MAHADAYI WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

THE REPORT-CUM-DECISION

OF

THE MAHADAYI WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

(Under Section 5(2) of The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956)

IN THE MATTER OF
REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2011 RELATING TO WATER DISPUTES
OF THE INTER-STATE RIVER MAHADAYI AND THE RIVER
VALLEY THEREOF

BETWEEN

THE STATE OF GOA

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

AND

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

VOLUME - IV

(V O L U M E S I - XII)

New Delhi
14th August 2018
 REPORT OF THE MAHADAYI WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
I N D E X
VOLUME – I

Sl. No. D E S C R I P T I O N PAGE NOS

1. Introduction and Constitution of 1-6

Tribunal

2. Order dated 16.10.2012 passed by the 6-7

Tribunal in I.A. No.2 of 2012 filed by the
State of Goa whereby directions were
given to the three States to file their
respective Statements of Claims
alongwith Replies and Rejoinders

3. Chronological details of the Statement 7- 9

of cases/claims filed by the States of
Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka, along
with Replies and Rejoinders.

4. Issues originally framed by the Tribunal 9 - 18

vide Order dated 21.8.2013.

5. Visit of the Tribunal to different sites 19 - 46

and the Report dated 12.02.2014 of the
Assessors on the visits of the Tribunal.
6. Order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the 46 - 47
Tribunal in I.A. No. 19 of 2014 filed by
the State of Goa for Amendment of
Statement of claims and the
consequential Pleadings of the Party
States.

7. Order dated 01.04.2014 passed in I.A. 47 - 48

No. 21 of 2014 filed by the State of
Maharashtra for Amendment of
Statement of Claims and consequential
Pleadings of the Party States

8. Order dated 17.04.2014 passed in I.A. 49 - 52

No. 1 of 2012 filed by the State of Goa
for restraining the State of Karnataka
not to actually utilize or divert the
water under the Kalasa-Bhandura
Project.

9. Order dated 03.09.2014 passed by the 52 - 79

Tribunal pointing out inconsistencies
and discrepancies in the Pleadings of
the Party States.

10. Order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the 79 - 80

Tribunal in I.A. No. 29 of 2014
permitting the State of Karnataka to
withdraw its application for
Amendment of its Statement of Claims.
11. Details of further Amendments of their 80 - 83
respective Statement of cases/claims by
the three Party States as well as the
Replies and Rejoinders thereto.

12. Order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the 84 - 86

Tribunal in I.A. No. 28 of 2014 filed by
the State of Goa directing the State of
Maharashtra not to undertake,
commence the work of gorge portion of
Virdi Dam.

13. Prayers of the State of Goa 86 - 92

14. Prayers of the State of Karnataka 92 - 95

15. Prayers of the State of Maharashtra 95 - 99

VOLUME – II

16. Pleadings of the State of Goa 100 - 341

VOLUME – III

17. Pleadings of the State of Karnataka 342 - 487

18. Pleadings of the State of Maharashtra 488 - 525

19. Re-framing/Re-casting of Issues vide 525 - 543

Order dated 17.07.2015.
20. Order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the 544 - 586
Tribunal in IAs. No. 60 of 2015 & 66 of
2016 filed by the State of Karnataka
rejecting its prayer to permit it to divert
7 tmc of water.

VOLUME – IV

21. Details of oral evidence led by the Party 587 - 593

States

 Oral evidence of AW-1 Shri Chetan 593 - 698

Pandit for the State of Goa

 Oral evidence of RW-1 Prof. A.K. 699 - 756

Gosain for the State of Karnataka

 Oral evidence of RW-2 Shri A.K. 757 - 803

Bajaj for the State of Karnataka

VOLUME – V

Details of oral evidence led by the Party

States contd…

 Oral evidence of MW-1 Shri S.N. 804 - 836

Huddar for the State of
Maharashtra

 Oral evidence of AW-2 Shri Paresh 836 - 856

Porob for the State of Goa
  Oral evidence of AW-3 Dr. Shamila 856 - 865
Monteiro for the State of Goa
 Oral evidence of AW-4 Shri 865 - 877
Rajendra P. Kerkar for the State of
Goa

 Oral evidence of AW-5 Shri Subrai 877 - 913

T. Nadkarni for the State of Goa

 Oral evidence of RW-3 Shri S.M. 914 - 929

Jamdar for the State of Karnataka

 Oral evidence of RW-4 Shri G.M. 929 - 945

Madegowda for the State of
Karnataka

 Oral evidence of MW-2 Shri B.C. 946 - 954

Kunjir for the State of
Maharashtra

22. Evaluation of the oral evidence led by 954 - 955

the three Party States

 Findings on conflicting results 955 - 966

arrived at by the Experts relating
to water availability

 Principles governing appreciation 966 - 970

of the oral evidence given by the
witnesses on Hydrology
  Evaluation of oral evidence of AW- 971 - 984
1 Shri Chetan Pandit for the State
of Goa

 Evaluation of oral evidence of RW- 984 - 1016

1 Prof. A.K. Gosain for the State of
Karnataka

 Evaluation of oral evidence of RW- 1017 - 1030

2 Shri A.K. Bajaj for the State of
Karnataka

 Evaluation of oral evidence of 1030 - 1039

MW-1 Shri S.N. Huddar for the
State of Maharashtra

 Evaluation of oral evidence of AW- 1040 - 1052

2 Shri Paresh Porob for the State
of Goa

VOLUME – VI
Evaluation of the oral evidence led by
the three Party States contd…
 Evaluation of oral evidence of AW- 1053 - 1058
3 Dr. Shamila Monteiro for the
State of Goa

 Evaluation of oral evidence of AW- 1058 - 1066

4 Shri Rajendra P. Kerkar for the
State of Goa
  Evaluation of oral evidence of AW- 1066 - 1085
5 Shri Subrai T. Nadkarni for the
State of Goa
 Evaluation of oral evidence of RW- 1085 - 1093
3 Shri S.M. Jamdar for the State of
Karnataka

 Evaluation of oral evidence of RW- 1093 - 1103

4 Shri G.M. Madegowda for the
State of Karnataka

 Evaluation of oral evidence of 1103 - 1110

MW-2 Shri B.C. Kunjir for the State
of Maharashtra

23. Decision and findings by the Tribunal on

important questions.

 Prejudice 1110 - 1132

 Effect of deletion of paras 28 (iv) 1132 - 1201

and 28 (v) from Goa’s complaint
dated 09.07.2002.

 Findings on whether the Central 1201 - 1224

Water Commission Report of
March, 2003 is to be treated as
Report of the Central Water
Commission.
  Determination of Dependability at 1225 - 1248
which water availability is to be
assessed.

 Decision relating to mandatory 1249 - 1290

requirements for project
implementation.

VOLUME –VII

Decision and findings by the Tribunal on

important questions contd…

 Hydrology and Water Availability 1291 - 1443

 Monthly Rainfall Data for the 1444 - 1500

period from June, 1901 to May,
2013

VOLUME – VIII

Decision and findings by the Tribunal on

important questions contd…

 Daily Rainfall Data for the 1501 - 1735

period from June, 1901 to May,
1940
 VOLUME – IX

Decision and findings by the Tribunal on

important questions contd…

 Daily Rainfall Data for the period 1736 - 1952

from June, 1940 to May, 1976

VOLUME – X

Decision and findings by the Tribunal on

important questions contd…

 Daily Rainfall Data for the period 1953 - 2175

from June, 1976 to May, 2013

VOLUME – XI

Decision and findings by the Tribunal on

important questions contd…

 Ecology 2176 - 2244

 Navigation 2245 - 2276

24. Determination of water requirements

of the three Party States

 State of Karnataka 2277 - 2443

 VOLUME – XII

Determination of water
requirements of the three Party States
contd…

 State of Maharashtra 2444 - 2481

 State of Goa 2481 - 2545

25. Decision on issues framed for

determination
 Issues Related to Data Availability 2546
and Quality of Data

 Issues Related to Hydrological 2546

Analysis and Methodology for
Assessment of Water Availability

 Issues Related to Dependability 2547

for Assessment of Water
Availability

 Issues Related to Water Utilization 2547 - 2548

for various Purposes, Projected
Demand of Water by the
Respective States, and their
Allocations
 Issues Related to (a) Ecology, 2548
Global Warming and its Impact,
and (b) Adverse Impact of
Development of Water Resources
on Ecology etc.

 Issues Related to Navigation 2548

 Issues Related to Effect to 2549

Deletion of Para 28(iv) and 28 (v)
from Pleadings of the State of Goa

 Issues Related to Need for Prior 2549 - 2550

Consent of Co-basin States for
Undertaking Projects/ including
Projects for Diversion outside
Mahadayi Basin

 Issues Related to Sharing of the 2550 - 2556

Water and Benefits out of the
Water Allocated of Utilization
Outside the Basin

 Issues Related to Adverse Impact 2556 - 2558

of the Proposed Projects of the
State of Karnataka on Projects of
State of Maharashtra
  Issues Related to Over-the Year 2559 - 2562
Storage/Carry Over Storage by the
Upper Riparian State

 Issues Related to Project-wise 2562 - 2567

Restrictions on Storages etc.

26. Need for Authority/Board for

integrated planning and management
of Water Resources of Mahadayi Basin

 Issues framed for Determination 2568 - 2578

 Modified Inter-State River Water 2579 - 2582

Disputes Act, 1956

 Recommendations made by Shri 2582 - 2585

Chetan Pandit

 Narmada Control Authority 2585 - 2590

 Cauvery River Authority (CRA) 2590 - 2592

 Cauvery Management Board 2593 - 2596

 Cauvery Water Regulatory 2596 - 2598

Committee

 Establishment of Cauvery Water 2598 - 2612

Management Authority
  Godavari and Krishna River 2612 - 2615
Management Board

 Krishna Waters Decision – 2615 - 2619

Implementation Board

 Bhakra Beas Management Board 2619 - 2621

 Vansadhara Supervisory 2621 - 2625

Committee

 Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment 2625 - 2628

on Babhali Barrage Project
reported in 1988 (7) SCC, P-303

 Important Activities Essentially 2629 - 2631

Required to be Undertaken for
Sustainable Development of
Water Resources of Mahadayi
Basin

 Constitution of the Authority 2631 - 2640

27. Equitable apportionment of Waters of 2641 - 2666

Mahadayi River

28. Water Sharing Mechanism 2667 - 2672

29. Recommendations

 Data Observation and Data Bank 2672 - 2679

  Guidelines for Hydrological 2679 - 2686
Analysis for Assessment of Water
Availability and Training for
Professionals

 Suggestions for Reviewing the 2686 - 2691

Provisions of the Inter-State River
Water Disputes Act, 1956

 Participation of Union 2691 - 2693

Government in the proceedings of
the Tribunals

30. Award and Final Decision of the 2693 - 2706

Tribunal

31. Acknowledgment 2706 - 2711

 REPORT OF THE MAHADAYI WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

S H O R T I N D E X
VOLUME – IV

Sl. No. D E S C R I P T I O N PAGE NOS

1. Details of oral evidence led by the Party 587 - 593

States

 Oral evidence of AW-1 Shri Chetan 593 - 698

Pandit for the State of Goa

 Oral evidence of RW-1 Prof. A.K. 699 - 756

Gosain for the State of Karnataka

 Oral evidence of RW-2 Shri A.K. 757 - 803

Bajaj for the State of Karnataka
 587

DETAILS OF ORAL EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTY STATES

50. After the framing of issues, all the three-party States

were afforded opportunity to lead their respective evidence. Vide
an Order dated 17.07.2015, read with two other later Orders
dated 01.09.2016 and 29.11.2016, this Tribunal had directed that
since one of the important issues involved in this controversy
pertains to the availability of water in the Mahadayi basin,
therefore, the Parties were directed to produce their respective
evidence on that aspect of the matter, by way of examining
Hydrological Experts, at the first instance.

51. Accordingly, the party States produced the

Hydrologists, as their respective expert witnesses.

The State of Goa produced Shri Chetan Pandit, AW1, who

had retired as a Member (WP&P), CWC and Ex-Officio Additional
Secretary to Government of India, on 31-03-2012, a Hydrologist,
as an expert witness.

The State of Karnataka produced Prof. Ashwani Kumar

Gosain, RW1, a Professor in Civil Engineering at Indian Institute of
 588

Technology, Delhi, as its expert Hydrologist. It also produced Sh.

A.K. Bajaj, RW2, a former Chairman of Central Water
Commission, as another expert Hydrologist, in support of its case.

The State of Maharashtra produced Sh. S.N. Huddar, MW1,

who retired in September 2006, from service as the Secretary
(CAD), Water Resources Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Mumbai, as its expert Hydrologist.

52. It would be pertinent to note here that the State of

Goa, after producing its three other witnesses, namely Sh. Paresh
Porob, AW2, Dr. Shamila Monteiro, AW3, and Sh. Rajinder P.
Kerkar, AW4, sought to produce Sh. S.T. Nadkarni, AW5, who is
employed as Chief Engineer of Water Resources Department and
ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of Goa.

At that stage an objection was raised by the learned

Counsel for the State of Karnataka, by stating that the Affidavit
filed by the aforesaid witness Sh. S.T. Nadkarni, AW5, revealed
that as a matter of fact he had deposed on certain hydrology
aspects of the matter and since, as per direction of this Tribunal,
 589

the witnesses deposing on the hydrology aspect of the matter

were to be produced at the first instance, before any other
evidence was led, the evidence of the said witness, who was a
Hydrologist, should not be permitted to be recorded.

Although, the learned Counsel for the State of Goa opposed

the aforesaid objection, but this Tribunal, vide an Order dated
23.11.2017, upheld the said objection raised on behalf of the
State of Karnataka, but observed that this Tribunal had directed
the party States to file affidavit/s as evidence of
witness/witnesses dealing with Hydrology, because there are
serious disputes between the States regarding availability of
water, but, at no stage, the Tribunal had restricted the Parties
from leading any further evidence of any Expert Hydrologist, if
the necessity so arose, at any subsequent stage.

Noticing the provisions of Section 9(1) (ba), of the Inter

State Water Disputes Act, 1956, that this Tribunal has been
specifically vested with the powers that enable it for
requisitioning any data, and summon any witness/evidence,
which may be necessary for adjudication of the Reference, it was
observed that although this Tribunal had not exercised the
 590

aforesaid powers, but when the State of Goa, on its own, had
chosen to produce such data, and proposed to examine an expert
witness in this regard, this Tribunal would not shut that evidence
in any manner. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the deposition
of AW-5 Shri Subrai T. Nadkarni to be recorded, and also ordered
that the affidavit dated 14.11.2017 filed by him as Examination-
in-Chief, would be so read.

However, to be equitable and fair to the opposite side, the

Tribunal, also granted a liberty to the State of Karnataka, as well
as to the State of Maharashtra, to examine any further expert
witness on Hydrology, if so desired. It was also clarified that if
any of the two States chose to re-examine any one of the expert
witnesses on Hydrology, already so examined, it might do so, as
well.

53. Besides the aforesaid expert Hydrologists, as expert

witnesses, all the three-party States, further, examined other
witnesses also, but no other witness on Hydrology was examined
either by State of Karnataka or by State of Maharashtra, though
opportunity to examine such a witness was granted as stated
earlier.
 591

54. The State of Goa examined three more witnesses,

namely, Sh Paresh Porob, as AW2, In-charge Zoo Manager,
Bondla Zoological Park, Goa Forest Department of Government
of Goa; Dr. (Mrs) Shamila Monteiro, as AW3, who was holding
the posts of the Director in the Directorate of Fisheries,
Government of Goa from 01.04.2013 to 26.09.2017; Sh. Rajinder
P. Kerkar as AW4, who stated that he was working for the
awareness of environment, wildlife and forest related issues in
the state of Goa and border area since the period of the last
more than a quarter century. As already noticed above, Sh. S.T.
Nadkarni, Chief Engineer of Water Resources Department and ex-
officio Additional Secretary to Government of Goa, was examined
as AW5, and was treated as an expert Hydrologist, by this
Tribunal.

