Maharashtra's objection on Alamatti dam height is baseless: Minister MB Patil
Bengaluru, Aug 1 (PTI): Karnataka Industries Minister M B Patil on Friday dismissed Maharashtra's claim that raising the height of the Alamatti dam on the Krishna river would cause floods in Sangli and Kolhapur districts.
Asserting that this argument has already been rejected by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, the Supreme Court, and even in the Lok Sabha, he termed Maharashtra's objection as "politically motivated".
The Minister was reacting to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis requesting the Union government to stop Karnataka from raising the height of Almatti Dam on the Krishna river, saying it would worsen the floods in southern Maharashtra's Sangli and Kolhapur districts.
Fadnavis has written a letter to Union Jal Shakti Minister C R Patil in this regard.
"Sangli and surrounding regions in Maharashtra witnessed severe floods in 1964, 1976, 1994 and 1997 — all before the construction of the Alamatti dam. Moreover, as early as the year 2000, the Supreme Court had ruled that Karnataka is entitled to raise the height of the dam to 524.256 metres," Patil, who had served as the Water Resources Minister in the past, said.
He further pointed out that Maharashtra had raised the matter again in 2005 before the Krishna Water Tribunal, which also rejected the claim.
"The Tribunal, in its detailed reports of 2010 and 2013, clearly stated that the Alamatti dam was not responsible for floods in Sangli and Kolhapur. It even considered the impact of the Hipparagi dam in this context but found no basis for Maharashtra's claim. No state has challenged the verdict of the second Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal constituted to examine such matters," he said in a statement.
Noting that even the erstwhile unified Andhra Pradesh had once opposed the raising of Alamatti's height, claiming it would affect its share of water, Patil said that, too, was dismissed.
"Maharashtra's current objection is politically motivated. Having served as Water Resources Minister for five years, I have complete clarity on the issue," he said.
Claiming that rampant encroachment on catchment areas in Sangli district was a more credible reason for flooding and that he possessed a report on the matter, the Minister urged the Maharashtra government to focus on resolving such issues rather than obstructing Karnataka's development initiatives.
He also stated that he would hand over all relevant documents to the current Karnataka Water Resources Minister and Deputy CM D K Shivakumar. "Our state will give a befitting reply to Maharashtra's objections," he added.
Stating that the Water Resources Minister will respond to Maharashtra's objections, Home Minister G Parameshwara told reporters, protecting Karnataka's interest was important, and increasing the height of the Alamatti dam would help Karnataka store its share of water.
The government will take all necessary measures to protect the state's interest and stress this before the Centre and other states, he said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
LS passes bill to open up nuclear sector for private participation
New Delhi (PTI): Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the nuclear energy bill with Union minister Jitendra Singh asserting that it would help India achieve its target of 100 GW atomic energy generation by 2047.
The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, which seeks to open the tightly-controlled civil nuclear sector for private participation, was passed by voice vote amid a walkout by the opposition.
Singh termed the bill a "milestone legislation" that will give a new direction to the country's developmental journey.
"India's role in geopolitics is increasing. If we have to be a global player, we have to follow global benchmarks and global strategies. The world is moving towards clean energy. We too have set a target of 100 GW of nuclear energy capacity by 2047," he said.
The opposition contended that the bill diluted provisions of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 that passed on the liability for a nuclear incident on to the suppliers of nuclear equipment.
