In the above computations WAPDA has not only made some incorrect assumptions, but also deviated from their own stance from time to time.
The inconsistencies and inaccuracies in WAPDA's computations are discussed below:
The criterion of water availability (4 out of 5 years), clearly laid down by WAPDA themselves in 1987 and re-confirmed by President Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari when he was Minister for Water and Power in 1990, has been arbitrarily ignored. The post Water Accord availability has been worked out by WAPDA only on mean year basis.
As stated above, there is no way of knowing how much water will be available in the rivers in future except by studying the past trends from the available data. The basic record for the river flows is available from the year 1922-23 to date. In their computations of 1987 and 1992, WAPDA used the figures for the period from 1922 onwards for their computation. However, in the computations of 1994, WAPDA has arbitrarily used the figures only for post Tarbella period (1977-1994) which pertains to comparatively wet cycle. Thus the figure of mean year availability has been increased from 138.7 MAF (1922-1994) to 143.1 MAF(1977-1994). This arbitrary shift in WAPDA's own method of computations is neither understandable nor justifiable, particularly because the flow pattern of the rivers is highly erratic. The established practice of using the available data for the entire period must therefore be adopted, so that the trend of the river flow including both wet and dry periods may be properly reflected and analyzed.
Under the Indus Water Treaty, 1960, the flows of three eastern rivers have been allocated to India for their exclusive use. In the computations of water availability of 1987, WAPDA recognized this position and conceded that after completion of the storage reservoir on Ravi (Thein) in 1989, there will be no significant flow from eastern rivers in Pakistan except for occasional flood flows towards the end of monsoon season. Inspite of this clearly stated position, WAPDA adopted figures of 2 MAF and 1.5 MAF respectively as eastern river contributions for mean year and 4 out of 5 years in their computations of 1987.
In 1992 post Accord computation, WAPDA accepted the position that the eastern rivers having been allocated to India, no contributions from these rivers can be expected. However, for the first time they come up with a fantastic idea that some flow is generated from eastern rivers from the catchment above rim stations within Pakistan territory. It is not understandable how this discovery has been made by WAPDA thirty-two years after signing of the Indus Water Treaty, 1960. The figure incorporated in the 1992 computations on account of flow generated in Pakistan is 1.3 MAF, whereas in 1994, this figure has been increased to 4 MAF which is double of WAPDA's own figure of 1987, when they assumed (though wrongly) that some flow will be coming from India with no generation within Pakistan. In support of this contention, WAPDA has taken the figures of the flows reaching the upstream of the rim station barrages in Pakistan on Ravi and Sutlaj rivers (Baloki and Sulemanki), and the flows down stream of the last barrages on those rivers in India (Madho pur and Ferozpur), and assumed that the difference in the two figures represents the flow generated within Pakistan. This is absolutely incorrect, because there are a number of link canals which join Ravi and Sutlaj rivers upstream of rim station barrages and transfer water to these barrages from the western rivers. The additional flow reaching the rim stations of the eastern rivers is therefore not the flow generated in Pakistan, but the water transferred to eastern rivers from western rivers through link canals. It may also be stated that the rim stations of eastern rivers in Pakistan are located very close to the Indian border and the extent of catchment area within Pakistan above the rim stations is very small. As such, the generation of a huge flow of 4 MAF within Pakistan is out of question. WAPDA should have supported their contention by indicating the total catchment area of each of the eastern rivers above the rim stations and the flow generated therefrom, and compared it with the catchment area above the rim stations inside Pakistan and the flow generated according to WAPDA's computations, so that the two figures could be co-related for their authenticity.
Under the circumstances it is unrealistic to assume that there will be any flow generating in the eastern rivers within Pakistan. The eastern river contribution must therefore be taken to be zero.
The figure of NWFP's uses above rim stations have been taken to be 5.5 MAF in the 1987 WAPDA computations, whereas in the 1992 and 1994 computations the figure has been taken to be 5.7 and 5.3 MAF respectively. It may be stated that in the Water Accord, 1991, a quantity of 3 MAF has been provided for un-gauged civil canals of NWFP above rim stations. This figure of Water Accord must be shown in the computations. It may be stated that whatever may be the quantity of water used by NWFP above rim station, it should not and cannot affect the figure of water availability at the rim stations. It is incorrect to add 5.5 MAF to the availability and then reduce it by only 3 MAF thus showing a surplus of 2.5 MAF as notional increase in the availability at rim stations, which is simply not there because what ever water is allocated and used by the NWFP above rim stations, it stands utilized and no portions of it will become available at the rim stations downstream.
Under the circumstances, the figure of 3 MAF as per Water Accord must be taken into account in the computations, and no additional water can be available on this account at rim stations.
In 1987 computations, WAPDA has taken the figure of 10 MAF as system losses on the basis of an average figure for post Mangla period. However, this was not the correct approach, because the river regime conditions have further changed after construction of Tarbella Dam in 1977. It may be stated that construction of any high dam disturbs the regime, and historical pattern of losses in the down stream reaches undergoes radical changes resulting in losses much higher that pre-dam construction period. In similar circumstances in USA on the Colorado River below Hoover Dam, river losses increased beyond what they were prior to the construction of the dam. The experience in Pakistan is also similar because the average annual system losses in post Tarbella period (1976-94) increased to 14.7 MAF as against 6.2 MAF in the post Mangla pre Tarbella period (1967-76), showing an increase of 8.5 MAF.
