, the study of the relevant data (Annexure II-9) from WAPDA’s presentation reveals that in 5 out of 9 years i.e. 1971, 1974, 1979, 1985 and 2001, when Mangla could not be filled upto the maximum conservation level of 1202, even then the stored water was not fully utilized upto 31st March of the following Rabi season. Moreover the canal withdrawal data of these nine years also reveals that in some of these years, the utilization by Punjab has been even more than full Rabi Accord allocation. Of course there have been shortages in very dry periods, particularly after the year 2000, but this was the situation all over the country due to drought cycle and had to be shared and endured by all co-sharers.
3.3.2 Filling Criteria of Mangla reservoir
126.96.36.199 WAPDA / IRSA’s Views
(i) No detailed and comprehensive filling criteria of Mangla reservoir have been laid down by WAPDA or IRSA, but the criteria are decided on year to year basis by Advisory Committee of IRSA. It has been further stated that even after the raising of Mangla reservoir this existing procedure will be followed.
(ii) During the deliberations of the Technical Committee, WAPDA and IRSA did not propose any specific criteria for filling of Mangla reservoir.
188.8.131.52 Views of seven members, TCWR
In their report of May 2005, the seven members of Technical Committee have stated that:
“The policy and procedures followed by IRSA, with constant review and monitoring and understanding of all cosharers, has been working satisfactorily for filling of Mangla and Tarbela storages, their draw-down and balanced distribution between Indus Zone and Mangla Zone Canals. The criteria for Mangla filling does not need any modification or change.”
184.108.40.206 Views of Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal
In his note annexed to the report of seven members of Technical Committee of May 2005, Mr. Sardar Ahmad Mughal has stated that:
“The criteria for operation of existing reservoirs and link canals as well as of future reservoirs should be clearly laid down and legal guarantees should be provided and there should be agency responsible to ensure that these criteria’s are faithfully followed. One most important criteria should be that no storage should be allowed unless the Accord Allocations of all the provinces are met”.
220.127.116.11 Comments by Chairman, TCWR
It is highly regrettable that the importance of filling criteria of Mangla reservoir is not being realized. The dam was constructed 38 years back, but still its operational criteria are not framed, and the regulation is being done in an adhoc and arbitrary manner. The fact that this TOR has been included in the assignment of the TCWR indicates that the Government considers the problem as serious requiring attention. However, it is surprising that not only the omission of not framing the operational criteria so far is not being realized, but even now WAPDA / IRSA are reluctant to propose a draft of the operational criteria. It is important that if comprehensive operational criteria cannot be framed immediately, for whatever reasons (or excuses), at least the guiding principles for filling of Mangla reservoir should be prescribed and implemented without delay.
3.3.3 Restricting the canal shortages to 80% of their authorized allocations during shortages for filling Mangla reservoir.
18.104.22.168 Views of WAPDA
It has been mentioned by WAPDA that during low flows, it is ensured that the canals are not stressed beyond 80% of requirements as yields are significantly affected beyond this point.
22.214.171.124 Views of seven members, TCWR
The seven members of Technical Committee have not mentioned any thing about this aspect in their report of May 2005.
126.96.36.199 Comments by the Chairman, TCWR
WAPDA has stated that canals are not stressed beyond 80% of the requirements (limiting the shortage to 20%) during the low flow periods. This seems to be a reasonable proposition. However, the canal withdrawals data provided by WAPDA and IRSA during their presentations indicates that there have been much higher shortages (even 60%), and still Mangla was being filled in those periods. This indicates that filling of Mangla reservoir has been done in an arbitrary manner even during the periods of acute shortages in the canals.
3.3.4 Operation of Mangla reservoir as a replacement work under Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
188.8.131.52 Views of IRSA / WAPDA
During the presentations on the TOR-5(a) by IRSA and WAPDA, no mention whatsoever was made about any relationship of operation of Mangla reservoir with Indus Water Treaty, 1960. However, during the deliberations, Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan Siddiqi, member Punjab raised the point that Mangla being a replacement work under Indus Waters Treaty, its regulation and operation has to be carried out accordingly. WAPDA raised the same point at a later stage.