55. The State of Karnataka, besides the two expert

Hydrologists, as noted earlier, produced Sh. S.M. Jamdar, RW3,
who is a retired Indian Administrative Services Officer, having
worked in various capacities in the State of Karnataka and was
also the Managing Director of Karnataka Power Corporation
Limited, and had retired from the Indian Administrative Service in
2012, as Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka in
 592

the Home Department. Further, Karnataka produced Shri G.M.

Madegowda, RW4, who is a retired Chief Engineer of the State of
Karnataka, and had worked as Chief Engineer, KUWS & DB at
Bengaluru and Mysuru, from April 2016 to December 2016.

56. Similarly, the State of Maharashtra, besides producing

its hydrology expert witness, Shri S.N. Huddar as MW1, also
produced Shri B.C. Kunjir, MW2, who was working with the State
of Maharashtra in its engineering service, Maharashtra Service of
Engineers, (MSE) and over the period of time, worked in various
capacities. It is stated that he worked as Executive Director,
which is equivalent to a Departmental Secretary of Government
of Maharashtra, and also is stated to have worked as Chairman
and Member of various committees constituted by the State
Government of Maharashtra to look into specific issues in Water
Resources and Development Projects. Thus, the State of
Maharashtra has produced this witness MW2 as an expert
witness.
 593

57. At this stage it would be appropriate to enumerate

the relevant contents of the statements of the various witnesses
produced by the party States.

58. As noted above, at the first instance, all the three-

party States produced the Hydrologists, as their respective expert
witnesses, except Goa, which, produced Shri S.T. Nadkarni, as an
expert Hydrologist, later on, after permission in that regard was
granted by this Tribunal.

Oral evidence of AW-1 Shri Chetan Pandit for the State of Goa

59. Shri Chetan Pandit deposing as an Expert witness on

behalf of the State of Goa filed his first Affidavit-in-Evidence on
15.09.2015 (Volume 165), as AW-1.

60. In para 2 of his Affidavit, Shri Chetan Pandit has stated

that he is deposing limited to the part of hydrology evidence,
more particularly, the aspect of water availability in river
Mandovi, also known as Mahadayi. In paragraphs 3 to 10 of his
Affidavit, the witness has claimed that he holds a Master’s degree
in Hydrology and has enumerated his qualifications and
 594

experience, as according to him, in order to plan the utilization

of water in a basin it is first necessary to make an assessment of
the water availability in that basin. After mentioning that the
rainfall is neither uniformly distributed in space nor is consistent
in time, it is stated that within a catchment, the rainfall in some
areas may be relatively more as compared to some other areas in
the same catchment, and in some years it is less than average,
and therefore the flow in the river also varies from year to year.
In paragraph 13 of his Affidavit he has pointed out certain
practical difficulties in the measurement of rainfall and river flow,
and that the catchment areas are invariably very large extending
over thousands of square kilometres, but the raingauge measures
rainfall only at a point and therefore there is no escape from
having to accept the measurement at a point as representative of
the measurement over a large area. The witness has further
explained in paragraph 15 of his Affidavit that assessment of the
annual flow in the river is also a complex process and it cannot be
measured directly and can only be estimated or assessed by
indirect means and the hydrologist making such estimation has to
make certain decisions on acceptability or otherwise on various
data as well as the procedure to be followed based on the
hydrologist’s knowledge and experience. According to him, when
 595

a water availability assessment is to be done for planning of

utilization of water of a basin, practical considerations rule out
taking a position that adequate and/or reliable data is not
available and therefore water availability assessment will have to
wait till adequate and reliable data becomes available. The
witness has emphasized that the quantity and quality of data
available is an important factor in determining what is the most
reasonable method, whereas the scrutiny of the available data,
rejection of suspect data, modification of data using statistical
methods, are all part of the method of assessment. The witness
has continued to state that most reasonable assessment of water
availability is not static, and as mankind’s understanding of the
science improves and also as more data becomes available, the
most reasonable assessment of water availability may undergo a
revision and such periodic revisions are routine in the field of
hydrology. The witness informed the Tribunal that the guidelines
regarding minimum density of observation stations for various
parameters for different geographical units are given in the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) publication No. 168
“Guide to Hydrological Practices”, and as per these guidelines, for
mountain region, the number of stations required in 2032 sq.km.
 596

Mahadayi basin have been assessed and presented in a Table

which is reproduced as under.

Parameter Area in Minimum Actual number of

SqKm per Number stations in Mahadayi
station of stations basin
Precipitation 250 8 6(IMD stations)
Kanukmbi, Amagaon,
Jamgaon, Valpoi,
Mapusa, and Panjim
Stream flow 1,000 2 1* (CWC stations)
Sedimentation 6,700 1 NIL

[* Number of CWC operated stream-flow stations is 2, at Ganjem

and at Collem. But the Station at Collem measures a small
catchment area and this area is hydrologically similar and
adjacent to the area measured by the station at Ganjim.
Therefore for all practical purposes there is only one stream –
flow measurement station operated by the CWC, at Ganjem.]

61. The witness has stressed that there is not a single

CWC gauging station on many significant tributaries of Mahadayi
viz. Ragada, Kotni nadi, Bail nadi, and Surla nadi on which
projects have been proposed by the States of Karnataka and
Maharashtra. According to the witness, they are unguaged.
According to the witness, hydro-meteorological data is a
transient, i.e. if not correctly measured at the very moment a
 597

hydro-meteorological event takes place, the data is lost forever

and there is no way to resurrect that data. It is emphasized by
the witness that the implication of this is that a post facto second
measurement for verification of hydro-meteorological data is not
possible and an assessment of the reliability of any hydro-
meteorological data can be made only indirectly. After
mentioning that he has personally visited various locations in the
Mahadayi basin to obtain a “clinical picture” of the basin, the
witness has mentioned that he had found wildlife sanctuaries;
two famous waterfalls of Dudhsagar and Surla; some of the
locations where projects are contemplated by the States of
Karnataka, namely Kalasa Dam, Bhandura Dam, Haltara Dam,
Surla Diversion site and those proposed by the State of
Maharashtra namely Virdi Dam site. The witness has claimed
that at Ganjim till the year 2000, the discharge observations were
done by a method known as “float method” which is the least
accurate and therefore accuracy of discharge data prior to the
year 2000 is questionable. The witness has further deposed that
at Ganjim site, a weir has been constructed downstream of and
very close, to the observation site in the year 2006, which has
changed the gauge-discharge relationship at Ganjim. The witness
proceeds to state that he found that CWC had not made
 598

necessary changes in its discharge measurement and had not

taken into consideration the cognizance of the construction of
the said weir. Therefore, the witness asserts that the data at
Ganjim after the year 2006 is questionable. The Witness has
further mentioned that the fact that CWC failed to take
cognizance of the construction of a weir at Ganjim, raises a
strong doubt on the competence of the observation staff and the
quality of supervision. According to the witness, the CWC staff is
not adequately trained and adequately supervised for taking
correct observations in a correct manner and therefore, there is
every possibility that before 2006 also, the incompetence and/or
lack of supervision persisted, as a result of which the data prior to
the year 2006 is also suspect. The witness has mentioned that
his observations on the quality of discharge data are
corroborated by the fact that in all the yield studies conducted by
different agencies, the runoff factor, i.e. the percentage of
rainfall volume flowing through the river as runoff is coming to be
very high i.e. in some cases it is even more than 100%, but in
most years it is as high as 80%. The witness has explained that
the runoff coefficient is primarily determined by the losses from
the rainfall and according to him higher the losses, the lower the
rainfall and runoff coefficient. The witness has mentioned that
 599

the most important losses are evaporation, evapo-transpiration,

and percolation and considering that the upper catchment of
Mahadayi River particularly in Karnataka, is densely forested
area, the direct evaporation from the rainfall intercepted by the
forest canopy would be very high, whereas consumptive use of
water by the forest would also be very high and the presence of a
forest indicates porous soil and therefore, the percolation will
also be very high. The witness has mentioned that rainfall/runoff
coefficient as high as 80% is indefensible for this catchment. The
witness has stated that error either in the rainfall data or the
discharge data, can result in very high runoff factors, but, the
number of rainfall stations is many and therefore, it is possible to
check the data of one station against that of another. The
witness has pointed out that it is highly unlikely that all the
stations made an observational error of similar type in the same
years. The witness has explained that measurement of rainfall is
relatively a simple procedure, while the measurement of
discharge is much more complicated and therefore requires a
high degree of competence and diligence. The witness has
proceeded to mention that the preferred method to compute
75% dependable, or 50% dependable, or any other percentage
of dependable runoff, in a basin, is by analysis of time series
 600

runoff data of that basin, and for such analysis, the science of
hydrology neither specifies any rule as to what should be
minimum length of the time series, nor specifies any rule as to
what length of time series is adequate, and therefore a
Hydrologist has to do with whatever data that is available. The
witness claims that longer the length of time series data
available, higher is the probability of results being closer to their
true value, provided that the quality of data is good. The witness
points out that shorter the length of time series data, there is
lower probability of results being closer to their true value. The
witness has mentioned that river valley projects inflict a huge
cost on the people and there is financial cost in terms of money
and also there are environmental costs like diversion of forest
land for non-forest purposes and changes in the flow pattern in
the river which further impacts the ecology. Further there are
social costs in terms of people displaced from their homes and
farms and loss of livelihoods. The witness therefore claims that
when there is a doubt about the accuracy of water availability
assessment, it is preferable to err on the safer side i.e. on the
lower side. The witness further mentions that 75% dependable
or 50% dependable or any other percentage dependable water
availability assessment refers to only natural flow as what would
 601

have been, had there been no human intervention and it only

refers to the total water that is available for specified
dependability and it does not necessarily mean that this quantity
of water is available for human consumption because the nature
also needs water for ecological functions. The witness has
referred to Clause 1.3(v) of National Water Policy of 2012 to
emphasize that water is essential for sustenance of eco-system
and therefore, minimum ecological needs should be given due
consideration. The witness has further referred to Clause 3.3. of
the said policy to emphasize that a portion of river flows, should
be kept aside to meet ecological needs to ensure that the low
and high flow releases are proportional to the natural flow
regime, including base flow contribution in the low flow season
through regulated ground water use. The witness has asserted
that as to whether Mahadayi basin is a surplus basin or a deficit
basin can be determined only after the environmental needs are
assessed through a scientific study, as stipulated in the National
Water Policy, in the table given in paragraph 35 of his Affidavit.
According to this witness Tennant DL (1976) has associated a
likely quality of water of habitat with various ranges of
environmental flow expressed as percentage of Mean Annual
 602

Flows. This is shown by the witness in the Table given in

paragraph 35(a) of his Affidavit, which is as under:

Quality of Habitat Environmental flow as % of Mean

Annual Flow
October to April to
March September

Outstanding 40% 60%

Excellent 30% 50%
Good 20% 40%
Fair or degrading 10% 30%
Poor or minimum 10% 10%
Severe degradation <10%

62. The witness has claimed that for maintaining even a

good quality of habitat, the environmental flow will have to be
60% of the Mean Annual Flow (MAF), 20% during October to
March i.e. dry season and 40% during April to September i.e.
rains season. The witness stated that as to whether the water
allocation should be based on 75% dependable flow or 50%
dependable flow would depend upon if the distribution of runoff
is exactly as per normal distribution then the 50% dependable
flow would be the same as mean annual flow. However, the
witness has hastened to add that the practice in India is that the
projects are designed to use the 75% dependable flow, whereas
 603

in some cases viz., in chronic drought prone areas, sometimes the

projects may be designed to utilize the 50% dependable flow but
the Western Ghats do not fall in that category and therefore the
water availability should be assessed on a 75% dependable basis
for Mahadayi basin and at the places where the State of
Karnataka and the State of Maharashtra have proposed other
disputed projects. The witness has described Mahadayi river in
great detail in paras 39 to 43 and has stated in paragraph 44 that
“the Mandovi river basin can geologically be broadly divided into
four distinct sub-regions, west to east namely: (i) The coastal
plains with dominant marine lands on the west; (ii) The vast etch
plain adjoining the coastal plains; (iii) Low dissected denudational
hills and table land; (iv) Deeply dissected high Western-Ghat
denudational hills”.

63. The witness has stated that Mahadayi river valley

comprises the Western Ghat Zone in Karnataka, Maharashtra and
Goa on the western slopes of the Sahyadris and the valley
includes Mahadayi wildlife sanctuary, Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife
Sanctuary and Mollem National Park, Dr. Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary,
Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary and Bhimgad Wildlife Sanctuary. The
witness has informed that Mahadayi River Basin in Goa
 604

comprises an area of 1580 sq.km. which is about 43% of Goa’s

total geographical area. The witness has claimed that Mandovi
planes downstream comprise an intricate system of wetlands;
tidal marshy areas cultivated paddy fields known as khazans; all
intercepted by canals, base lagoons, creeks and is influenced by
tidal actions upto Ganjim. According to the Witness, the Ministry
of Environmental and Forest had appointed initially the Western
Ghats Ecology Expert Panel and there is specific recommendation
by the said Committee that no new dams or large scale storage
be permitted in ecological sensitive zone, as also no interlinking
of rivers be permitted anywhere in Western Ghats. The witness
has claimed that although the report has very many features and
diverse topics and has not been fully accepted by the Ministry of
Environment & Forest, nonetheless the fact remains that ecology
experts have categorically recommended that neither any dams
nor any diversion of river be permitted in the Western Ghats.

64. In paragraph 51 of his Affidavit, the witness has

broadly sub-divided Mandovi River into three zones of sub-
regions based upon geographical utility features which are (i) The
sub-region of about 530 sq.km. are in the upper most region of
the river basin located in Goa and known as conservation zone;
 605

(ii) The downstream of the conservation zone which is the

drainage area of the Mandovi river basin admeasuring about 541
sq.km. at low altitudes above the sea level where most of the
population is concentrated and is known as population/industrial
zone; (iii) A stretch/sub-region of 509 sq.km. of basin area in its
final reach is in salinity and very fragile river zone. This is the
area/sub-region, where river meets the Arabian Sea. In the main
river, this saline reach extends up to Ganjim where further
ingress of salinity is arrested by a weir.

65. According to the witness, it is pertinent to note that

the fresh water flow from any river restrains the extent to which
salinity intrudes into that river and with global warming, the sea
levels are bound to rise which would subsequently increase the
proportion of saline water in the river. The witness has
mentioned that the aquatic life is sensitive to the concentration
of salts and increase in the salinity levels can be destructive to
the aquatic ecology of the river. Thus, it is maintained by the
witness that an increased fresh water flow would be required to
restrict the salinity/concentration of salts. Diversion of water
outside the basin by the State of Karnataka and/or by the State of
Maharashtra would reduce the ground water recharge and
 606

enable increased intrusion of salt water in the aquifer. Again in

paragraph 57 of his Affidavit, the witness has emphasized, while
addressing the matter on point of availability of water in
Mahadayi basin, two important aspects should be considered,
namely (a) the minimum environmental which is required for the
purpose of sustaining the precious wildlife, biodiversity, forest
and thick vegetation and (b) the implications and effect of any
abstraction or diversion at the upstream level on the flow of the
water level from such point. The witness has expressed opinion
that abstraction of water on the upstream will have an impact of
reducing the flow in the downstream which is particularly of
concern in case of Mahadayi river, where there are two major
waterfalls namely; Dudhsagar and Ladkycho Vozar, also known as
Surla waterfalls, downstream of the disputed projects planned by
Karnataka and in case of any abstraction the waterfalls will be
severely affected. The witness has asserted that the proposed
projects of the State of Karnataka, as also that of State of
Maharashtra cannot be permitted to be undertaken. The witness
stated that on the basis of assessment of water availability in the
river and without taking into account, the environmental impact
and implications of the projects, on the flow of the river itself and
 607

their ecological consequences, particularly having regard to the

ecological sensitive characteristics of the region.

66. Shri Chetan Pandit, AW1, the Expert witness on behalf

of the State of Goa has also filed an Affidavit in evidence dated
4.8.2016 (Volume 191).