It is highly appreciated that WAPDA, having realized this position, have taken the figure of Post-Tarbella losses in their computation of system losses in 1992 and 1994 (Post Accord) computations. However, having worked out the correct figure of losses as per actual record, they have again come up with a ridiculous idea that after construction of Kalabagh Dam, substantial quantity of system losses will be salvaged due to lower discharges flowing in to the river. The figures of salvage of system losses indicated in 1992 computations is 7.0 MAF, whereas in those of 1994 it is 4.2 MAF. It is mind boggling to assume that a storage of 6 MAF will result in salvage of system losses by 7 MAF, thus making 1 MAF additional water available in the system even after construction of Kalabagh Dam. If such a magic formula is really available with WAPDA, we can construct any number of dams without caring for water availability.
The experience in USA as well as Pakistan clearly reveals that with the construction of a high dam, system losses will increase. In case of Kalabagh Dam, the additional losses should be assumed to be at least 4MAF instead of visualizing any salvage of losses.
In the pre Water Accord computations (1987), WAPDA has indicated a figure of 5 MAF for mean year and 3 MAF for 4 out of 5 years towards out flow to sea. Under the provisions of Water Accord, 1991, a quantity of 10 MAF has been provisionally earmarked for out flow to sea. WAPDA has rightly indicated this figure of 10MAF, in 1992 computations. However, in the 1994 computations, WAPDA has arbitrarily reduced this figure to 5.8 MAF. This aspect will be discussed more comprehensively in the succeeding paragraphs, but for the purpose of computations, the Water Accord figure of 10MAF as already indicated in 1992 exercise by WAPDA must be adhered to.
In the pre Accord (1987) computations WAPDA has shown a figure of 106.79 MAF in mean year and 103.44 MAF in 4 out of 5 years. In the post Accord computations of 1992 and 1994, WAPDA has correctly taken the figure of 117.4 MAF as per Water Accord. This figure includes 3 MAF for NWFP's civil canals above rim stations. However, if this figure of 117.4 MAF is to be retained then the figure of uses above rim stations should be corrected to 3 MAF as per Water Accord previsions instead of 5.3 MAF as indicated by WAPDA, because whatever water is used by NWFP above rim station (whether it is 3.0MAF or 5.3 MAF), it will not add to the availability at the rim stations. Alternatively the figure of uses above rim stations may be deleted from the table, and the figure 114.4 MAF being the Water Accord allocations below rim stations should be adopted.
The figure of 2 MAF for authorized uses by India on western rivers has been taken by WAPDA in all three computations of 1987, 1992 and 1997. In this connection it may be stated that according to the provisions of Indus Water Treaty, 1960, India is entitled to develop a total of 1,343,477 acres of cropped area on the western rivers. There is no restriction whatsoever on the quantity of water which they can utilize or the time period in which the area is to be developed. Out of the above area India has already developed 785,799 acres and utilized 6.75 MAF. Thus for the development of remaining area of 557,678 acres, India will require 4.79 MAF more on pro-rata basis, though they can use more water if they like as there is no such restriction on them under the Treaty. WAPDA's figure of 2 MAF is based on the cropping pattern and water allowance of Chashma Right Bank Canal, with only 60% Kharif Cropping intensity. We can not impose the conditions of Chashma Right Bank Canal on India, and it is not possible to deviate from express conditions of International Agreement. As such the figure of 4.79 MAF, for development of remaining area based on existing pattern of water use by India must be adopted.
From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that WAPDA has attempted to inflate the figures of water availability and reduce the figures of system losses, outflow to sea and India's authorized uses on western rivers, with the purpose to some how arrive at a high figure of net water availability. This is inconsistent with established engineering practice where safe, realistic and conservative figures are to be adopted in the computations for design of such major projects. Moreover, WAPDA has also changed their own criteria and the method of computations, each time just to project a rosy picture of water availability. The inconsistencies are apparent when we take a look at WAPDA's own figures for mean net water availability, which has been shown in the first post Accord computations of 1992 as 5.56 MAF, and later inflated to 17.2 MAF in the 1994 computations by further manipulations.
Table 2 compares the water availability worked out by WAPDA in 1994 (latest) with the realistic figures computed from WAPDA's own basic data from published records.
|
| | | | ||
|
| | | |||
| 1 | Western Rivers rim Station in flows | 143.1 (1976-94) | 138.7 (1922-94) | 125.3 (1922-94) | 4.4 |
| 2 | Eastern River Contribution | 4.0 | Nil | Nil | 4.0 |
| 3 | Uses above rim station | 5.3 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.3 |
| 4 | Loss and Gains inclusive of in flows below rim station (Post Tarbella 1977-1994) | 10.0 | 14.7 | 11.8 | 4.7 |
| 5 | Out flow to sea | 5.8 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 4.2 |
| 6 | Net Available for utilization(1+2+3-4-5) | 136.6 | 117.0 | 106.5 | |
| 7 | Water Accord Allocation | 117.4 | 117.4 | 117.4 | |
| 8 | Authorized uses by India on western rivers | 2.0 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 2.8 |
| +17.2 | -5.2 | -15.3 | 22.4 | ||
Table 2: Comparison Of Actual Post Water Accord Availability With WAPDA's
Computations of 1994 (Figures in MAF)
The figures in this table show that according to realistic computations, the net water availability on mean year basis is minus 5.2 MAF, as against 17.2 MAF computed by WAPDA by manipulation of the figures by a huge 22.4 MAF. The net deficit on 4 out of 5 years computations, which is WAPDA's own prescribed criterion laid down in 1987, duly endorsed by the President Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari in his capacity as Minister for Water and Power in 1990, comes to minus 15.3 MAF. Thus there is a substantial short fall in water availability even for present commitments, leave aside the construction of Kalabagh Dam.