184.108.40.206 Views of seven members, TCWR
In their report of May 2005, the seven members of the Technical Committee have raised the following points regarding filling and operation of Mangla dam vis-a-vis Indus Waters Treaty.
(a) Mangla dam was constructed as a replacement dam under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960. Its design basis and operational criteria was laid down in the design and planning documents under the Replacement Plan.
(b) The Upper Regulation Zone is entirely dependent on flow supplies of Chenab and Jhelum rivers and Mangla storage. It can get no support from Indus river supplies.
(c) After completion of Replacement Works, the Pakistan canals got divided into two zones i.e. Jhelum - Chenab zone (Mangla command) and Indus zone (Tarbela command) according to their new source of supply.
(d) It would be beneficial if the Indus - Jhelum-Chenab rivers are integrated into single river basin by providing an Upper Indus Link above Rasul. This would benefit Sindh canals in early Kharif sowing season. Single basin regulation may enable provision of additional early supplies to Sindh canals as well as support to Punjab canals of upper system.
220.127.116.11 Comments of Chairman, TCWR
(a) It is correct that Mangla dam has been constructed as a replacement work under the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 / Indus Basin Development Fund Agreement. These documents envisage construction of replacement works for transfer of water from the three Western Rivers of the Indus system (Indus-Jhelum and Chenab) meet existing irrigation uses in Pakistan which have hitherto depended upon the waters of three Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej), thereby releasing the whole flow of the three Eastern Rivers for irrigation development in India.
(b) The above description clearly indicates that Mangla dam and other replacement works were constructed to cater for the loss of Eastern River waters to Pakistan. At the time of the Treaty, the annual water flow of three Eastern Rivers was about 33 MAF, out of which India was utilizing about 8.0 MAF. The rest of the water (25 MAF) used to flow into Pakistan which is no more available. The Jhelum and Chenab rivers have an annual flow of about 23 MAF & 26 MAF respectively. Thus the total flow of the tributary rivers including Eastern Rivers coming into Pakistan before Indus Waters Treaty was 74 MAF (25+23+26). The Water Accord amongst the provinces was signed in 1991 i.e. about 30 years after the Indus Waters Treaty 1960. The Water Accord allocation of Tributary areas of Punjab (including areas previously getting water from Eastern Rivers) under the Water Accord is 43.33 MAF (55.94 total Punjab allocation minus 12.61 Punjab canals on Indus main). Thus the balance water (74-43 = 31 MAF), after meeting the full Accord allocations of the tributary areas of Punjab used to flow downstream Panjnad and was available to lower riparian provinces before the Indus Waters Treaty. This water has been lost to the lower riparian provinces after the Treaty. It can not therefore be said that loss of Eastern Rivers to India means that loss was confined to only one particular area/region. Of course it is correct that the original sources of supply to barrages situated on the Ravi and Sutlej rivers were disconnected and therefore new source had to be provided by construction of link canals from Western Rivers. The new sources having been provided to these canals on Sutlej and Ravi rivers, all the canals in Pakistan, whether located on Indus main, Jhelum or Chenab, or those on Sutlej or Ravi connected through link canals, have to share the waters of Western Rivers including surpluses and shortages according to the provisions of the Water Accord, 1991. No canal any where has any privilege whether constructed before or after the Treaty.
(c) The seven members have stated that the design basis and operational criteria of Mangla dam were laid down in the design and planning documents under the replacement plan. However, neither Wapda/Irsa, nor the learned members have supplied a copy of these operational criteria. Surely these criteria, if they exist, would not provide that the dam should be filled even during shortage periods.
(d) It has been simply stated by the seven members that the Upper Irrigation Zone is entirely dependent on the flow supplies of Jhelum and Chenab rivers and Mangla storage giving an incorrect impression that water of Jhelum and Chenab is not adequate to meet the requirement of these areas. However, the figures about the quantity of river flows available in Jhelum and Chenab rivers have not been indicated. A simple glance at the river flow data of Jhelum and Chenab rivers and Eastern Rivers contribution show that these rivers have adequate water to meet the water requirement of not only the upper tributary areas of Punjab but also the lower tributary areas including the canals of Eastern Rivers.
