River systems anywhere in the world are ‘unitary’, and cannot be divided. They are above geographical, cultural or political boundaries. Unlike the land-mass, a river cannot be divided into a Sudanese Nile and Egyptian Nile or a Nevada Colorado and a Mexican Colorado, and for that matter, Indus cannot be divided as a Kashmir Indus, Pathan Indus, Punjab Indus and Sindh Indus.

Therefore, the message of the river to the people living on its bank is very clear: “ If you want to exploit my resources, you have to unite and become one”.

A river cannot be divided into pieces for the exploitation of its benefits. Yet in the recent past there have been disputes amongst the various communities living along its banks; particularly the upper riparians (UR) and the lower riparians (LR). The nature of disputes in the latter case arises out of two reasons:

Lack of mutual trust; and political motives over.

Since the URs have to deal with the controls, the LRs have a feeling that they are at the mercy of the former. These attitudes are found even along a watercourse where users at the tail end quarrel with those at the head/upstream. It is so natural that even two brothers ‘located at up and downstream ends may get involved into arguments’.

All the above elements of mistrust put together must not be viewed as justification to forestall the creation of a source with prospects of more future benefits and least initial drawbacks. A give-and-take solution would be preferable to a no-solution situation. It is in this spirit that the Kalabagh Dam (KBD) should be considered for its implementation. This article looks into the rights of the LR for which necessary assurance needs to be given before implementing the project and of course, their responsibilities towards the people living on the banks of the Indus.

Case studies: The Hoover Dam on the river Colorado in the USA and Mexico and the Aswan High Dam on the Nile in Sudan and Egypt, offer interesting case studies.

The Colorado dries up after the last dam i.e. Hoover except for an irrigation channel, which carries water to south California. Before the construction of the Hoover dam it used to fall in the Gulf of California in Mexico, now there exists nothing since highest flood peaks get absorbed in the Hoover reservoir and a series of high dams built on Colorado upstream. (In all seven dams have been built on Colorado River).

The Hoover dam was completed in 1935 and one of its objectives was to save south California from devastation of floods, the same scenario as being created by Indus in Sindh during the flood season. The dam itself has been built in Nevada. hundreds of miles upstream of California, since this offered the best site from geological and engineering viewpoint. A meeting was held in 1922 between the six states through which the river flows (upper and lower riparians) and a representative of the federal government which resulted in “Colorado River Compact” (CRC) duly signed by the representatives. This paved the way for the construction of the dam. The CRC divides the Colorado Basin into an upper and lower half; and awarded half of the river’s estimated flow to each basin. Further division of each basin’s apportionment was left to the states in that basin which was done taking the dam’s feasibility another step forward. (This is parallel to Indus Water Accord (IWA) 1991 between the four provinces in Pakistan). Final step was taken when the Congress in 1928 finally passed the “Boulder Canyon Project Act” authorizing the construction of the Hoover dam.

It started in 1931 and was completed in 1935 two years ahead of schedule. This concrete arch dam 726 ft high created worlds one of the largest reservoir with 28.5 maf, its lake extending 110 miles and producing 2080 megawatts of cheapest and environmental friendly power. In 1994 ASCE named it as one of the seven civil engineering wonders.

It provides irrigation water to one million acres in California and 0.5 million acres in Mexico. The dam is half in Nevada and half in Arizona (which gets 4 per cent of water) yet it is the lower riparian i.e. South California which in addition to water gets 56 per cent of hydropower while Arizona and Nevada gets l9 and 25 per cent respectively. The vanishing of yearly floods is additional major benefit received by California.

Similarly there is an interesting case study of Aswan High Dam built on the Nile in Egypt and its fruits shared between Egypt and Sudan through a “1959 Water Agreement”. As per the agreement the share of Sudan from the reservoir was fixed at 14.3 billion cu meters (b.cu.m) and that for Egypt 7.5 b.cu.m. The total share of the Nile waters for Egypt and Sudan in the post-dam conditions rose to a total of 55.5 b.cu.m and 18.5 b.cu.m respectively. In addition Egypt paid 20.0 million pounds to Sudan for relocating of structures. Once the agreement was signed in 1959, the dam was completed in 1964 creating the world’s largest reservoir of 127.2 maf (compare this with 7 mafs of Kalabagh Dam) extending 220 miles in Egyptian territory and another 100 miles into Sudan. The power generated (1970 figure) amounts to a colossal 10,000 million kWh raising the per capita electricity consumption in Egypt from 170 to 550 kWh which is quite close to the level in Western Europe.