67. After emphasizing that through the aforesaid Affidavit

he is deposing limited to the part of Hydrology evidence, he has
stated in para 2 of his said Affidavit that he had conducted a
study on water availability in Mahadayi basin and had prepared a
Report dated 3.8.2016, which has been annexed by him as
Annexure-A to his Affidavit. In paragraphs 3 to 13 of his this
Affidavit, he has again given his bio-data and spoken about his
expertise in the field of hydrology. In paragraph 14 of his
Affidavit-in- Evidence, he has stated that based on his
qualification, knowledge and experience in practice of water
resources management and engineering hydrology he has
conducted a study of the water availability in the Mahadayi basin.
According to him, he has particularly examined the following
aspects:
 608

a. The rainfall data available, from IMD and also other

sources.
b. The river discharge data available from the CWC.
c. The map of the basin, with location of the rainfall stations,
discharge observation stations, and catchment boundaries,
marked on it.

68. The witness has claimed that he had seen the earlier
Report prepared by NWDA, CWC and IISc but without going
through the details of their computations. He has mentioned
that he had visited the various locations in the catchment trying
to understand the topography and land use. He has further
claimed that he had visited the gauge and discharge sites at
Ganjim and Collem, to get a firsthand feel of the ground realities
at those sites. He has stated that in his this Affidavit that he was
aware of the facts that environment in the Western Ghats is a
key issue and water environment are inextricably linked, and
therefore he had read the report prepared by the Western Ghats
Ecology Expert Panel to get a grasp of the environmental
concerns in the Mahadayi basin.
 609

69. Based on his inputs, he claims that he had analyzed

the yield of Mahadayi basin and his conclusions are presented in
the Table which is part of paragraph 19 of his this Affidavit. The
said Table is reproduced hereunder.

Yield MCM TMC

Runoff over entire 50% 5039.8 178.0
catchment. Dependable
Area 2032 Sq. Km 75% 4372.4 154.4
Dependable
Usable Yield 50% 3777.3 133.4
Catchment Area 1523 Dependable
sq.km 75% 3277.2 115.7
Dependable

70. According to him, the rainfall is neither uniformly

distributed in space, nor is consistent in time. He claims that
within a catchment, the rainfall in some areas may be relatively
more as compared to some other areas in the same catchment,
whereas in some years the rainfall is more than average, while in
some years, it is less than average and consequently the flow in
the river also varies from year to year. After pointing out certain
practical difficulties in the measurement of rainfall and river flow,
the witness has stated in paragraph 2 of his this Affidavit that the
catchment areas are invariably very large extending over
 610

thousands of square kilometers, but the rain gauge measures

rainfall at only a point and there is no escape from having to
accept the measurement at a point as representative of the
measurement over a large area. It is pointed out by him that the
river flow measurement is an instantaneous measurement, i.e. at
an instant of time, but is required to be taken as representative
of the flow over a duration of time, typically 24 hours. According
to him, when a water availability assessment is to be done for
planning of utilization of water of a Basin, practical
considerations rule out taking a position that adequate and/or
reliable data is not available and therefore the water availability
assessment will have to wait till adequate and reliable data
becomes available. It is emphasized that the water available
assessment of any basin including that of Mahadayi basin, will
have to be done with whatever data that is available at the time
of making assessment. The witness has explained in paragraph 26
of his this Affidavit that the most reasonable assessment of water
availability is not static, and as mankind’s understanding of the
science improves, and also as more data becomes available, the
most reasonable assessment of water availability would undergo
a revision. It is claimed by the witness that such periodical
revisions are routine in the field of Hydrology. In para 27 of his
 611

Affidavit, he has mentioned that he has taken into consideration

the guidelines given in the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) publication No. 168 “Guide to Hydrological Practices”,
and has assessed the number of stations required for catchment
area of 2032 sq.km. of Mahadayi basin as per these guidelines
and the same is presented in a Table, contents of which are same
as mentioned in the Table in para 19 of his Affidavit dated
15.9.2015 (Volume 165). The Table is already reproduced in para
60 of this Report.

71. What is important is that this witness has stated in

paragraph 28 that there is no single CWC gauging station on
many significant tributaries of Mahadayi, viz. Ragada, Kotni nadi,
Bail nadi and Surla nadi on which projects have been proposed by
the State of Karnataka and Maharashtra and that those rivers on
which State of Karnataka has proposed projects are ungauged. In
para 31 of his Affidavit, he has informed that at Ganjim, till the
year 2000, the discharge observations were done by a method
known as “float method”, which is the least accurate and
therefore accuracy of discharge data prior to the year 2000 is
questionable. He has further stated that at Ganjim site, the weir
has been constructed downstream of and very close to the
 612

observation site, some time in the year 2006, and this weir would
change the gauge-discharge relationship at Ganjim, but, he had
noticed that CWC had not made necessary changes in their
observation of discharge measurement, nor taken cognizance of
the construction of the said weir, and therefore the data at
Ganjim after the year 2006 is questionable. He has pointed out
that the fact that CWC failed to take cognizance of the
construction of a weir at Ganjim, raises a strong doubt on the
competence of the observation staff and the quality of
supervision. The witness proceeds to state that if the CWC staff
was not adequately trained and had not adequately supervised
while taking correct observations in a correct manner, the data
prior to the year 2006 becomes suspect. What is claimed by him
is that in all the yield studies conducted by different agencies, the
runoff factor, i.e., the percentage of rainfall volume flowing
through the river as runoff, is coming to be very high and in some
cases it is even more than 100%, but in most years, it is as high as
80%. After pointing out that the runoff coefficient is primarily
determined by the losses from the rainfall, it is stated by him that
higher the losses, lower the rainfall runoff coefficient. The
witness has asserted that the most important losses are
evaporation, evapotranspiration, and percolation and considering
 613

that the upper catchment of Mahadayi River particularly in

Karnataka is densely forested area, the direct evaporation from
the rainfall intercepted by the forest canopy would be very high.
The witness proceeds to state that the consumptive use of water
by the forest would also be very high and the presence of a forest
indicates porous soil and therefore, the percolation will also be
very high. Based on his experience as a Hydrologist, the witness
has stated that rainfall/runoff coefficient as high as 80% is
indefensible for this catchment. After mentioning that the
preferred method to compute 75% dependable, or 50%
dependable, or any other percentage of dependable runoff in a
basin is by analysis of time series runoff data of that basin, the
witness has stated that the longer the length of time series data
available, higher the probability of results being closer to their
true value, provided, of course, that the quality of the data is
good. The witness asserts conversely, that the shorter the length
of time series data lowers the probability of results being closer
to their true value. The witness has informed in para 40 of his
Affidavit that the 75% dependable or 50% dependable or any
other % dependable water availability assessment refers to only
the natural flow as would have been, had there been no human
intervention and it refers to the total water that is available for
 614

specified dependability. The witness has made a reference to the

National Water Policy of 2012 and informed that as per clause
1.3(v), water is essential for sustenance of eco-system and
therefore minimum ecological needs should be given due
consideration. The witness has made a reference to clause 3.3 of
the said policy and has stated that a portion of river flows should
be kept aside to meet ecological needs, ensuring that the low and
high flow are proportional to the natural flow regime.

72. After emphasizing that the water availability should be

assessed on 75% dependable basis for Mahadayi basin and at
places where the State of Karnataka and the State of
Maharashtra have proposed for disputed projects, it is stressed
that the Mandovi River can geologically, be broadly divided into
four distinct sub-regions west to east, namely. (i) The coastal
plains with dominant marine lands on the west; (ii) The vast etch
plain adjoining the coastal plains; (iii) Low dissected denudational
hills and table land; (iv) Deeply dissected high Western Ghat
denudational hills.

73. After mentioning that the river drains in total area of

approximately 2032 sq.km., spread over the three States, it is
 615

stated by the witness that Mandovi river in the State of Goa, can
be broadly sub-divided into three zones or sub-regions based
upon geographical utility features. (i) The sub-region of about
530 sq.km. are in the upper most region of river basis located in
Goa i.e., Conservation Zone; (ii) The downstream of the
conservation zone is the drainage area of the Mandovi river basin
measuring about 541 sq.km. at low altitudes above the sea level,
where most of the population is concentrated and this zone is
known as population/industrial zone; (iii) A stretch/sub-region of
509 sq.km. of basin area in its final reach is in salinity and very
fragile river zone. This is the area/sub-region, where river meets
the Arabian Sea. In the main river, this saline reach extends up to
Ganjim where further ingress of salinity is arrested by the weir.

74. What is reiterated by the witness is that any

abstraction of water on the stream will have an impact of
reducing the flow in the downstream and this is particularly, of
concern in case of Mahadayi river where there are two major
waterfalls namely Dudhsagar and Ladke-cho-Vazor also known as
Surla waterfalls which are downstream of the disputed projects.
The witness has stated that any abstraction of water would
adversely affect global bio-diversity hotspots, five sanctuaries,
 616

several rare species, and other richness of flora and fauna

situated in the State of Goa. In para 71 of his Affidavit, the
witness has mentioned that State of Goa has existing and
proposed drinking water projects and irrigation projects and
therefore any diversion or abstraction of water from the main
Mahadayi river and/or its tributaries in the upstream by the
States of Karnataka and/or Maharashtra would further reduce
the flow in the rivers jeopardizing even the drinking water
projects.

75. As noticed earlier, the witness has annexed his report

dated 03.08.2016, as Annexure A, along with his Affidavit dated
04.08.2016. In the Report, the witness has mentioned in detail
Mandovi river basin and after explaining as to what is meant by
the yield of the basin, the witness has referred to Hydrology in
paragraph 3 of his report. The witness has referred to 2001 CWC
Report and has mentioned that two different estimates of 75%
and 50% dependable runoff are given in the same Report, as if
the hydrologist who conducted the yield study was not sure of
what path to follow and therefore offered two different
estimates. The witness has given the review of yield study done
in the past in para 5 of his report, whereas in para 6 of the Report
 617

general methodology to be adopted while making assessment of

water availability has been given. After emphasizing that
Thiessen Polygon and linear regression are used for want of any
better method, the witness has enumerated the steps to be
undertaken for filling of missing data. The witness has detailed
the data availability in Mahadayi basin in paragraph 7 of his
Report, whereas information relating to rainfall data is
mentioned in paragraph 8 in the report and information relating
to discharge data is mentioned in paragraph 9 of his Report.
According to the witness, CWC measures gauge and discharge at
two stations i.e., at Ganjim and that at Collem. Ganjim is on the
main river Mandovi and intercepts a catchment of 880 sq.km.,
whereas Collem is on a tributary called Khandepar and intercepts
only 117 sq.km. of catchment. Regarding river flow data, the
witness has mentioned that the station at Collem measures a
small catchment area and this area is hydrologically similar and
adjacent to the area measured by the station at Ganjim, and
therefore, the Collem data does not necessarily add to the
information because data is what is observed in the field,
whereas the information is defined as the “meaning attached to
data”. The witness has mentioned that for visiting the gauging
site at Collem, one has to park the vehicle at a certain location
 618

and then walk along a railway line for about half a kilometer,
where there is a railway line on the right hand side, and a steep
vertical mountain side on the left hand side, with barely a couple
of meters of space between the two. What is mentioned by the
witness is that when he had visited the Collem site, no place
could be seen by him where CWC personnel making the
discharge observation could take shelter during heavy rainfall, or
rest between the observations. The witness has further
mentioned that CWC has not made necessary changes in its
observation resulting to discharge assessments taking notice of
the construction of the weir downstream. In paragraph 12 of his
Report, the witness has mentioned about the selection of rainfall
stations, whereas in paragraph 13 of his Report the witness has
mentioned about consistency checks on data. In paragraph 14 of
his report, the witness has stated as to how the missing data has
been filled. After defining catchment which should be taken into
consideration while estimating yield, the witness has mentioned
in paragraph 15 of his Report that 509 sq.km. should be excluded
while making assessment of the yield. The witness has referred
to correction for discharge observed by float method and has
ultimately computed the yield of Mahadayi basin in paragraph 19
 619

of his Report the content of which are same as that of the Table
reproduced in para 69 of this Report.

76. This witness AW-1, has filed his third Additional

Affidavit of Examination-in-Chief on 12.09.2016 (Volume 192).
The witness has mentioned that he has already filed his Affidavit
of Evidence dated 4.08.2016 on the issues pertaining to the
aspects of hydrology and water availability and a report on the
Yield Study on Mahadayi basin. The witness has mentioned that
his this additional Affidavit dated 12.09.2016 is a continuation of
his earlier Affidavit-in-Evidence dated 04.08.2016, and that he is
deposing as a witness of the State of Goa on some of the issues
other than hydrology and water availability, upon which he is
supposed to depose.

77. In paragraph 76 of his additional Affidavit, the witness

has mentioned the case of State of Goa. According to this
witness, India first formulated a National Water Policy in 1987,
which was revised in 2002, and then again revised in 2012.
According to the witness, though revision has been made in
National Water Policy of 1987, certain principles have remained
unchanged and two important principles are that (a) Basin as a
 620

unit for all water planning (b) drinking water to have highest
priority for allocation of water. In paragraph 79 of his additional
Affidavit, the witness has reproduced Clause 3.2 of National
Water Policy 1987, whereas in paragraph 80, the witness has
reproduced Clause 1.3(vii) from National Water Policy of 2012.
The witness has also reproduced Clause 2.3 of National Water
Policy of 2012 in paragraph 82 of his additional Affidavit and
maintains that the principle is that basin as a unit for hydrologic
planning should be adopted. The witness has asserted that by
formulating plans for water management in Malaprabha basin,
based on diversion of water from the Mahadayi basin, this basic
principle laid down in National Water Policy has been violated.
The witness mentions that in the National Water Policy of 1987,
the water allocation priorities have been defined in Clause 8 and
drinking water is stated as priority 1, followed by irrigation and
then for other uses. The witness mentions that the sequence of
priorities in National Water Policy of 1987 was repeated in Clause
5 of the National Water Policy of 2002. The witness has stated
that by the year 2002, importance of environmental flows was
starting to get appreciated, and the National Water Policy of
2002 included ecology at 4th priority for uses of water. In
paragraph 89 of his additional Affidavit, the witness has
 621

emphasized that in the National Water Policy of 2012 Clause

1.3(vi) was introduced and inter-alia states that safe water for
drinking and sanitation should be considered as pre-emptive
needs, followed by high priority allocation for other basic
domestic needs including needs of animals, achieving food
security, supporting sustenance agriculture and minimum eco-
system needs. According to the said policy, available water after
meeting the above needs should be allocated in a manner to
promote its conservation and efficient use. After mentioning
that National Water Policy finalized in a meeting of National
Water Resources Council, the witness has stated that various
States, including the State of Karnataka who were present in the
said meeting had not raised any objections on the two principles,
namely basin as a unit for all planning; and drinking water to
have first priority. What is mentioned by the witness is that if
indeed there is a shortage of water for domestic use in
Malaprabha basin, and then it is entirely because of disregard to
the principle of highest priority to the drinking water and
allocating water to other uses, including a Pepsico bottling plant,
and sugarcane farming.
 622

78. After referring to the Clause 1.3(vi) of the National

Water Policy of 2012, the witness has mentioned that all the
provisions of the National Water Policy have been openly flouted
in the Malaprabha basin, by supplying water for sugarcane
cultivation. The witness has stressed that water is being supplied
to a water guzzling cash crop like sugarcane, over-riding the
higher priorities of drinking water, ecology, food security and
sustenance. The witness has in detail referred to the cropping
pattern, as stated in the modified DPR of the Malaprabha project
(Volume 33B) and referred to table titled “Salient Features”
wherein cropping pattern is mentioned. The witness mentions
that neither the cropping pattern, as per the approved project
nor the cropping pattern as per the revised project, includes
sugarcane. Therefore, cultivation of sugarcane is in violation of
the cropping pattern, as stated in the DPR, which is an act of
water mismanagement. In para 96 of the additional Affidavit, the
witness has stated that the Pepsico unit in Dharwad district is a
unit of a MNC soft drink company which is being supplied 4 lakh
liters of water every day by the Karnataka Water Board and the
witness mentions that it is learnt from information available on
the internet, that the Agreement between the Karnataka Water
Board and the Pepsico is for supply of only 2 lakh liters per day,
 623

but the unit was being supplied 4 lakh liters of water every day.
What is stated by the witness is that the above stated 4 lakh liters
per day would satisfy the household domestic requirement of
16,000 people at 25 Liters Per Capita per Day (LPCD), year round.
The witness has claimed that in many places in India, the soft
drink plants are being shut down to restore water supply to rural
areas, and the most well-known example is that of Plachimada in
Kerala where a soft drink bottling plant of a Multinational
Company was shut down after protest by the local people,
despite being on the western side of Western Ghats, and in a
higher rainfall area compared to Dharwad, which is on the
eastern slope of Ghats. The witness has further mentioned about
the industrial profile of Dharwad district, which is available at the
website of the Union Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises (MSMEs) and has stated that the number of total
industrial units in Dharwad district is 18,877, of which only 924
are registered, which indicates an unplanned growth of the
industry. The witness has referred to paragraph 5 of Annexure
11 to Document No. 183, wherein it is inter-alia stated that one
of the issues is lack of basic amenities like drinking water. The
witness claims that thus it is seen that far less water for the
industrial process, there is no water even for drinking and yet
 624

more industries are being promoted by the State of Karnataka.

