SECTION VI
COMMITTEE MODUS OPERANDI

6.1
SECTION SUMMARY:

6.1.1

Major gaps exist between the provinces on (i) Water Availability and (ii) Large Dam Sites. The position of Sindh Government given in presentation to PCWR on March 6, 2004, indicated that there is no water available for storages. WAPDA responded with its figures indicating that 19.10 MAF of water is available for future development. The mater was discussed in PCWR meeting on May 05, 2004, and all the Secretaries of the Provincial Irrigation Departments were of the unanimous view that availability of water for large storages was part of the TORs of the Technical Committee and this technical subject should be left to them. Some PCWR members also supported their views. Therefore, it was decided that no decision on water availability will be taken by the Committee, but it will want to have an overall view of the river courses and flows for comprehensive understanding of the system and general understanding of water availability situation. Meanwhile, PCWR made its own non-technical assessment which indicates that 6.86 MAF is likely to be available during non-drought years. This assessment, however, requires technical review and update, specially by Technical Committee’s Report on Water Availability which was expected by end of August 2004.

6.1.2 
In PCWR meeting of July 20, 2004, all Chief Ministers agreed on building large dams and there was consensus on Basha Dam except that Punjab CM opined that Basha and Kalabagh Dams to be built simultaneously. Details are given in ensuing paras.  


6.2

WATER AVAILABILITY:
 

6.2.1

One area of major gaps in consensus is Water Availability. During presentation given by Sindh Irrigation Department on 6th March 2004, Sindh gave its position that there was no water available for construction of new reservoirs in the Indus Basin. Their calculation methodology was based on Upstream Approach – derived from average rim station inflows and the Downstream Approach – derived from below Kotri releases, and using longest period available data from 1922. The matter was referred to WAPDA who responded with their own figures in PCWR meeting of April 22, 2004. The comparative tables of both upstream and downstream approaches, as provided by WAPDA, are shown as under:

UPSTREAM APPROACH 

S.No DESCRIPTION SINDH 

(1922-2002) (MAF) WAPDA  
(1976-2003) (MAF)  

1.

Average Rim Station Inflows * 138.0 140.76.

2.

NWFP withdrawals above Rim Stations - 5.65

3.

Eastern Rivers contribution from within Pakistan (Ujh, Deg, Basant, Bein, Hudiara, Rohi, etc.) - 3.53

4.

Eastern Rivers contribution from within Pakistan (Ujh, Deg, Basant, Bein, Hudiara, Rohi, etc.) - 3.53

5.

Total Availability (1 to 4) 138.0 154.88
6.
Water Accord Allocations 114.40 117.40 
7. 

System Losses 14.70 15.00
8.
Indian Authorization on Western Rivers 4.60 2.00  
9.
Kotri downstream for Ecology 10.00 5.80  
10.
Kabul River Shortfall 8.00 0.50 
11.
Total (6 to 10) 151.70 140.70  
12.
Balance Available (5-11) (-) 13.70 14.18 

Total Annual Development Potential above Present Uses (14.18 + 12.0 MAF) (-) 13.70 26.18

DOWNSTREAM APPROACH

S.No DESCRIPTION SINDH
(1922-2002) (MAF) WAPDA
(1976-2003) (MAF)
1.
Kotri Downstream (Post Tarbela Average) 35.00 35.20
2.
Balance Accord Allocations (117.4 – 105.4) 12.00 12.00
3.
Indian Right on Western Rivers 4.60 2.00
4.
Eastern River Inflows 8.00 * 4.94
5.
Mangla Raising 3.00 2.90
6.
Downstream Kotri Needs 10.00 5.80
7.
Short term possible uses on Kabul River by Afghanistan 8.00 0.50
8.
Total (2 to 7) 45.60 23.20
9.
Balance (1 – 8) (-) 10.60 12.0
*
There is no possibility of India stopping this water, hence not included in item 8 (WAPDA comment)

6.2.2

In order to have an understanding of the water availability, a working meeting was convened by the Chairman on April 22, 2004, at Islamabad, which was attended by representatives of WAPDA, Sindh Irrigation Department, Chairman Technical Committee and PCWR officials. Detailed deliberations were held and WAPDA was asked to provide additional data for further deliberations. Accordingly, the modified table provided by WAPDA on May 5, 2004 with notes, is given as under:

S.No DESCRIPTION SINDH (a)
(1922-2002)
(MAF) WAPDA
(1976-2003)

(MAF) Modified Approach (d)

1.
Kotri Downstream (Post Tarbela Average) 35.00 35.20 35.20 Average annual outflows below Kotri 1976-2003
2.
Balance Accord Allocations (117.4 – 105.4) 12.00 12.00 12.00 Additional water requir'ts as per 1991 Water Accord
3.
Indian Right on Western Rivers 4.60 2.00 2.00 Rechecked on basis of latest data from PCIW
4.
Eastern River Inflows 8.00 4.94 (b) 0.97 i. Ravi post Thein 1996
ii.
Sutlej post Pandoh 1978
Composite average 3.80
Net reduction 4.77-3.8
5.
Mangla Raising 3.00 2.90 2.90 Additional water storage
Requirement included at 2
6.
Downstream Kotri Needs 10.00 5.80 (c) 10.00 As per Accord, subject to study
7.
Short term possible uses on Kabul River by Afghanistan 8.00 0.50 0.50 As per NESPAK briefing
8.
Total (2 to 7) 45.60 23.20 28.37
9.
Balance (1 – 8) (-)10.60 12.0 6.83
Total Development Potential above Present Uses (2+5+9) (-) 10.60 26.90 21.73
Notes:
a)
Sindh's presentation to PCWR on March 6, 2004
b)
There is no possibility of India stopping this water and hence ignored in computation
c)
On basis of graduated releases proposed by WAPDA
d)
Based on guidelines on items 4 & 6 suggested by PCWR on April 22, 2004

6.2.3.