(e) It is not a correct statement by seven members that after completion of replacement works, the Pakistan canals got divided into two zones i.e. Jhelum-Chenab zone (Mangla command) and Indus zone (Tarbela command), according to their source of supply. No such zoning was envisaged in the Indus Waters Treaty. The Water Accord 1991 provides the province-wise and season-wise allocations and the 10 daily canals-wise allocations approved by CCI, on all Pakistan basis. Nowhere in the Water Accord it is indicated that the Pakistan canals have been divided into two separate zones. Thus all the water available in three Western Rivers including any water for the time being coming from Eastern Rivers has to be shared by all the provinces, including shortages and surpluses, in accordance with their allocated shares in the Water Accord.
(f) The Indus-Jhelum-Chenab Rivers are already fully integrated, rather over integrated, by the construction of existing link canals system. This link canals system provides the facility of equitable distribution of the available water in all the rivers, particularly during shortage periods. The transfer capacity of existing link canals from Indus to Tributary areas (i.e. C-J and T-P Link canals) is according to the provisions of Indus Basin Development Fund Agreement, and based on the worst scenario with the assumption that Indus has all the water whereas Tributary rivers have no water at all. Under the circumstances there is absolutely no justification for another upper Indus link above Rasul, because Jhelum and Chenab Rivers have more than adequate water to cater for the requirements not only of the Upper Punjab areas, but also of the lower tributary areas as well. Moreover Indus main does not have unlimited quantities of water to be transferred to Tributary areas.
(g) It is surprising that by propounding an idea of upper Indus link, it has been said that this will benefit Sindh canals! This thinking is absolutely fantastic and strange. It is mind boggling to suggest that instead of letting the water available in Indus River flow undisturbed to meet the requirements of canals on Indus main, the water should be diverted through proposed Rasul link and then supplied to lower riparian areas of Indus along a much longer route. No technical details of this bright idea have however been supplied.
3.4. Some other important aspects about Mangla reservoir
3.4.1. During the presentation, Wapda has given details of maximum conservation level and lowest drawn down level of Mangla dam for the years 1967-68 to 2004-05 (38 years period). This table (Annexure II-9) shows that out of 38 years, Mangla dam stored water was not fully utilized in Rabi season for 27 years. The balance un-utilized water on 31st March was over 2 MAF on two occasions and over 1 MAF on 15 other occasions. This shows the arbitrary manner in which the Mangla dam operations are being done.
3.4.2. In the presentations, Wapda/Irsa have also given the figures of the operation of spillways of Mangla reservoir. The purpose of getting these figures from Wapda/Irsa was to know how much water was being spilled over after filling of the reservoir upto maximum conservation level. The figures provided by Wapda/Irsa do not give any clear indication about the water spilled over in August/September after the filling of the reservoir. However, Mr Sardar Ahmad Mughal, member Sindh circulated a table about operation of Mangla reservoir from the year 1968 to 1992 (25 years) in the meeting of the Technical Committee held on December 20, 2004. Copy of this table is enclosed as (Annexure II-10). This table reveals that while water was being stored in Mangla dam during the shortage periods of April to June (even in March), the water was wasted during July and August of the same years, when actually it should have been stored. During the period of 1968 to 1992 (25 years), over 1 MAF water was wasted in July and August in 20 years. Over 5 MAF of water was wasted in July-August during 8 years. It is surprising that the water was stored during shortage periods and spilled during the period of surpluses. This negates the basic fundamental principles of reservoir operations. This table circulated by Mr Sardar Ahmad Mughal has not been commented upon by Wapda, Irsa or any of members of Technical Committee.