The witness asserts that newer industries continue to get
promoted and on the website it is indicated that 57 new industry
units were approved in 2016 in Dharwad district at an investment
cost of Rs.282.51 crores. The witness asserts that water shortage
in Malaprabha basin, if at all, is entirely man-made due to
misplaced priorities for allocation of water and this alleged
shortage cannot be made good by importing water from
Mahadayi basin. The witness has mentioned in paragraph 101 of
his additional Affidavit that the Malaprabha Reservoir Project in
Naviluteertha in Belagavi District, in Karnataka was completed in
the year 1974. The witness has stated that a DPR for this Project
was approved by the Planning Commission in the year 1963,
which was then revised in the year 2009, which is produced by
the State of Karnataka at Volume 33B. The witness asserts that a
comparison of the project features of these two project
formulations reveals that as per the original approved DPR, the
annual water availability at 75% dependability was assessed at
about 47 tmc but in the revised DPR, the yield was reduced to
about 27 tmc. What is mentioned by the witness is that in the
years immediately following the completion of reservoir, the
State of Karnataka should have observed that the reservoir was
 625

not filling as often, as it should, and that the annual yield is less
than the estimated yield and that the reduction in yield was
because of an incorrect hydrologic study earlier, or because of
direct pumping from the reservoir area by the lift irrigation
schemes or some other reason. It is emphasized by the witness
that the State of Karnataka should have controlled the further
use of water to match the annual observed yield, by controlling
the cropping pattern and promoting water saving techniques
such as drip and sprinkler irrigation and conjunctive use of
surface and ground water etc., but on the contrary, the State of
Karnataka is supporting irrigation of sugarcane, which is a water
guzzler crop to replace the crops which require less water. The
witness has referred to replies provided by the State of Karnataka
to the interrogatories raised by the State of Goa, and it is claimed
that in Malaprabha command the area under sugar cane
cultivation has increased from 224 Ha in the year 1979-80 to
2756 Ha in the year 2012-13. What is emphasized is that in the
modified DPR only 0.216 tmc of water supply is earmarked for
drinking and industrial requirement and water for not only sugar
cane but any irrigation should have been supplied only after
supplying the water for drinking.
 626

79. The witness states that from the index map of the
Malaprabha Project, it is evident that there are at least two major
tributaries on the right bank of Malaprabha River – Joul Nalla that
borders the command area and joins near the village Konnur and
the Bannehalla Nalla which cuts across the command area and
joins Malaprabha River near the village of Menasagi. The witness
has pointed out that Joul Nalla has a catchment area of 244
sq.km., whereas the Bennehalla Nalla has a catchment area of
around 5048 sq.km., which is more than twice the entire
Mahadayi basin catchment area. According to the witness, a
proposal to utilize the waters of Bennehalla Nalla was prepared
by Mr Sudheer Sajjan, who is/was an engineer with the Water
Resources Department of Govt. of Karnataka, and in this
proposal, Mr Sajjan had estimated the yield of the Benehalla
Nalla as 10.92 tmc at 75% dependability, of which as per the
same proposal hardly 1.5 tmc was put to use. In paragraph 107
to 112 of his additional Affidavit, this witness has mentioned
about his familiarity with the implementation of inter-State water
agreements and awards and maintains that a downstream State
is placed in a geographically disadvantageous position and is at
the mercy of the upstream State for release of water. The
witness has explained that Mahadayi basin is a special case of its
 627

encompassing four wild life sanctuaries and one bird sanctuary

and generally being in the eco-sensitive zone of very rich bio-
diversity. What is mentioned by the witness is that not only the
main river Mahadayi, but some of its tributaries also, originate in
the States of Karnataka or Maharashtra and flow down to the
State of Goa, as a result of which projects for consumption of
water for irrigation, drinking water and industrial use are located
on these branches/tributaries. The witness maintains that in case
this Tribunal permits any project on this inter-State river, then it
is essential that the Award may give detailed instructions
regarding quantity of water to be used by upstream State not
only in each project but also at various period of time. In
paragraph 115 of his additional Affidavit, the witness has spelt
out the water sharing formulae for three scenarios namely, (a)
Normal year (b) Wet Year and (c) Dry Year. The witness has
further stated that whether any year as a whole is
normal/wet/dry will be known only at the end of the monsoon
season, but the water withdrawal and release decisions have to
be taken throughout the year at regular intervals and therefore
appropriate directions should be given by the Tribunal while
passing the Award.
 628

80. In paragraphs 121-135 of this additional Affidavit, the

witness has emphasized the necessity of setting up of machinery
for implementation of inter-State agreement or the Tribunal
Award.

81. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Tribunal vide its

Order dated 29.11.2016, the Expert Witness AW1 ( Shri Chetan
Pandit) has filed an additional Affidavit on 04.01.2017 under
head “ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT-IN-EVIDENCE OF SHRI CHETAN
PANDIT, DEPOSING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE OF GOA” (Volume 196). The witness has mentioned in
paragraph 2 of this additional Affidavit that he is deposing before
the Tribunal limited to the part of hydrology evidence, more
particularly the aspect of water availability in Mahadayi basin at
certain specific locations. In para 3 of his additional Affidavit, the
witness has stated that he has already filed an Affidavit-in-
Evidence dated 4.8.2016 which is placed on record and that he is
filing the present additional Affidavit in continuation of his earlier
Affidavit dated 4.8.2016. The witness has repeated and reiterated
the contents of said Affidavit dated 4.8.2016.
 629

82. In para 4 of the additional Affidavit, the witness has

stated that he had conducted a further study and as per Report
dated 04.01.2017, which is annexed to the additional Affidavit as
Annexure-A. The witness has stated that by filing the additional
Affidavit he is proving the contents of the said Report dated
04.01.2017. According to the witness, the rainfall and discharge
data and various maps and other reports were made available to
him by the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Goa. In
paragraph 8 the witness has stated that based on his study, the
yield at particular project locations is mentioned in Table-1 and
the same is reproduced hereunder.
Table 1: Summary of Results
Catchment 50% Dep 75% Dep
Area Yield TMC Yield TMC
Sq.Km.
Kotni Dam 93.19 8.9450 6.5881
(independent
catchment)
Bhandura Dam 32.25 2.2140 1.4961
Bailnadi 32.25 2.5365 1.7667
Kalsa (including 25.5 2.9655 1.9767
Haltara and
Surla
diversions)
Irti Diversion 8.78 0.7685 0.3968
Irti pickup dam 9.91 1.0084 0.8089
Diversion to
 630

Kali Basin
(a)Katla-Palna 22.5 1.7337 1.5174
Diversion
(b)Diggi 15.6 1.2021 1.0521
Diversion
(c)Viranjole 9.5 0.8756 0.7320
Diversion

83. According to the witness, the availability as given in

Table 1 above is only the availability, and not necessarily the
water available for use in the upstream area and that the
quantity required for maintenance of eco-system in the highly
eco-sensitive Western Ghats and also the quantity required for
downstream users will have to be taken out and only the balance
quantity, if any, will be the quantity available for use in the
upstream area. The witness claims that as far as he is aware, the
quantity of water thus required for maintenance of the eco-
system, and also quantity of water required for meeting the
needs of downstream users, has not yet been determined.

84. In the Report dated 04.01.2017, it is mentioned by the

witness that when a project is planned on a river for use of water
for domestic supply, irrigation, hydro power generation,
industrial supply or any other objective, it becomes necessary to
 631

estimate the yield at the proposed project location. What is

maintained by the witness is that in Mahadayi basin, the State of
Karnataka has planned several projects and as of 04.01.2017, far
less there be an approval for any of the projects, neither the
location of any of the projects is final, nor there is any approval
for the quantity of water to be used for any particular purpose.

85. In para 2 of his report, the witness states that if the

river flow data, also called discharge data, for a sufficiently long
period are available at the proposed project location, then the
yield can be estimated directly using the discharge data but if
such discharge data at the project location are not available then
the yield must be estimated indirectly using the discharge data
available at some other location. The witness has pointed out
that a commonly used method is to estimate the yield at some
place where discharge data are available from which
computation of the yield per unit catchment area (per sq.km.)
can be arrived at and the same can be applied to the catchment
area at the proposed projection location. The witness states that
a correction is sometimes applied to account for difference in the
mean rainfall in the gauged catchment and ungauged catchment.
What is emphasized by the witness is that in case of Mahadayi
 632

basin, the yield has been estimated by using the data at Ganjim
and therefore the yield per unit area can be computed for the
catchment area at Ganjim, and then applied to the catchment
area of different projects; what is claimed is that since the
catchment area at Ganjim is larger than the catchment areas at
project locations, this is an exercise of estimating “part” from the
“whole”. According to the witness, this method may be used if
the “whole” and “part” are similar viz., the rainfall for the
“whole” and for the “part” should be uniform; the rainfall in the
“part” should occur roughly at the same time as in the “whole”.
The physiography of the “whole” and the “part” should be
similar; the land use in the “whole” and “part” should also be
similar; and there should not be too much reduction in the
catchment area.

86. According to the witness, in case of the River

Mahadayi, none of the above stated conditions are sufficiently
satisfied. The witness states that the catchment area at Ganjim is
880 sq.km., while the catchment areas at the project sites are
much smaller, varying from 93.19 sq.km. for proposed Kotni dam
to only 8.787 sq.km. for the proposed Irti diversion dam. The
witness mentions that there is a wide variation in the rainfall in
 633

different places in the catchment and the annual mean rainfall

varies from 3042.6 mm at Jamagaon to 4870.8 mm at
Krishnapura; what is reported by the witness is that to examine
the time of occurrence of rainfall, a study was done to compare
the monthly rainfall expressed as ratio to its own mean (as
percentage) at station pairs and the outcome of one such study is
shown in Table 3 of the report as an example, where July rainfall
at Amagaon and Valpoi have been compared, the witness states
that it is seen that in 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1975 and
1982, rainfall in Amagaon is below mean, while in Valpoi it is
above mean. According to the witness in 1990, 1992, 1996, 1997,
2000 and 2001 it is the other way round. In para 5 of the Report,
the witness has pointed out that physiography and topography of
the two areas are much different because the upper catchment
is a plateau at a higher elevation and has a different type of
forest and different climate than the middle and lower parts of
the catchment. As reported by the witness a correction can be
applied for the difference in mean rainfall, by multiplying the
yield by ratio of mean rainfall in “part” and in “whole”, but, it is
not possible to apply a correction for these other differences. It
is claimed that the mean rainfall in upper catchment is more than
the lower catchment. As a result, the yield per unit rainfall in
 634

upper catchment can be less than that in the lower catchment,

because discharge equals rainfall minus the losses, and in upper
catchment the losses can be more. It is further stated by the
witness that in upper reaches the rivers tend to be influent i.e.
contribute to ground water while in lower reaches the river tends
to be effluent, i.e. ground water (which has percolated in the
aquifer in upper reaches) contributes to river flow. The witness
claims that this is explained in an extract from the website of
“Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute” enclosed at
Appendix 1 of the Report at Annexure A. What is claimed is that
in case of Mahadayi basin, the upper catchment in Karnataka is a
plateau, which would increase retention time of the rainfall and
thereby result in more percolation. The witness mentions that it
is a known fact that the sum of 75% dependable yield for sub-
catchments does not equal the 75% dependable value for the
whole catchment and conversely 75% or 50% dependable yield
for the whole, if distributed over the parts, will not equal the 75%
or 50% dependable yield computed for the parts separately.
What is emphasized is that to at least partially remove such
errors in going from “whole” to “part”, the methodology what is
mentioned in para 7 was adopted by the witness. Ultimately on
page 13 of the Report, the outcome is summarized by the witness
 635

in Table 13, the contents of which are same as that of the Table-
1. The Table 1 has already been reproduced in Para 82 of this
Report.

87. The witness further points out that the availability as

determined in this study is only the availability in nature, and not
necessarily the water available for use in the upstream area.
What is mentioned by the witness is that from this the quantity
required for maintenance of eco-system in the highly eco-
sensitive Western Ghats and also the quantity required for
downstream users will have to be taken into account and only
the balance quantity, if any, will be the quantity available for use
in the upstream area.

88. The Examination-in-Chief of Expert witness, Shri

Chetan Pandit deposing on behalf of the State of Goa was
recorded on 30.08.2016. During the course of his examination he
had tendered his Affidavit which was ordered to be treated as
Examination-in-Chief. He had also tendered his report annexed to
the Affidavit. According to him, in the Affidavit on page 8 at the
bottom there is a table and that in the table there was a typing
error. Therefore, he stated that 75% dependable yield for an area
 636

of 2032 sq.km is shown as 3777.3 Mcum and 133.4 tmc,

respectively, but it should read 4372.4 Mcum and 154.4 tmc. He
also stated that correspondingly, the 50% dependable yield for
an area of 1523 sq.km. shown as 4372.4 Mcum and 154.4 tmc
should instead be read as 3777.3 Mcum and 133.4 tmc
respectively. The witness informed the Tribunal that an identical
correction should be carried out in another instance of the same
table at page 58 of the report, Table 34-A. The corrections were
accordingly carried out.

89. The witness was cross-examined by the learned

Counsel of the State of Karnataka and the learned Counsel for the
State of Maharashtra. Certain questions were put to the witness
by the Tribunal also to elicit certain facts and information with
regard to the details of the entire matter. The Tribunal proposes
to adhere to the relevant questions and answers thereto.

90. In answer to Question No. 2, the witness stated that

there is a difference between the estimation of yield for a basin
of catchment vis-à-vis estimation of yield for the project.
According to him, the main difference is that for a project, the
entire catchment up to the project site will be considered,
 637

whereas while estimating the yield of a basin, some part of the

catchment, as the river nears the ocean or the sea, will have to
be excluded, because a part of this final reach of the river will be
affected by salinity ingress from the sea and also because a part
of the catchment will directly drain into ocean/sea without the
runoff ever joining the main river, and also because the
landscape gets flatter and flatter near the coastal area.

91. In answer to question no. 3, witness candidly admitted

that he had no experience for estimating the yields for a basin,
however, the witness enumerated that the main procedure viz.
making the Thiessen Polygon, making a rainfall runoff
relationship, usually by linear regression, extension of rainfall
series to runoff series using this relationship, assignment of
probabilities to the discharge series and from there reading the
75% or 50% dependable flow, remain the same.

92. The Cross Examiner, by putting Question No. 5 to the

witness wanted to know as to whether the witness had
suggested that the float measuring site on any of the river should
be changed to current meter measuring sites. The witness
responded that river observations by whatever method are
 638

carried out by the River Management Wing and it is in the

jurisdiction of that wing to initiate action to modernize the river
observations not only from Float to Current Meter but also
further to telemetry etc.