The matter was discussed in PCWR meeting on May 05, 2004, and all the Secretaries of the Provincial Irrigation Departments were of the unanimous view that availability of water for large storages was part of the TORs of the Technical Committee and this technical subject should be left to them. Some PCWR members also supported their views. Therefore, it was decided that no decision on water availability will be taken by PCWR, but it will want to have an overall view of the river courses and flows for comprehensive understanding of the system and for general understanding of water availability situation.

6.2.4
Subsequently, WAPDA reworked on May 13, 2004, its figures and submitted a simplified estimation of water availability which is shown in the following table.
S.No DESCRIPTION AVERAGE
(MAF)
1.
Post Tarbela (1976-77 to 2002-03) Escapages below Kotri 35.20 i
2.

POSSIBLE DEDUCTIONS

2.1
Indian Uses on Western Rivers (details at Annexure-A) 2.00
2.2
Kotri outflow to check Sea Intrusion (on graduated scale) 5.80 *
2.3
Possible uses on Kabul River by Afghanistan (details at Annex--B) 0.50
2.4
Requirements for Projects under Construction
a.
Flood Canals (Kachhi, Rainee, Greater Thal): 4.80 ** 7.80
b.
Mangla Raising: 2.90
c.
Pat Feeder Extension: 0.10
Sub- Total: 7.80
3.
Total Reductions (item 2) 16.10

Net Available for future development 19.10 ***

(WAPDA Comments)
* To be determined by study. Till then, figure can be adopted using graduated scale of 10 MAF for average & wet flows, 5 MAF for below
average flows, 2 MAF for poor flows, and nil for worst flow
** Includes 2.5 MAF for Greater Thal, 1.2 MAF for Kachhi, and 1.1 MAF for Rainee
*** Includes additional Accord allocations and future storages.
Note: As there is no possibility of India stopping eastern river flows, hence ignored in computation
6.2.5

Highest flow of 187 MAF was recorded in the year 1959-60 whereas lowest flow was 97 MAF in 2001-02. In view of the erratic water availability in three Western Rivers allocated to Pakistan, future reservoirs and irrigation schemes need to take these facts in consideration. The Western and Kabul River uses as provided by WAPDA, are in Table A & B which are as follows

Table-A
ESTIMATED INDIAN USES ON WESTERN RIVERS PERMITTED UNDER ARTICLE-III OF TREATY
1.
Irrigated cropped area on effective date (1-4-1960) * 642,477
2.
Additional Max. Permissible Irrigated Cropped Area under Treaty * 701,000
3.
Total 1+2 1,343,477
4.
Total Area already developed by India (upto 2002-03) * 811,568
5.
Balance Area still to be developed (3-4) 531,909
Crop Water Requirement for balance cropped area @ 3.68 Acre ft/ Acre ** 1.96 MAF
Say 2.00 MAF
* On the basis of information provided by PCIW on April 24, 2004
** On the basis of crop consumptive use requirement of Chashma Right Bank Canal
Table-B
POSSIBLE USES ON KABUL RIVER BY AFGHANISTAN
Additional Requirements of Kama Project 0.218 MAF
Contingency Provision for Additional Projects 0.282 MAF
Total: 0.50 MAF
6.2.6
Technical Committee's Report on Water Availability is expected in August 2004
6.2.7 

.

The PCWR reviewed the positions given by Sindh and WAPDA and identified gaps in data in the following areas:
GAPS IN DATA (Fig. in MAF)
Description Sindh's
Figure WAPDA's
Figure Difference
Longest data difference for rim stn. 138 140.76 2.76
Kabul River Shortfall 8.00 0.50 7.50
Indian Rights on Western Rivers 4.60 2.00 2.60
Eastern Rivers Inflows 8.00 3.80 4.20
Kotri downstream 10 5.8 4.2

6.2.8

Even though the PCWR did not have any technical expertise, on the basis of information obtained during presentations made to the Committee, the Committee has made a non-technical assessment of water situation which indicates that 6.86 MAF is likely to be available in non-drought years for construction of additional reservoirs. Recent drought is continuing for last 5 years, while an earlier 4 year drought period was 1984-88. Non-Technical assessment on water availability is given as under: .

PCWR's NON-TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT (DOWNSTREAM APPROACH)
S.No DESCRIPTION SINDH WAPDA PCWR
(MAF)
1.
Downstream Kotri (Post Tarbela 1976-2003) 35.00 35.20 35.20
2.
DEDUCTIONS
2.1
Balance Accord Allocations (117.40-105.40) 12.00 0 0 1
2.2
Indian Uses on Western Rivers 4.60 2.00 2.00 2
2.3
Eastern Rivers Inflow 8.00 0 3.80 3
2.4
Downstream Kotri Needs 10.00 5.80 10.00 4
2.5
Possible uses on Kabul by Afghanistan 8.00 0.50 1.00 5
2.6
Mangla Raising 2.90
2.7
Interventions for increasing system capacity: New Canals (Kachhi, Rainee, GTC): 4.80, Mangla Raising: 2.90, Pat Feeder Ext:0.10 3.007 7.80 8 8.64 6