3.5. Guiding principles for operational criteria of Mangla reservoir
3.5.1. As discussed in para 3.3.2, no comprehensive filling criteria of Mangla reservoir have yet been laid down by Wapda or Irsa though it was constructed 38 years ago, and the operation of the reservoir is being done in an adhoc manner. It is regrettable that even at this stage, both Wapda and Irsa are reluctant, to prepare the filling criteria of the reservoir, though this specific TOR has been assigned to the TCWR for examination. The seven members of Technical Committee have also not given any suggestions for filling criteria of Mangla reservoir. The Chairman, TCWR considers it very important that clear and specific filling criteria for Mangla reservoir should be laid down, because proper operation of this reservoir will help remove the apprehensions of lower riparian provinces for construction of new reservoirs. The Chairman, TCWR therefore suggests the following guiding principles for the filling of Mangla reservoir:
1. The basic principle of reservoir operations that a reservoir is a water bank in which water is stored when it is surplus, to be used during the subsequent shortage periods must be adhered to. No water should be stored in Mangla reservoir, till the indents of the four provinces based on their Water Accord allocations and ten-daily statements approved by CCI are fully met.
2. During shortage periods if it is considered expedient and unavoidable to store water in Mangla reservoir, the allocations of canals may be reduced to not below 80% of the ten-daily Water Accord allocations, with the unanimous consent of all the Provinces.
3. If adequate stored water is available in Mangla, it should be provided to lower riparian provinces, in early Kharif (April- May), when the river flows of Indus main are not enough for their minimum requirements.
4. The above guidelines will also be applicable after raising of Mangla dam.
3.6. Conclusions and recommendations
1. Mangla reservoir was constructed 38 years ago but no comprehensive operational criteria have been laid down so far. Wapda and Irsa are reluctant to even propose the operational criteria of the reservoir. It is important to frame the operational criteria of the reservoir to remove the apprehensions of the stakeholders for Mangla operations as well as future reservoirs.
2. Wapda’s view that during shortage periods, the canals should not be stressed beyond 80% (20% shortage) of their requirements, as yields are significantly affected beyond this point, is reasonable. However this is not being followed in actual practice and canals are reduced even by more than 60% when Mangla is being filled.
3. Mangla is a replacement work constructed under the Indus Waters Treaty. However the Treaty envisages the construction of replacement works for transfer of water from Western Rivers to meet the existing irrigation uses in Pakistan which have depended on waters of Eastern Rivers. Mangla and other replacement works are therefore not meant for any particular area or region. After construction of the replacement works, the available water in Western Rivers has to be equitably shared by all the canals under the Water Accord 1991.
4. There is adequate water in Jhelum and Chenab rivers in Kharif to meet the requirements of upper and lower tributary areas, including the areas previously receiving water from Eastern Rivers, as well for storage in Mangla reservoir, even after raising.
5. No additional link canal from Indus is justified, because the existing link canals have their capacities according to Indus Waters Treaty/Indus Basin Development Fund Agreement. Indus River main does not have unlimited quantities of water to be transferred to Tributary areas. On the contrary, Indus main is more stressed than Jhelum and Chenab rivers.
6. Water is stored in Mangla dam during shortage periods and spilled over/wasted in the periods when it is surplus. Moreover the stored water in Mangla is not fully utilized in subsequent Rabi season in many years. This is highly regrettable.
7. The following guiding principles for operational criteria of Mangla reservoir are suggested:
(i) The basic principle of reservoir operations that a reservoir is a water bank in which water is stored when it is surplus to be used during the subsequent shortage periods must be adhered to. No water should be stored in Mangla reservoir, till the indents of the four provinces based on their Water Accord allocations are fully met.
(ii) During shortage periods if it is considered expedient and unavoidable to store water in Mangla reservoir, the allocations of canals may be reduced to not below 80% of the Water Accord allocations as per ten daily statements approved by CCI, with the unanimous consent of all the Provinces.
(iii) If adequate stored water is available in Mangla, it should be provided to lower riparian provinces, in early Kharif (April-May), when the river flows of Indus main are not enough for their minimum requirements.
(iv) The above guidelines will also be applicable after raising of Mangla dam.