It was put to the witness through Q. No. 12, if Goa were to

construct some of the projects even that will impact the
environment, and that how the witness proposed to reconcile
the irrigation development in Goa with protection of
environment. In answer, the witness stated that as and when a
project is considered for construction, depending on whether it is
major/medium/minimum project, there are certain rules and
procedures regarding Environmental Impact Assessment to be
carried out. Thereafter, the Cross Examiner asked whether his
reply would hold good in case of Karnataka’s projects also. The
witness stated that EIA to be carried out as per the law of the
land holds good for these projects also.

93. It was put to the witness as to whether he had any

knowledge with regard to the Ganjim data for the period during
1979-2012 and in answer thereto the witness stated he had used
data only up to 2005 and not up to 2012. The witness
 639

emphasized that hydro meteorological data has to be observed

when the event takes place and there is no way to verify an
observation after the event. It was put to the witness that the
discharge data at Ganjim from 1979-80 to 2012-13 published by
the CWC in the Water Year Books is a processed and
authenticated data and the witness stated that as far as he was
aware, CWC itself subjected its own data to various checks, which
meant that the data is not taken as validated and authentic at
face value even by CWC itself.

94. The witness in answer to question no. 48 referred to a

list of 61 projects, as given in Govt. of Goa, Irrigation Department
Master plan for Madei, Mandovi River Basin, a Report by the
Panel of Experts (Volume II) May, 1999. The witness further
stated that out of 61 projects listed therein, two had already
been completed, whereas DPR for six hydro-power projects have
been prepared by the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC),
and the DPR of the remaining 53 projects was prepared by the
WRD (Water Resources Department) of the Govt. of Goa. He
further clarified that his advice to WRD, Govt. of Goa was about
the general format and the content of DPRs again and not project
specific.
 640

95. The learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka drew

attention of the witness to the response of the CWC in letter
dated 17.02.2016 to the Secretary, WRD, Karnataka to questions
at Sl. No. (ii) and (iii) and put to the witness that his answer to
Q.No.29 was incorrect. In reply, the witness stated that from the
document MARK-KA-1 he had learnt that there were still some
sites that continued to use the Float Method. The witness
maintained that CWC had taken up modernization of its
hydrologic observation network through a programme called
Hydrology Project – 1 (HP-1) and that he was not able to recall
the exact year in which Hydrology Project was introduced but
according to him it was roughly around 1997, which was followed
by further modernization through Hydrology Project – 2 (HP-2),
and that this project was under progress when he was
superannuated in March 2012. The witness further informed
that CWC was in fact, in the process of further modernization by
automatic telemetry stations and as at present even the third
phase Hydrology Project-3 (HP-3) was underway, which has been
renamed as the National Hydrology Project (NHP). It was put to
the witness that in view of the clarifications given by CWC in
MARK-KA-1 his adverse comments on page 13 of his Affidavit and
page 48 of his report, on the Float Method of measurement of
 641

flows at Ganjim and Collem gauge stations of the CWC, were

incorrect and misleading and the witness responded by stating
that those comments are not adverse remarks, and maintained
that saying that an older technology was less accurate did not
amount to making adverse remarks. The witness stated that the
data measured by Float Method needs to be corrected by
applying an appropriate correction factor before using it.

96. The Cross Examiner wanted to know from the witness

as to whether there was any scientific literature to support the
views of the witness that the data generated by Float Method
required to be corrected by the data generated by Current Meter
Method, and in answer the witness mentioned that the
correction factor used by him was computed from the data itself,
and as an expert he was competent to exercise the judgment that
such correction needs to be applied.

It was put to the witness that he had classified

Mandovi/Mahadayi basin into four sub regions and whether the
first two sub-regions had plain lands. The answer of the witness
was that the word ‘plain’ is a qualitative description and if it said
that the first two sub-regions had plain lands that should not be
 642

taken as if they comprised only of flat land and nothing else;

elaborating the said aspect further, it was stated that plain land is
the dominant feature in these two sub-regions and the Western
Ghats comprise of very tall mountains, which gradually flatten
out to sea level in a relatively very short width.

97. It was put to the witness that the third sub-region

mentioned by him is an undulating terrain and in answer thereto,
the witness stated that the term undulating terrain means the
land where the level is more or less over a long distance but in
between the terrain is not flat but has small local ups and downs
which should be described “low dissected” which means land
which has been weathered by the action of elements but the
dissection is relatively low in height.

98. In answer to Question No.61, the witness emphasized

that not only the mankind but other forms of life, flora and fauna,
also have a claim to the river water and the flow that is required
to maintain a satisfactory state of aquatic eco-system called
environmental flow, which comprises not only a flow rate in
terms of cumecs but also includes physical parameters such as
the velocity of flow, depth of flow, turbidity, sun light
 643

penetration, temperature and also water chemistry viz., pH,

dissolved oxygen and other dissolved substances. It was
suggested to the witness that the concept of summer flow,
minimum flow and ecological flows are one and the same. The
witness emphatically disagreed with the suggestion and stated
that minimum flows was a term used initially in the discourse on
environmental flows, before the term e-flows or ecological flows,
sometimes also called environmental flows, came into use. The
term minimum flows refer to a minimum flow rate, expressed as
volume per unit to be maintained in the river for environmental
objectives.

99. In answer to Question No. 68, the witness reproduced

part of para 43(b) of his Affidavit relating to environmental flows
and stated that the recommendation of the Expert Body had not
clarified 50% or 30% of what, i.e. 50% of 75% dependable flow or
50% of 50% dependable flow or of mean annual flow or anything
else and that it was most likely that the Expert Body meant 50%
of the non-monsoon flow. The witness was asked as to whether
taking the 75% dependable non-monsoon flows and 50%
dependable non-monsoon flows separately, whether he would
be able to work out the 50% of non-monsoon flows in
 644

quantitative terms. In reply thereto, the witness stated that he

had not worked out anywhere the 75% dependable or 50%
dependable non-monsoon flows, and the yield study is about
75% dependable and the 50% dependable yield for the year as a
whole. It was further stated by him that the Expert Body has not
clarified 50% of what and, therefore working out the arithmetic
of 50% of 50% dependable non-monsoon flows, which has
neither been recommended by the Expert Body nor estimated by
him and therefore is purely hypothetical exercise. The witness
asserted that Mahadayi river basin is not a “Typical Indian basin”,
and it originates in the Western Ghats, which preserve rich bio-
diversity hot-spot. He further mentioned that a relatively small
basin, little more than 2000 sq.km. is house to 4 or 5 wildlife
sanctuaries and most of the Western Ghats have been identified
as eco-sensitive areas. Further, referring to Exh. GOA/AW-
1/2(Colly), the witness mentioned that on page 1 paragraph
marked 1, the Float Method is explained and it is stated that
because surface velocities are typically higher than mean, or
average velocities can be obtained by applying a correction factor
and that this factor ranges from 0.8 to 0.9 and 0.85 is a
commonly used value. The witness further referred to Exh.
GOA/AW-1/3(Colly) and stated that document is from the
 645

specifications prepared for the Hydrology Project of the Ministry

of Water Resources and after explaining the Float Method, it is
stated that Floats are not at all accurate and the error is stated
as +/-20% as Current Meters and Acoustic Doppler Current
Profiler (ADCP). The witness further referred to Exh. GOA/AW-
1/4(Colly) and stated that in the last paragraph, approximately
midway, it is stated that “Taking 0.8 of the surface velocity as
measured by the float gives an approximate value for the average
velocity.” What is asserted by the witness is that on page 38
(Volume 15) of the yield study report prepared by CWC in the
year 2003, then CWC had itself stated that “prior to the year
2001, the discharge measurement was by float observations.
Thus, the discharge figures up to the year 2000 may have larger
error as compared to current meter observations”. In view of the
above stated position having been accepted by the CWC, the
witness reiterated that he had said in his answer to Question
No.55 that as an expert, he was competent to exercise the
judgment with such correction needed to be applied. It was
suggested to the witness that the discharge observation by float
observation up to the year 2000 was satisfactory and in any case,
the errors in the float measurements would tend to cancel each
other and on an annual basis, the errors may not be significant.
 646

In answer to the said suggestion, witness emphatically stated

that if a particular method of observation is known to
consistently give a higher or lower measurement, then this did
not cancel out over a period of time. The witness explained that
CWC had explained that they were carrying out observations by
float method with due care. But that will not remove the problem
with the float method because it measures velocity at the surface
which is consistently higher than the mean velocity and to say
that over a period of time this error will also cancel out goes
completely against the science of hydraulics.

100. It was put to the witness that the two G&D curves
mentioned in CWC Report 2003 were practically identical which
proved that the type of consistently higher or lower
measurements in the Float Method pointed out by the witness
did not happen. In answer thereto, the witness mentioned that
the Float Method measures velocity at the surface which is
higher than the mean velocity. He also mentioned that this is to
be found in text books of Hydraulics. The witness explained that
CWC Report does not say that the G&D curves are “practically
identical” but it says that “these do not show any large
variation”. The witness emphasized that whether the variation is
 647

large or small, is a subjective judgment and if CWC concludes that

the two G&D curves do not show large variation then it can mean
that either (i) there is some mistake in drawing the graphs, or (ii)
while taking the observations the staff was inadvertently making
some other error on the negative side which gave an incorrect
value than what it should have been.

101. Again the witness explained that it is not the CWC but
the Float Method that measures the velocity at the surface and
all velocity measurements are corrected by applying a coefficient
to make it representative or mean velocity before being
recorded. It was suggested to the witness that the correction in
coefficient mentioned in Exh. GOA/AW-1/2(Colly) is to convert
surface velocity to average velocity in the Float Method of
measurement and that it has nothing to do with the correction
the witness had made in his Report at page 56 between Float and
Current Meter data. In response, it was stated by the witness
that the discharge equals velocity multiplied by cross sectional
area of the flow, and thus, a correction factor applied to velocity
or to discharge has the same outcome. The witness stated that
he had applied the correction factor to correct the systemic error
inherent in float method, which gives higher velocity readings
 648

and since the discharge is proportional to velocity, he had applied

the correction factor of 0.84.

102. In further question, it was put to the witness that

systemic error occurred only when there is a change in
measurement site or when measuring equipment is damaged,
but none of these have been reported by the CWC and in
response thereto, the witness stated that he had used word
‘systemic error’ to indicate an error inherent in a particular
method of measurement and in the Float Method, the velocity is
measured at surface which is known to be higher than the mean
velocity of the flow and since this is not a random error or an
error made by the person taking the observation, therefore, the
word systemic error was used.

103. The witness has produced Exh.GOA/AW-1/5 (Colly)

which is 5th edition published in 1994 by the WMO. The witness
further mentioned that the objective of referring to tables 20.1
and 20.3 of the WMO publication No. 168 was to assess the
number of rain gauge stations and the stream flow stations
required in the basin. After mentioning that para 52 of his
Affidavit is a general introduction to the basin, it was stated that
 649

Mahadayi is relatively a very small basin and its width from the
top of the mountains to the sea shore is very small, whereas the
level above Mean Sea Level at the origin of the river is more than
1000 meters and therefore no useful purpose would have been
served by splitting the basin into mountainous and other features
for the purpose of assessing the number of rain gauges and
stream flow stations required. The witness emphasized that for
the purpose of yield study, he would have preferred to use a
method called “Isohytes” for estimating the weighted average
rainfall and this method is preferable to the method of Thiessen
Polygon which has been used by him but has not been used by
him because that required more stations, closely spaced. The
witness stated that he had not only used the data from IMD but
also used the data from some rain fall stations maintained by the
organizations under Government of Karnataka and considering all
this, he believed that the classification of the basin as
mountainous, not for the purpose of an introductory chapter but
for the purpose of rain gauge stations required is correct. In
answer to Question No. 85, which related to distinct sub-regions
mentioned in the report prepared by the witness, it was stated
that WMO Publication No. 168, 5th Edition of 1994 referred by
him is a guideline for setting up the raingauge network, and as
 650

per the said guideline, the number of raingauge stations required

for Mahadayi basin considering it as mountainous works out to 8,
whereas the next revision of same publication No. 168, 6th
Edition has also retained the same recommendations for the
rainfall stations. It was pointed out by the witness that the WMO
had not defined what they meant by mountainous, which means
that it was left to the judgment of the
hydrologists/meteorologists. The witness informed that in his
yield study, he had used the data from 13 stations. According to
him, more raingauge stations were required irrespective of the
fact whether the basin is classified as entirely mountainous or
only some part as mountainous. It was put to the witness that 7
raingauge stations considered by the CWC in its study of 2003
were adequate and there was no reason to increase the number
of raingauge stations because the density per raingauge station
works out to be 125 sq.km., which is less than the required
density for raingauge stations in hilly/undulating physiographic
unit region. The witness responded that the WMO guidelines are
for the minimum number of stations suggested and that does not
bar a consulting hydrologist from using the data from more
stations, if it is available. It was further explained by the witness
that if the number of IMD raingauge stations was adequate then
 651

there would have been no need for anyone to set up any more
raingauge station, but the very fact that different organizations,
including some under the Government of Karnataka, have set up
more raingauge stations, is simple proof that he is not the only
one who thinks that the IMD rainfall stations were not adequate
for the purpose of present yield study. With reference to CWC
yield study of 2003, the witness stated that he has disagreed with
a number of things mentioned in the yield study, and limiting a
number of raingauge stations is one major point of disagreement.
According to the witness the said study is not applying a
correction in the discharge data measured by Float Method, and
further disagreement is about the catchment area used by it for
the determination of the yield, where it has not excluded the
area affected by salinity and where conservation of water is not
possible for various reasons. The witness further faulted CWC
report on account of runoff factor i.e. ratio of runoff as
percentage of rainfall is coming very high and in several places it
is more than even 100%, which is not only incorrect, but in fact
absurd and the runoff factor being so high more than once
should have, in fact, alerted a hydrologist, as to whether there is
some mistake in selection of stations, etc.
 652

It was put to the witness that the correction of Ganjim data

undertaken by him at page 56 of his report is not supported by
any scientific material and therefore not reliable. The witness
maintained that the three documents submitted by him do not
suggest a correction and merely discussed some difficulties and
what was pointed out was the fact that velocities measured by
the Float Method are on the higher side is established not only in
the document but in Text Books of Hydraulics also. After referring
Exh. GOA AW-1/2(Colly), the witness asserted that the surface
velocities observed by the Float Method are typically higher than
the mean or average velocities by a factor which generally ranges
from 0.8 to 0.9, and a commonly used value for correction is
0.85. Having said so, the witness has asserted that it was open to
him to simply take this value as quoted in a scientific literature
and use it but he had made an attempt to determine the same
from the available data and it turned out to be 0.84.

104. The witness was questioned that average rainfall data

of Krishnapura was only available for 10 years i.e. 1979-1988 but
the witness had extended by 17 years i.e. from 1989 to 2005, by
filling the missing data, and therefore the data filled by the
witness constituted about 63% in the series of 1979 to 2005, and
 653

the witness responded that the arithmetic 17 divided by 27 is

about 63% is correct, but that does not mean that 63% of the
data was missing and filled because the Krishnapura data is
available from 1964 onwards and the complete series was
considered. It was put to the witness that Krishnapura data has
upwardly impacted his study of re-estimation of weighted
average monsoon rainfall up to Ganjim, because he had assigned
the second highest weightage and that too based on the data of
63% of the filled up data. The witness denied this suggestion and
stated that the method of calculating the weightage is very
geometrical. It is explained by the witness that the stations are
located on a map; the Thiessen Polygon is drawn and the areas
are measured by a planimeter or a suitable devise; and from
these areas, the weights are calculated.