Politics is always there in high dams particularly when planned in developing countries. Here the dam was being built with Russian aid and after US had withdrawn their offer; therefore a battery of professional engineers was commissioned bringing all types of environmental, cultural, hydrological, agricultural objections to the construction of the dam. However all these objections even if correct when weighed against only three direct benefits i.e. cheap and abundant power, enhanced water supply and flood control, were summarily rejected by the authorities.

An objection was raised by Dr. Ahmed, an Egyptian hydrologist, in 1960, that with the creation of huge Aswan reservoir, the colossal evaporation losses would leave less water than without a dam. Egyptian authorities engaged two of the best known British hydrologists, Dr. Hurst and Mr. Black, to investigate the issue in cooperation with the Russian designers. They rejected Dr. Ahmed’s hypothesis and the government without wasting any tine gave the green signal. Thirty- years of the post-dam era testifies the correct staled taken by the government.

The dam has paid back the investment many times over, and came to the rescue and saved Egypt and Sudan from drought by maintaining the irrigation supplies when the rain failed for seven years 1980-87.

There can always be legitimate concerns in the minds of people living downstream and the right course would be to remove their doubts and include mitigation measures in planning and design of the project so that lower and upper riparians can enjoy and share the benefits happily. Just as it is their right that they would get their share and their doubts are removed, there are responsibilities, minimum of which is not to block the exploitation of the river resources on grounds which have vague scientific and technical basis.

There is opposition from another quarter to build large dams, in the name of environment. The most vocal critics are the NGOs located in the west with branches all over the world who criticize the construction of large dams in developing countries in the name of environmental and social impact and destruction of ecosystem, However with necessary mitigation measures which ensure environmental protection the large dams seem to be the only solution to uplifts the economy of poor underdeveloped countries. The U.S.A alone has 2,000 large dams built providing the cheapest power, water for irrigation and flood control.

There is need to remove the likely fears, concerns, complaints the engineers in Sindh have about the construction of Kalabagh Dam (KBD) and the mitigation measures which will restore their confidence in the fruitfulness of the project not only for Sindh but for the whole of Pakistan. Most important is to build the confidence and restore trust by implementing the just distribution of Indus waters between Sindh and Punjab— the confidence which has been shattered due to the incidents like the opening of Chasma-Jhelum Link at a wrong time, or similar complaints people have at the tail end of the Indus.

Mitigation measures: The possible solution to restore the confidence and repair the mutual trust is to establish the Indus Water Distribution Authority / Commission, which would be the final and supreme body to ensure and implement the distribution, of the total Indus waters including KBD, and also for reservoirs to be built in future. The Authority / Commission may consist of 6 members, two from Punjab, (one each from upper and lower Punjab), two from Sindh (one each from upper and lower), and one each from NWFP and Balochistan. The chairmanship will rotate between the members and all decisions would be by consensus. Further details can be worked out providing IWDA a constitutional cover. However it has to be ensured that members are top professional experts in their field with highest calibre and integrity.

Conclusion: The prosperity of Pakistan lies in the construction of not only KBD, but other large and small dams in the Indus system, and it is time people unite to exploit the blessings of the available water resources. The sustainability of water resources projects is dependent on the respect of the rights of people at receiving end, and their just and responsible attitude towards the people having the key of control i.e. upper reparians.

There seems to be a well-planned opposition from another quarter to build large dams that is from groups located in the developed countries. It is not only Kalabagh in Pakistan, but Sardar Sarover on Narmada, Pangne on Bio Bio, (Chile), Bakun dam (Malaysia), Three Gores on Yangteze, Epupa on Cunene (Namibia) and Nam Theun on Mekong (Laos) are being opposed in the name of environment by the groups, which are based in Europe and North America. These countries are already enjoying the benefits of large dams and cheap electricity and perhaps want to see the developing countries remain underdeveloped and dependent on them.