4. TOR-5(B) “Examination of operational criteria of link canals and future reservoirs”
4.1 Regulation of link canals and future reservoirs
4.1.1 There are two link canals off-taking from the River Indus to connect the irrigation system of lower tributary areas. These link canals are:
(i) Chashma - Jhelum (C-J) link canal (capacity of 22000 cusecs)
(ii) Taunsa - Tanjnad (T-P) link canal (capacity of 12000 cusecs)
Apprehensions have been expressed about the operation of these link canals, particularly during the periods of shortages. It is therefore necessary to examine the operational criteria of these link canals.
4.1.2 At present Pakistan has two major reservoirs, i.e. Mangla and Tarbela which are in operation since 1967 and 1977 respectively. Apprehensions have been expressed about the operations of these reservoirs, particularly Mangla reservoir. This aspect has been examined by the Technical Committee under TOR-5(a).
4.1.3 It is envisaged that more reservoirs have to be built to utilize the surplus water when available in the Western Rivers. It is therefore considered necessary to lay down the operation criteria of the future reservoirs so that their regulations can be conducted in consideration of the basic principles and in a transparent manner. This TOR has therefore been included to examine the operational criteria of the link canals and future reservoirs.
4.2 Presentations by IRSA and WAPDA and deliberations on TOR- 5(b)
4.2.1 The presentations on TOR-5(b) were made by IRSA and WAPDA in the fifth meeting of the Technical Committee on Water Resources held on 23rd November 2004. The deliberations on the TOR were held in the subsequent sessions of the fifth meeting of the Technical Committee on 24th November 2004 and continued in the sixth meeting of the Technical Committee held from 20th to 22nd December 2004. Mr Sardar Ahmad Mughal, member Sindh gave his written comments which were responded by WAPDA / IRSA. He submitted the rejoinders to the responses of WAPDA and IRSA which were also replied by WAPDA / IRSA.
4.3 Views of WAPDA / IRSA and seven members of Technical Committee on the points relating to TOR-5(b) and comments of Chairman, TCWR
4.3.1 Views of WAPDA / IRSA
(i) Operation of C-J and T-P link canals from the share of Punjab.
IRSA has stated that C-J and T-P Link canals are operated on the basis of indent placed by Punjab province out of their allocated share. WAPDA states that link canals are operated by provinces except C-J link canal which is operated by WAPDA according to the indent placed by IRSA.
(ii) Operation of C-J and T-P link canals during shortage periods and the operation of these canals when water is being stored in Mangla reservoir.
IRSA has said that water is being distributed amongst the provinces as per their shares. Operation of C-J — T-P link canals is justified because provinces draw the allocated agreed share only. WAPDA has stated that during low flow periods Mangla is being filled by curtailing canal uses to a reasonable level.
(iii) C-J and T-P link canals have been constructed under Indus Waters Treaty 1960
WAPDA and IRSA have stated that C-J and T-P link canals have been constructed under Indus Waters Treaty. WAPDA has also stated that under the Water Accord equal water rights have been given in the 10-daily allocations. IRSA has also stated that these link canals are operated while remaining within the provincial allocations under the Water Accord.
(iv) Design discharges of C-J and T-P link canals
The design discharge of C-J link is 22000 cusecs and T-P link canal is 12000 cusecs. IRSA has stated that these design discharges are only national and that the actual operation of these canals depends on actual water availability in the rivers and on the principle of equitable distribution according to Water Accord allocation in each 10-daily period.
(v) Operational criteria of future reservoirs
No proposal for operational criteria for future reservoirs has been given by IRSA and WAPDA. IRSA has stated that operation of future reservoirs will be done in accordance with the hydrology of river and availability of water keeping in view the recommendations of IRSA Advisory Committee. WAPDA has stated that the future reservoirs will be operated in consideration of irrigation needs, power generation requirements and sediment flushing.
4.3.2 Views of the seven members, TCWR
(i) As a consequence of Water Treaty 1960 inter river link canals have been constructed as replacement works under the Indus Basin Replacement Plan. These link canals were planned, designed and their alignment and full supply capacity determined. These sustain and support canal irrigated land from those old canals whose pre-independent head waters / river water sources came under Indian co.
(To be continued)