105. A question was put to the witness that if the reasons

for exclusion of rainfall of 509 sq.km., is the non-usability of the
water, as maintained by him, and then did he mean to say that
this entire water in 509 sq.km. cannot be used at all for any
purpose. The answer given by the witness was that there are
three reasons why it is necessary to exclude some areas towards
the end of the river as it meets the sea or ocean. According to
 654

the witness the first reason was rainfall falling on a lot of this
area may not even reach the river channel of Mahadayi river for
which the yield is being determined, and it may directly drain out
into the sea or ocean through numerous small drains; the second
reason was that the final reach of the river as it nears the sea or
ocean is affected by salinity due to ingress of saline water from
the sea/ocean, due to tidal effect rendering it unusable; the third
reason was that the land in this area is quite flat and does not
permit the engineering interventions necessary to use the water.
Finally the witness added that similar areas had been excluded
from the yield in past cases also viz., Narmada, Krishna, Godavari
and Cauvery the details whereof have been mentioned in his
Affidavit.

106. It was put to the witness that in this 509 sq.km.

Mahadayi basin in Goa, there is rice cultivation and cultivation of
other crops to which the witness stated that he could not say for
sure if rice was being cultivated but there could be some rain fed
agriculture. It was further put to the witness that he had chosen
to exclude rainfall falling in 509 sq.km., which is a large quantity
of water, without conducting any study. After denying the said
suggestion, the witness stated that he had studied the report
 655

(Volume 31) submitted by the Panel of Experts, wherein the said

figure of 509 sq.km. is mentioned and also shown on a map. The
witness emphatically stated that he did not agree that this is a
large area. According to the witness, the area excluded in other
basins mentioned above is much larger, and in any case the area
to be excluded in any given basin will be determined by the
topography, and is not an abstract decision. It was put to the
witness that the Report of Panel of Experts is not an
independent report, but a report to boost the case of Goa during
the stage of negotiations, to which the witness replied that he
had no personal knowledge about the Members or their
domicile but he knew at least two names who went on to occupy
very senior positions in the Central Water Commission and in the
Union Ministry of Water Resources and he did not agree with the
implicit suggestion that a professional gives a decision based on
which State he comes from, and stated that though he himself is
a Maharashtrian settled in Pune, but he is exercising his
professional judgment to the best of his ability.

A clarification was sought by the Cross Examiner relating to

the answer given by the witness to Question No. 99, and the
witness asserted that he had not stated that the water from the
 656

rainfall on this catchment of 509 sq.km, is required for salinity

control, but on the contrary, the witness emphasized that he had
pointed out that this water may not even reach the main river
Mahadayi and may drain out directly into the sea/ocean and then
the scenario of salinity ingress is likely to worsen in the future
because of expected increase in the sea level due to global
warming. It was clarified by the witness that the water is
required in a channel not only for salinity control but also for
sediment transport and to maintain the aquatic ecology and bio-
diversity. The witness was confronted with relevant part of the
report of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal and a suggestion
was put to him that the excluded area of 1686 sq.km. in Krishna
basin constitutes only 0.7% of the total basin area of 2,58,514.7
sq.km., to which the witness also agreed. The witness also
agreed to the suggestion that the area of 509 sq.km. excluded by
him from the total area of the basin of 2032 sq.km. constitutes
25.05%. In order to answer question No. 108, the witness
admitted that he had not come across a case where about 25% of
the area was excluded from the estimation of the yield of the
basin.
 657

107. In answer to Question No.110, the witness stated that

he had not read the Irrigation Commission Report entirely and
would not expect the Irrigation Commission to make such basin
wise recommendations but he was able to recall the extracts
from the Awards of the Tribunals for Narmada, Krishna, Godavari,
and Cauvery, wherein certain areas were excluded, and that
exclusion was not based on the recommendations of Irrigation
Commission. It was suggested to the witness that exclusion of
25% of the catchment in Mahadayi from the estimation of the
yield is misleading and solely intended for reducing the total yield
of the basin but the witness denied the said suggestion. The
witness was confronted with letter dated 17.02.2016, MARK KA-
1, wherein CWC had replied that velocity area method using
current meter for measurement of velocity or Float Method are
most common techniques at its sites and therefore his answer to
Question No. 29 is incorrect. The witness informed that in the
previous evening he had consulted the person concerned i.e. Mr.
D. P. Mathuria, Director, CWC as to how was it that the Float
Method still continues to be used and according to the witness
the reasons explained to him were that when a new gauge site is
to be started, it takes some time to obtain the financial
approvals, etc. and procure the current meter and related
 658

equipment and till then the observations are started with float
method to save time. According to the witness, there are some
sites, particularly in the north east, where the terrain is too
difficult for current meter observations, and at these sites also
float method continues to be used as a fait accompli. The witness
was questioned about “Typical Indian basin” and it was suggested
to him that Cauvery and Krishna are also not typical Indian
basins, since their upper catchments are in the Western Ghats.
In answer, the witness explained that there are certain major
differences between the Cauvery and Krishna on the one hand,
and the Mahadayi on the other, and two most important
differences are that in Mahadayi basin there are four Wildlife
Sanctuaries and one Bird Sanctuary, within a very small area, and
second, the Cauvery and Krishna basins already have a human
interventions and river valley projects and in contrast the
Mahadayi basin is what is called by Hydrologists a virgin basin.
The witness mentioned that the panel appointed by the Ministry
of Environment and Forests under the chairmanship of Prof.
Madhav Gadgil went to the extent of recommending a blanket
ban on all water resources projects in Western Ghats, and
particularly and specifically recommended against any diversion
 659

of water from one basin to another and thus Mahadayi basin is in

no way comparable to Krishna or Cauvery.

108. It was put to the witness that his Affidavit dated

04.08.2016 and the accompanying report estimating the yield by
re-estimating the rainfall and correcting the Ganjim gauge data of
the CWC are wholly irrational and completely contrary to the
hydrological practices, but the witness denied the suggestion and
stated that as regards extension of runoff data using a rainfall
runoff model and historical rainfall Data, it was a standard
hydrological practice.

109. It was suggested to the witness that the basin

planning may involve water to be transferred from a basin to the
contiguous basin and in response the witness has stated that the
basin planning exercise does not per se include transfer of water
from one basin to another, because that involves planning for the
donor basin also and such planning involving more than one
basin is a separate exercise.

110. In answer to question No. 123, the witness mentioned

that para 1.3(vi) of the National Water Policy of 2012 refers to
 660

priorities in allocation of water. The witness specifically referred

to the last sentence of the said clause that “available water after
meeting the above needs, should be allocated …”. Thereafter, the
witness concluded that obviously, the water of one basin is not
“Available water” to another basin, unless such transfer from one
basin to another has already been agreed to by the donor party
also. It was suggested to the witness that the suggestion made by
the witness in para 86 of his additional Affidavit that diversion of
Mahadayi water to Malaprabha basin for meeting the drinking
water requirement and agricultural requirements as planned by
Karnataka violates National Water Policy of 2012 is incorrect and
misleading, and the witness stated that in paragraph 86 of his
Affidavit what he has stated is that formulating the plans for
water management in Malaprabha basin based on some
expected diversion from Mahadayi basin when there is no prior
consent of the donor parties, is not in accordance with the policy.

111. It was put to the witness that transfer of Mahadayi

water to Malaprabha basin for meeting drinking water
requirement and agricultural requirements, and further transfer
of Mahadayi water to Kali basin for production of power from the
existing infrastructure of Supa Dam, is justified under the Policy
 661

MARK-KA/4. In answer to the said suggestion, the witness made

a clear distinction between three scenarios, i.e. (a) Diversion of
water from one basin to another after a share in the donor basin
has been allocated; (b) Making a claim on water from one basin
to meet a demand, real or perceived, in another basin; (c) There
is also the question of consent of all stakeholders. The witness
categorically mentioned that as a thinker in water policy issues,
he did not agree with the above scenario (b) and it is also not
supported by the National Water Policy.

In question No. 132, the Cross Examiner asked the witness

whether industrial and commercial development is an integral
part of economic development. The witness has replied that he
has not questioned the need for economic or commercial
development of State of Karnataka and has stated that in
paragraph 99 of his Affidavit what he had stated is that “while
acknowledging the right of the State of Karnataka to develop the
State economy in whichever way they want, I state that the NWP
enjoins up on the State of Karnataka to plan the same based on
the water resources available in each basin, as repeatedly stated
in the NWP from 1987 to 2012”. It was put to the witness that
the suggestion that the State of Karnataka has mismanaged the
 662

water by allegedly supplying 4 lakh liters of water per day to

Pepsico is misleading as the total supply is a small quantity of
only 0.005 tmc annually. In answer to the said suggestion, the
witness stated that the National Water Policy gives some
guidelines about the priorities. The priority is a sequence and is
not based on the quantities. The witness explained that whether
the quantity of water supplied to Pepsico is 0.005 tmc or some
other quantity; whether it is small or large, which in any case is a
relative term, is not the issue but the issue is as to what should
have been the priority, the drinking water or Pepsico, and the
people, who might have been benefitted, if this 0.005 tmc water
was supplied to them for domestic use, are not likely to think
that it is a small quantity. Lastly, it was suggested to the witness
by the learned counsel for the State of Karnataka that the
contents of his additional Affidavit are not reliable. This
suggestion was denied by the witness.

112. After the cross-examination of Shri Chetan Pandit by

Shri Mohan V. Katarki, the learned Counsel for the State of
Karnataka was over and complete, Shri Chetan Pandit was cross-
examined by Shri D. M. Nargolkar, the learned Counsel for the
State of Maharashtra.
 663

113. In answer to Question No.136, the witness stated that

he was associated with the River Management Wing and during
his tenure, as additional charge, as Chief Engineer, Narmada and
Tapi Basin Organization (Gandhinagar) he was required to
discharge all the functions that a Chief Engineer would. The
witness has stated that soon after the Tribunal’s visit to the sites
in December, 2013, he had started working on the matter and
visited the Ganjim site, whereupon the fact that a weir which was
constructed close to the discharge site, was brought to his
attention, and after that it was a continuous process of
examining the discharge sites at Ganjim and at Collem, which
went on for quite some time, and during that time the
discrepancies came to his notice. The witness was confronted
with the map at Exh. GOA/152 and requested to identify the
portion in the catchment area which drains directly into the sea
and the witness had accordingly marked the relevant portions on
the map. The witness was confronted with a lecture note given
by Mr. R. Azhagesan, Executive Engineer, Upper Krishna Division,
Central Water Commission, Pune, in which under caption
“Velocity” it is mentioned that the mean velocity is equal to 0.89
times the surface velocity at the vertical. The witness agreed
 664

with the said fact but further stated that in the same paragraph
Mr. R. Azhagesan has also pointed out that “However, we are
also conducting experiments on vertical distribution of velocity to
verify the assumptions” which according to the witness shows
that the author himself admits the factor 0.89 is only an
assumption which is subject to further verification through
experiments, which he said he is conducting. The witness was
again confronted with Document MARK MAH-1 and put a
suggestion as to whether the witness agreed that velocity
considering while computing the discharge is mean velocity and
not surface velocity. In answer to the said suggestion, the witness
maintained that this is just an explanation of the theory in a
training programme and it does not necessarily mean that the
theory as explained therein is being practiced at Ganjim, or
Collem, or at any particular site.

114. The witness was asked a question as to whether the

correction factor worked out by the witness is the ratio of
average discharges of two different periods and is it not
necessary that the same should always be less than one? The
witness referred to two documents MARK-MAH/1 and MARK-
MAH/2, and stated that the two documents referred to above
 665

established firmly the principle that data observed by Float

Method needs to be corrected which is now even supported by
the BIS code. He further explained that the ratio computed by
him was not an origin of two different periods but also of two
different methods during those two periods, and since the
average discharges were taken for both the periods, and if the
data in each period was representative of the catchment
characteristics then the overall discharge by Current Meter
Method divided by Average Discharge would always be less than
one. It was put to the witness that the correction factor worked
out by him has nothing to do with the correction
factor/coefficient/reduction coefficient to be applied for
converting the surface velocity to mean velocity and it is sheer
coincidence that the correction factor worked out by him has
become close to the range in which reduction coefficients are
generally arrived at. The witness denied the said suggestion.

115. The witness did not agree with the suggestion that
import of water from Tillari basin would add to the water
availability of Mahadayi basin, and further stated that import of
water from one basin to another basin can be construed to
increase the water availability in the recipient basin only if it was
 666

an import for general use, where it gets added to the common

kitty, from which allocations were made to various stakeholders.
According to the witness, the case mentioned in the question,
namely import of water from Tillari basin is a case of bilateral
arrangement between the two parties and for a very specific pre-
determined purpose which is for irrigation in a pre-determined
area and therefore cannot be construed to increase the water
availability of Mahadayi basin.

116. With the above said answer, the cross-examination of

Shri Chetan pandit, by Shri D. M. Nargolkar, the learned Counsel
for the State of Maharashtra, was over and complete. With the
objective to have clarity on some of the important issues flagged
by the witness in his Affidavit and the facts presented in his
report, the Tribunal proposed to put a few questions to the
witness as the Tribunal was of the opinion that such exercise
would enable the Tribunal to reach rational conclusions through
the expert advice of the witness, irrespective of the claims or
otherwise of the party States in respect of various issues which
are under consideration of the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal had
put certain questions to the witness.
 667

117. The witness stated that the main requirement of data

for estimation of water availability is the river data which
comprises the observed flow in the river and any significant
abstractions in the upstream. According to the witness, the river
data after correction for the upstream abstractions is subjected
to a probability analysis.

118. The attention of the witness was drawn to paras 24

and 25 on page 10 of the Affidavit of the Examination- in-Chief
filed by the witness on 04.08.2016 and the Tribunal wanted to
know from the witness that as to how he would proceed with the
process of estimation of water availability at a specific point
along a river for a basin or sub-basin in India, when the
hydrological and hydro-meteorological data are not adequate.
The Tribunal also wanted to know from the witness as to
whether it is possible to estimate the availability of water at
specific point along a river for a basin or sub-basin in India if
requisite hydrological and hydro-meteorological data are not at
all available.

119. In answer to the above stated two questions, the

witness stated that if the inadequacy is so high that even the
 668

process of filling a few missing data does not serve the purpose
then the entire project would change. The witness explained
that the extreme case of inadequate data is - no data. The
witness explained that many years ago a British Engineer by
name Strange developed a Table, which is known as Strange’s
table, which helps determine the water availability based on only
a few parameters like the catchment area, mean rainfall etc. The
witness added that such methods are called Empirical methods
and for other aspects of hydrologic analysis viz., flood studies
etc., there are other Empirical formulae available viz., Inglis
formula, Nawab Shri Bhadaur Jung Formula etc. and these
formulae may be used, but, Empirical formulae will give only a
water availability figure without any attached dependability like
50%, 75% etc.

120. In answer to question No. 154, the witness stated that

after correcting the formula, the 75% and 50% dependable yield
for 2032 sq.km and 1523 sq.km. are as below:

Yield Mcum Tmc

Runoff over 50% 4960.10 175.16
entire Dependable
catchment. 75% 4289.07 151.47
 669

Area 2032 sq.km. Dependable

Usable Yield 50% 3717.60 131.30
Catchment Area Dependable
1523 sq.km. 75% 3214.70 113.50
Dependable

121. According to him, he requested the officials from

WRD, Goa to take water samples from the river and test the
same in a lab for salinity and for the first such sample he had
personally supervised the operation and guided the concerned
persons as to how to take the samples. What is asserted is that
the lab test subsequently verified the salinity. According to him,
his general observation that the catchment has a thick cover of
vegetation in the upstream areas enabled him to form an opinion
about possible losses from the rainfall by way of evapo-
transpiration and, thereby, the runoff factor expected in this
catchment.

122. In his Affidavit at para 21, page 9, he had stated that

“the river flow measurement is an instantaneous measurement
i.e. at an instant of time, but it is required to be taken as
representative of the flow over a duration of time, typically 24
hours.” However, in WMO-1044-Manual on Stream Gauging,
stream flow or discharge and streamflow measurement are
 670

defined and the attention of the witness was drawn to said

Manual. It was put to the witness that stream flow, or discharge,
is defined as the volumetric rate of flow of water in an open
channel, including any sediment or other solids that may be
dissolved or mixed with it and is usually expressed in dimensions
of cubic meters per second (m3/s) but stream flow cannot be
measured directly and must be computed from variables that can
be measured directly, such as stream width, stream depth and
flow velocity.

123. It was put to the witness that “river flow

measurement” as such cannot be considered as an
“instantaneous measurement”, although measurement of
variables such as depth are instantaneous in nature whereas
instantaneous discharge is computed by using observed
instantaneous gauge, and the rating curve developed for the
site. Therefore, the witness was requested to elaborate as to
what he meant by “river flow measurement as an instantaneous
measurement”. In reply, the witness stated that strictly speaking
no measurement is instantaneous and any act of reading any
instrument takes a finite time. However, it was explained by the
witness that it is a colloquial expression that river flow
 671

measurement is instantaneous in the sense that even though the

actual act of measurement by moving the Current Meter at
various locations across the river and taking the readings etc., it
takes a finite amount of time but at the end of it, the
measurement is recorded as cubic meters per second at an
instant of time. The witness also explained that if a river gauge is
read at 0830 hrs, and discharge is computed, one would not call
it as the river flow during the previous 24 hours or any other
duration and it would be considered as the river flow at 0830 hrs,
and in that sense the river flow is an instantaneous
measurement. The witness has mentioned in his Affidavit in para
23 that the hydrologist making such assumption has to make
certain decisions on acceptability or otherwise of various data;
the procedure to be followed etc. based on the Hydrologist’s
knowledge and experience. The Tribunal felt that all hydrologists
may not be highly knowledgeable and experienced and in such
circumstances it may not be appropriate to leave the process of
checking the data and the choice of procedures or methodologies
to be adopted for estimating hydrological inputs to be considered
during decision making process at the sweet will of the
Hydrologists. The Tribunal further wanted to know as to why the
Tribunal should not insist on following the procedures laid down
 672

in standard codes or guidelines such as; (a) relevant Codes

Bureau of Indian Standards; (b) Guidelines for Preparation of
Detailed Project Reports of Irrigation and Multipurpose Projects
published by the Ministry of Water Resources; and (c) State-of-
Art Report on Development of Hydrological Design Aids prepared
under Hydrology Project-II. In answer thereto, the witness
mentioned that we are still a long way off from eliminating the
role of human judgment in practice of hydrology. The witness
mentioned that when an “expert system” software is developed;
or guidelines are developed; or Standard Operating Procedures
are developed; in all such cases one or more experts are
consulted and their judgment, their way of thinking, their
approach is translated into a software or a guideline or an SOP
and anyone using that software or guidelines or SOP, thereafter,
is actually using the judgment of the people who wrote that
software etc. and therefore there is elimination of judgment.
Moreover, it was pointed out by the witness that the guidelines
can only give a broad guidance and guidelines cannot go into the
details, such as which probability distribution to use; which
method to use for determining the parameters; etc. and all that is
left to the judgment of the consulting hydrologist.
 673

124. The Tribunal had noticed that in paras 27 and 28,

pages 11-12 of his Affidavit, the witness had mentioned about
inadequate number of CWC gauging stations on river Mahadayi
and its tributaries, but the State of Goa, Karnataka and
Maharashtra had reported observed hydrological data at (i)
Daucond from the year 2010 to 2013;(ii) Khadki from the year
2010 to 2012; (iii) Kudchire from the year 2009 to 2013; (iv)
Paikul from the year 2009 to 2013; (v) Chapoli from the year
1985-86 to 1991-92 and from 2000-01 to 2013-14; (vi) Virdi from
the year 1986 to 2004 and from the year 2006 to 2011. However
the Tribunal noticed that the above mentioned data had neither
been analyzed for consistency checks nor used for assessment of
water availability. Therefore, the Tribunal wanted to know from
the witness as to why the data, observed and collected by the
respective State Governments, cannot be used for assessment of
water availability. The answer to the said question by the witness
was that the table given in the question relating to gauging
stations of Doucond, Khadki, Kudchire and Paikul, the data was
available only from 2009 to 2010 onwards, and that he had used
data only upto 2005, and therefore the data of these stations was
ruled out. The witness further mentioned that at Chapoli, the
data available is one chunk from 1985-86 to 1991-92, and
 674

another chunk from 2000-01 to 2013-14, and as there was

significant gap between 1992-93 to 1999-2000, in the second
chunk, the useable data for him was only upto 2005, whereas in
case of Virdi, the data for his purpose was available from 1986 to
2004, hence he had decided not to use the data after 2006. He
further asserted that he did not recommend developing of
rainfall runoff relationships for small catchments because as the
catchments get smaller and smaller the relationship becomes;
less and less stable.

125. It was noticed by the Tribunal that in the table given in

para 27 at page 11 of Affidavit of the witness, the information
relating to minimum number of stations and actual number of
stations in Mahadayi basin had been furnished by him. The
Tribunal found that the 4th column of table indicates the actual
number of stations in Mahadayi basin, wherein the witness had
indicated six stations for precipitation and one station for
streamflow. It was also noticed by the Tribunal that from the
information included in various records filed by the States of Goa,
Karnataka and Maharashtra, it was apparent that the number of
raingauge stations in the basin is much more than six and even in
his report, the witness had included information about
 675

availability of data of 18 stations in Table 2 and Table 3 on page

60 and page 61, respectively. But out of available data for 18
stations, the witness had used the data of 13 raingauge stations,
as is apparent from the table No. 34 on page 94, and figure 3 on
page 96. Therefore the Tribunal wanted to know from the
witness as to why complete information regarding the rain gauge
stations and stream gauging stations, had not been provided and
that only limited information in respect of rain gauge stations of
IMD and Stream gauging stations of CWC had been provided. In
answer to the said question, the witness mentioned that most of
what is in the first Affidavit had already been submitted much
earlier on 15.09.2015, and much later, when the yield study
report by Dr. V. Jothiprakash was withdrawn, and he had started
working on the yield study report some time in July, 2016, the
focus was on doing the yield study with the data which had
already been assembled, and perhaps for this reason a detailed
data inventory does not appear in his yield study report. The
witness admitted that he was not aware of the methods or
techniques used for discharge measurement at the sites of
Doucond, Khadki, Kudichire and Paikul, which were established
and maintained by the State of Goa. The witness could not offer
any comments on the question whether he was satisfied that the
 676

discharge data observed at four discharge measurement sites

namely; Doucond, Khadki, Kudichre and Paikul by the State of
Goa are as per the standard practice and can be considered as
reliable. The witness was confronted with the information culled
out from the data submitted by Central Water Commission (vide
report titled “Consistency Analysis of Flow Data in Mahadayi
Basin” filed on 01.12.2014) and that by the State of Goa in
compliance with para 4 of the Order dated 03.09.2014 passed by
the Tribunal on 22.12.2014. The said data forms parts of
Question No.63 put to the witness.

126. It was noticed by the Tribunal that there were wide

variations in annual runoff in terms of depth in mm, at different
sites and in particular, the variations in the annual runoff in mm,
in respect of Khadki, and Kudichire sites maintained by the State
of Goa during the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and the variations
were on very high side. Therefore, the witness was asked to offer
his comments on the variations noticed by the Tribunal. The reply
given by the witness was that he had not analysed the data at
any station beyond 2005 and had not analysed the data at Khadki
and Kudichire for any duration, and therefore he was not able to
explain the variations in annual runoff at different sites.
 677

127. The Tribunal further noticed that in para 27 at page 1

of his Affidavit, the witness had indicated that six precipitation
stations are required for catchment area of 2032 sq.km. of
Mahadayi basin on the basis of the Table for “Recommended
minimum densities of stations (area in km2 per station)” provided
in the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) publication
titled “Guide to Hydrological Practices”. On going through the
guide to Hydrological Practices, the Tribunal found that the
guidelines can also talk about the minimum network that will
avoid serious deficiencies in developing and managing water
resources on a scale commensurate with the overall level of
economic development of the country. Further IS 4987: 1994 –
and the observations made in the WMO publication while
identifying minimum number of stations had made certain
recommendations and whether the witness had followed the
same. The answer of the witness was that the contents of
paragraph 27 on page 11 of his Affidavit were based only on the
WMO Publication No. 168 downloaded from the CWC website,
and he had not taken the IS 4987:1994 into account while writing
the said paragraph. What was claimed by the witness was that
the network of raingauges had already been set up by other
 678

agencies and he was only required to use the data if found

reliable and useful. It was noticed by the Tribunal that in para 30
on page 12 of his Affidavit, the witness has mentioned that he
had personally visited various locations in the Mahadayi basin to
obtain a clinical picture of the basin from a hydrologist’s
perspective. The Tribunal called upon the witness to inform it as
to what precisely the witness meant by clinical picture of the
basin from a Hydrologist’s perspective, and how the above stated
clinical picture of the basin differs from understanding the
topography and land use, as already mentioned by him at para 17
on page 8 of his Affidavit. In answer, the witness mentioned that
the term “clinical picture” is borrowed from the world of
medicine and refers to such observations and conclusions, which
an expert might draw, which cannot be quantified and cannot be
expressed in terms of numbers. As regards, what specific
information and data had been gathered during his visits and
how the information and data have been used, the witness
replied that the same had been dealt with at length, in answer to
question number 156. In para 31 on page 13 of his Affidavit, the
witness mentioned that the Float Method is the least accurate,
and therefore the accuracy of discharge data prior to the year
2000 is questionable, however, it was noticed by the Tribunal
 679

that Measurement of velocity of flow by using float is an

accepted procedure, as is evident from the fact that after going
through the International Standard Code “ISO 748:2007
Hydrometry-Measurement of liquid flow in open channels using
current-meters or floats”, and this code has been adopted by
Bureau of Indian Standards as IS 1192:2013. It was further
noticed by the Tribunal that IS 3911:1994 also dealt with Surface
Floats – Functional Requirements. Moreover the Central Water
Commission in its report “Consistency Analysis of Flow Data
Mahadayi Basin” (Volume 99) has reported that the cable way
was erected at Ganjim site in the year 2001 and that the
discharge observations were carried out with current meters
using boat and cableway during monsoon at higher stages and by
wading during non-monsoon at lower stages. The CWC had also
stated that before the year 2001, float was used for discharge
observations during higher depth. Under the circumstances, the
Tribunal was of the opinion that Float Method was used due to
lack of facilities for the use of current meters at higher flows and
that the same was in accordance with the provisions of Bureau of
Indian Standards Code IS 3991:1994. Therefore the Tribunal
wanted to have opinion of the witness as to what could have
been the option other than use of Float Method during high flow
 680

prior to the year 2001, when there was no cableway. In

response, the witness clarified that he had not challenged the use
of Float Method and had not discarded the data collected by
Float Method. The witness mentioned that in fact he had used
CWC discharge data from 1979 onwards which, till the year 2000,
was by Float Method, and therefore, his comments on the Float
Method may not be taken as rejection of Float Method. The
witness agreed that in certain stations, the Float Method may be
necessary and Float Method continues to be used when a new
site is opened and current meter is yet to be procured. The
witness further explained that there could be one more reason
for continuing to use the Float Method and that is financial
constraints, because Current Meter itself costs some significant
amount and requires frequent re-calibration in specialized
hydraulics laboratories, and all this requires money and trained
people, and probably non-availability of these were the reasons
why upto 2001 the discharge measurements were continued by
CWC by Float Method.

128. The Tribunal had noticed in para 32 on page 13 of his

Affidavit that the witness had mentioned that construction of this
weir would change the gauge-discharge relationship at Ganjim
 681

and that he had found that CWC had not made necessary
changes in its observation procedures, i.e., discharge
measurement procedures taking cognizance of the construction
of the said weir. The Tribunal wanted to know from the witness
as to why changes in the observation procedures are necessary
because of likely changes in the gauge discharge relationship and
would the development of a revised gauge discharge relationship
not serve the purpose and what should be the changes in
observation procedures. In answer, the witness maintained that
construction of weir causes water to head up behind the weir
and this extends to some distance upstream. According to the
witness, this heading up of water is known as back water profile
and when the gates of weir are closed, as they are during the
lean season, it creates a stagnant pool of water behind the weir
and in that situation no gauge discharge relationship will hold
true. The witness explained that in his opinion this is what is
happening at Ganjim site post 2005, and considering the fact that
the gates of the weir are closed during lean season, the only
solution is to shift this site to suitable location upstream, beyond
the effect of back water profile.
 682

129. It was noticed by the Tribunal that in para 34 on page

13 of his Affidavit, the witness had stated that when the CWC
staff is not adequately trained and adequately supervised for
taking correct observation in a correct manner, then there is
every possibility that before 2006, the incompetence and/or lack
of supervision persisted and therefore the data prior to year 2006
is suspect. However, it was also noticed by the Tribunal that in
para 17 on pages 56-57 of his report, the witness had considered
observed data at Ganjim for the period from 2001-2005 as
correct. Therefore, the witness was requested to explain this
contradiction. The witness explained that he had stated in
paragraph 33 that the fact that CWC failed to take cognizance of
the construction of a weir raised a strong doubt on the
competence of the observation staff and the quality of
supervision. According to the witness, he was perplexed by the
fact that after 2005 i.e. when a weir was constructed, the CWC
staff had proceeded to take discharge observations as if nothing
had happened. The witness further explained that there is no
contradiction in using the data before 2005, because, as he had
stated that a hydrologist has to do the best possible with the
available data, and it is not acceptable position for the
 683

Hydrologist to say that yield study will have to wait till data of his
satisfaction becomes available.

130. In para 39 on pages 15 and 16 of his Affidavit, the

witness stated that the river valley projects inflict a huge cost on
the people; there are financial costs in terms of money; there are
environmental cost like diversion of forests land for non-forest
purposes and changes in the flow pattern in the river, which
further impact ecology; there are social costs in terms of people
displaced from their homes and farms and there is loss of
livelihood; etc. and therefore, the witness opined that in case of
doubt about the accuracy of water availability assessment, it is
preferable to err on the safer side i.e., on the lower side. The
Tribunal wanted to know from the witness as to why he felt that
various standard practices for assessment of water availability
are not based on rational approach and that they cannot be
relied upon for the purpose of water resources assessment and
that the financial considerations should decide the quantum of
available water resources for planning purposes. The Tribunal felt
that the approach mentioned by the witness in para 39 would
lead to non-optimal planning of scarce water resources. In reply,
the witness mentioned that his comments on paragraph 39 as
 684

reproduced in question 170 have been misunderstood. He

asserted that it is a fact that river valley projects inflict a huge
financial and environmental and social costs and another aspect
of river valley projects is, that they are irreversible and mistakes
cannot be repaired. Therefore, according to the witness decisions
on a river valley projects need to be made with great care and it
is his experience that projects that underperform are in fact
counter-productive, in the sense that it builds a huge public
opinion against such projects. The witness mentioned that there
are comments, on regular basis, in the popular media,
newspapers etc. that such and such State has constructed so
many large dams, and yet the water problems remain unsolved.
The witness elaborated that in his Affidavit he has stated that
hydrology is a very crude science and therefore, predicting the
future water availability, based on the past rainfall and river flow
amounts to saying that the natural processes are constant with
respect to time, but in reality we are painfully aware that natural
processes are not constant and in fact climate change science
tells us that the future is going to be significantly different from
the past. The witness therefore claimed that under those
circumstances, a hydrologic yield study for predicting the water
availability in the future is very difficult exercise, and must be
 685

approached with great caution and that it is absolutely necessary

to conserve the scarce water resources, not only for the mankind,
but also for the ecological services the rivers provide. It was
noticed by the Tribunal that on page 43 of his Affidavit, the
witness had mentioned that drawing of isohyets requires the
raingauges to be many and evenly spaced all over the catchment
and that this condition is rarely satisfied. Further, the witness
explained in the map annexed to his report at figure 3 on page
96, that it can be seen that the rain gauges of Amagaon, Chapoli,
Kotni Dam, Gavali, Jamagoan and Krishnapura are located
relatively close to each other in a small segment of the
catchment in the north-east of the basin whereas Valpoi is
located even farther away from Krishnapura and then Ponda,
Quepem, and Sanguem are located even farther away. The
witness further stated that Mapuca and Panjim in the east are
also located very far away. The witness claimed that he would
not attempt to draw Isohytes in the Mahadayi catchment in the
region roughly to South-West of a line joining Kankumbi and
Krishnapura, because he considered raingauges in this region to
have located too far away from each other for the purpose of
drawing Isohytes.
 686

131. The attention of the witness was drawn to pages 49

and 50 of his Affidavit and it was pointed out that in view of what
is stated on those pages, the witness had selected a very simple
linear equation with total monsoon rainfall as independent
variable, and the total monsoon runoff as dependent variable,
however in para 22, page 9, it is stated by him that the
relationship of the runoff to rainfall is complex, and for a given
quantity of rainfall the resultant runoff could be different at
different times. The Tribunal prima facie was of the view that
preliminary analysis of discharge data of Ganjim site supplied by
the Central Water Commission and the high resolution gridded
daily rainfall data of India Meteorological Department also
exhibit high degree of variations in rainfall and runoff. Therefore,
the Tribunal had requested the witness to justify the adoption of
the simplest form of rainfall and runoff relationship, using the
total “monsoon rainfall and total monsoon runoff through linear
regression analysis” which in his view had no basis for
whatsoever in the hydrometeorology. Witness was further
requested to inform the Tribunal as to why model using data at
shorter interval, say, monthly data had not been considered
more appropriate. The witness in his answer mentioned that the
observation that complex and laborious computations, many
 687

checks, graphs etc. do not necessarily lead to better results was

drilled into their heads, the 1986-87 batch of M.Tech in
Hydrology, by Prof. Nash, a father figure in the field of hydrology.
According to the witness, better results come from better insight
into the science of hydrology and his observations were related
to not doing too many statistical tests, and were not related to
the choice of model for rainfall runoff relationship. The witness
explained that unfortunately, the community of hydrologists has
not made as much use of modern computers as have been made
by their counterparts in the field of meteorology. The witness
enumerated new models introduced as well as proposed, and
referred to a book written by Prof. Vijay P. Singh which runs into
two volumes which is simply a compilation and review of many
different models. The witness stated that this is still in the “Lab”
stage and it is yet to make the final journey from lab to field.
According to the witness, the practice of hydrology continues
with rather simple techniques like linear regression for monsoon
or annual rainfall and runoff and as a Hydrologist, he is rather
unhappy with this situation and had expressed himself thus in
various seminars, workshops etc. The witness also mentioned
that as for the NAM model used by the DHI in their software, the
same is a rather simple model and the software Mike-11 was
 688

originally developed by DHI for dam break analysis, and was later
modified for flood forecasting and also for hydraulic river
modeling. The witness stated that in flood forecasting, the main
issue is to get the peak runoff and the time of its occurrence
correct and the volume of flow is not the issue of interest in flood
forecasting, but in contrast for the yield study the key issue is the
volume of flow and not the peak flow or its time of occurrence.
The witness asserted that he did not consider NAM model
suitable for this purpose.

132. In question No. 173, the attention of the witness was

drawn to paras 179L and 179M of the amended Statement of the
Case of the State of Goa, filed on 23.04.2015, and it was put to
the witness that the Tribunal finds that the yield of Drainage
Basin has been defined in the IS:4410(Part XI/Sec2)-1972 at para
2.66 as “Total volume or flow from a drainage basin for a long
stipulated period of time, for example ‘annual yield of a drainage
basin’ is mean annual runoff” and that the term yield of a river
has been clearly defined in the report of Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal states that “The yield of a river system is the annual
virgin flows at its terminal site”. The Tribunal found that in the
context of river flow, annual yield is synonymous to annual runoff
 689

or annual flow, and therefore the witness was requested to

inform the Tribunal as to whether he agreed with the above
mentioned definition of yield, as given in the Indian Standard
code or that included in the report of the Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal, and in case he disagrees to detail the reasons for
disagreeing. In answer to the said question, the witness stated
that in paragraph 179L and 179M of State of Goa’s amended
Statement of Case filed on 23.04.2015, there is a reference to the
said report which is perhaps an yield report prepared by Prof. V.
Jothiprakash, and in that report the terms run-off and yield were
used in a particular manner. The witness explained that he used
the term runoff to indicate the water accruing from rainfall over
the entire catchment, and the term ‘yield’ to indicate the usable
part of the run-off by excluding some part of the catchment, from
where the run-off cannot be utilized for various reasons. The
witness also mentioned that CWC did not use the terms the way
Prof. Jothiprakash had used them, but the underlying concept
that a part of the catchment which directly drains into the
sea/ocean; where the rivers may be saline due to tidal effects;
where the topography may not permit construction of dams and
barrages for utilization of waters holds true i.e., the terminology
may differ but the concept is same. The witness added that IS
 690

4410 (Part XI/Sec2)-1972, Mark 13, defines the yield of drainage

basin as “Total volume or flow from a drainage basin for a long
stipulated period of time, for example ‘annual yield of drainage
basin’ is the mean annual runoff.” The witness further stated
that in the photocopy of page 9, the heading of the concerned
paragraph 2.66 is qualified with an ‘*’ mark indicating that
probably there is a foot note, but this footnote is not seen in the
page 9. According to the witness, there are two issues i.e. it
defines the yield as mean annual runoff, and mean is arithmetic
mean. What was stated by the witness is that if the data follows
normal distribution then arithmetic mean is the same as 50%
dependable value, whereas natural data usually is very close to
normal distribution, but for the purpose of water resources
planning in India traditionally 75% dependable yield is used which
is a deviation from what the IS Code defines. According to the
witness the second issue is, as to what is the definition of a
drainage basin. After informing the Tribunal that in IS Codes
there is no distinction between a tributary, which meets a larger
river at a specific point vis-à-vis a large river which outfalls into
the sea/ocean and the river which outfalls into the sea/ocean
would pass through a delta and estuarine phase, whereas a
tributary has no delta, no estuary and therefore obviously the
 691

definition of catchment for the purpose of allocation of utilizable

yield of a river which is a tributary, will have to be different from
the definition for a river which may be small, but is an
independent river out falling into a sea or an ocean. The witness
claimed that from an internet search he had found that without
necessarily modifying the definition, in earlier cases also while
allocating the waters of an independent basin, the ‘terminal
point’ has been taken some distance upstream of the final outfall
of the river.

133. On 7.10.2016, the witness had given supplementary

reply to question no. 163, and in that the witness had stated that
Khadki site is located on the main river Mahadayi, approximately
7 kms, upstream of the Ganjim site and there are no major
diversion works between the Khadki site and Ganjim site and
therefore there is no logical reason for the flow at Khadki to be
more than the flow at Ganjim. The witness stated that the flow
at Khadki for the years 2010-11 to 2013-14 is not only more than
the flow at Ganjim but in 2011-12 and 2012-13, it is significantly
more and therefore in his opinion, this data is not reliable. The
witness explained that the Kudchire site is located on river
Bicholim which is a tributary of Mahadayi and meets the main
 692

river Mahadayi downstream of Ganjim site. The witness

mentioned that one way to form an opinion about the flow
observed at Kudchire site is by comparing it with the rainfall in its
catchment for the years concerned and this data is not readily
available and therefore he expressed his inability to give any
opinion about reliability of the data at this site. The witness
claimed that he was informed by the WRD Goa Engineers that
both these sites have been newly established under the
Hydrology Project and, perhaps in 2010 to 2014 the observation
procedure was yet to stabilize.

134. In Question no. 175, it was pointed out to the witness

that it had been mentioned by him at page 57 of his Affidavit that
the ratio was found to be 0.84, which means the discharge as
measured by float should be multiplied by 0.84 to correct it and
bring it at par with the data measured by the current meter
method, however, it was noticed by the Tribunal from Table 33
on page 93 of his Affidavit that the ratio of “ Q float Correc” and
“Q Obs.” is about 0.81 and not 0.84. It was also noticed by the
Tribunal that para 7.2.5.1 and 7.2.5.2 of IS 1192:2013 (ISO
748:2007) describes the method for determination of velocity.
Accordingly, the witness was requested to explain the
 693

inconsistency in his report in respect of the value being either

0.84 or 0.81, and also to inform as to whether the provisions in IS
1192:2013 in respect of coefficient of surface float had been kept
in view. The explanation given by the witness was that
computation of the correction factor and its application to the
Float data was all built into the same Excel spread sheet, which
means once the spread sheet was programmed, it calculated the
factor and also applied it to the Float data without any additional
intervention or command by the user. It was mentioned by the
witness that he had found that CWC 2003 Report had the
discharge data from 1979-1984. According to the witness he had
disagreed with CWC computations, and therefore, the outcome
in their study and that the disagreement continues, but that does
not mean a total rejection of the entire report as if it was a
monolith. The witness explained that since there were no
convincing arguments for rejection of the data, he used it and
further revised his computation and on inserting the 1979-1984
discharge data in the spread sheet the factor automatically
changed from 0.84 to 0.81, and the spreadsheet also applied this
factor without any intervention from him and completed the
calculations.
 694

A question was put to the witness as to whether he had

examined the data sheet of CWC in respect of observations
during the period from 1979-2000 to check whether necessary
coefficient as prescribed in ISO 748:2007/IS 1192:2013 (Mark 14)
had been applied as multiplication factor by CWC to convert the
surface velocity observed by float measurement into the mean
velocity or not. In answer to the said question, the witness
categorically mentioned that he had not checked the CWC’s
original data sheets at the site. On examination of the data sheet
of Central Water Commission in respect of daily discharge data,
particularly, the statement related to velocity observation by
float, it was found by the Tribunal that Central Water
Commission had used suitable multiplication factor and from the
data sheet of one particular date i.e. 3.7.2001, it was noticed that
0.89 had been used as multiplication factor to convert the
observed surface velocity into the mean velocity, therefore the
opinion of the witness was sought by the Tribunal that the
exercise to correct the discharge for the period from 1979 to
2000 had been undertaken by the witness without thorough
examination and was uncalled for. In answer to the said
question, the witness mentioned that on the data sheet
03.07.2001, a date when he believed the observations were
 695

already being done by the Current Meter Method but the data
sheet says that a factor of 0.89 has been applied, and he had no
further comments to make on that.

135. The attention of the witness was drawn to page 58 of

his Affidavit and it was put to him that it was apparent that he
was not at all confident about the findings presented by him in
the report and therefore how did he expect the Tribunal to
accept his findings and the recommendations. After denying the
inference as suggestion in the question, the witness stated that
comments made by him in the paragraph quoted in the question
should be read together with an earlier comment made by him
on page 36 of his report, whereas in third paragraph “Hydrology
is an inexact science, in the sense hydrologic computation cannot
be made with the same exactness as – say – computation of the
trajectory of a ballistic missile, or voltage and current in a circuit”.
The witness stated that the decisions are likely to be taken by
appropriate authorities based on his yield study report, which will
impact the lives of millions of people, impact the environment,
and also involve expenditure of large sums of money. The
witness stated that Thiessen Polygon, Linear Regression, are
methods routinely used by the Hydrologists and he has also used
 696

them but that does not change the fact that neither of these
methods have any basis in the science of hydrology, because
Thiessen Polygon concept arises from a branch of mathematics
known as “Proximity Analysis” and merely divides an area into
polygons in which all the points are closest to a certain point in
each polygon. There is no basis to assume that the rainfall at all
points in such a polygon is the same as the nodal point in that
polygon. The witness mentioned that Linear Regression is a
procedure from statistics and fits a straight line to a set of data of
two variables by minimizing the square of errors between
observed values and predicted values, without any reference to
the cause and effect relationship between the two variables.

136. The witness further mentioned that the hydrologists

use both these methods because at the moment nothing much
better is available but the inherent deficiencies in these methods
cannot be ignored. The witness further added that as regards use
of hourly data, traditionally the same is used for flood studies and
not for water availability study and since he has not made any
flood study of Mandovi basin, he had not examined the
continuity, and reliability of the hourly data.
 697

137. The attention of the witness was drawn to the

observations made by him on page 58 of his Affidavit as the
Tribunal had found the same to be disturbing and a matter of
serious concern. The witness was requested to inform the
Tribunal as to where the problem lies - with the study
programmes or with the teaching system or with the
professionals’ training or something else, and what measures are
necessarily required to improve the situation. The witness
explained that there is no lack of hydrology talent in India and
many of the Indian Universities, for example, the IITs teach
Hydrology at Post Graduate level, but the problems are inherent
to the science of Hydrology and although in India, Hydrology is
traditionally taught as a specialization in Civil Engineering, it is
now recognized as a group of Sciences known as “Earth
Sciences”. All Earth Sciences have certain inherent limitations
arising out of very large data sets; from which only a limited
sample is available; spatially distributed data; inadequate
understanding of how the nature behaves; having to predict the
future based on the past despite being fully aware that the
natural processes are not constant. It was explained by the
witness that an example of limitations of Earth Sciences is our
inability to predict earthquakes and that this is not due to any
 698

inadequacy in training programmes or teaching etc. Further, he

mentioned that the School of Earthquake Engineering in IIT,
Roorkee is one of the finest in the world but the problem is that
natural process leading to earthquakes have not yet been fully
understood and it is very difficult to make observations of the
causative factors which result in earthquakes. The witness
expressed that Hydrology has progressed somewhat better but
suffers from the inherent limitations and in the foreseeable
future will continue to suffer from the inherent limitations of
Earth Sciences and Hydrology requires analysis of very large data
sets which was difficult without the computers, and in fact, the
science of hydrology has started making some appreciable
progress only after computers became available to civilian users,
which in India means approximately 1975, but before that,
hydrology was practiced mostly by Empirical formulae and
sometime in late 1990s, the desktop computers became powerful
enough to undertake hydrological analysis.

This is the sum and substance of the evidence of witness,

Shri Chetan Pandit (AW-1).
 699

Oral evidence of RW-1 Prof. A.K. Gosain for the State of

Karnataka

138. Having discussed the evidence of expert witness Shri

Chetan Pandit, AW-1, examined on behalf of the State of Goa
regarding availability of water in Mahadayi Basin, it is time to
discuss the Affidavit of Examination-in-Chief filed by Professor
A.K. Gosain, RW-1, on behalf of the State of Karnataka.

139. In paragraph 1 of his Affidavit dated 15.9.2015

(Volume 166), the witness has stated that he is a Professor of
Civil Engineering at the Institute of Technology, Delhi, and his
expertise for three decades in the field of Water Resources
Engineering is derived from his education in the subject of Civil
Engineering leading to Ph.D. thesis in Hydrology, teaching
experiences in the area of “Water Resources Engineering” i.e.
Civil Engineering Department of the Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi, research projects, guiding the Ph.D. students
in Water Resources Engineering and research publications in
National and International journals. The witness has annexed his
Bio Data as Annexure A to his Affidavit.
 700

140. The witness has stated in paragraph 2 of his Affidavit

that the Water Resources Department of the Government of
Karnataka approached him in the month of October 2013
requesting him to study the yield of inter-State of the Mahadayi
Basin, and on studying the materials given to him which included
the Central Water Commission’s draft report of 2001 and the
final report of March 2003 and the estimations made by the
National Water Development Agency in 1989, he agreed to
conduct further studies in close association with Mr. Anil Kumar
Goyal, who retired in 2011 as the Director (Hydrology), Central
Water Commission.

141. The witness has proceeded to mention that he himself

with the assistance of Shri A.K. Goyal, who was M.Tech. in
Hydrology from I.I.T., Roorkee, conducted the study on the water
availability in the Inter-State Mahadayi basin and estimated the
yield of the Basin lying in the State of Karnataka and the entire
basin spread across the States of Karnataka, Maharashtra and
Goa, having a catchment area of 2032 sq.km. What is emphasized
by the witness is that Shri Goyal assisted him in respect of the
following aspects:-
 701

a. Checking of the consistency of the rainfall and runoff data;

and

b. Re-establishing rainfall-runoff relationship.

142. The questions considered by the witness are

mentioned by him in paragraph 4 of his Affidavit. In paragraph 5,
the witness claims that he had independently cross checked the
various aspects on which he had sought for and had received
technical computations from Shri Goyal and that his study is in
the form of his report titled as “The Yield Study of Mahadayi
Basin”. The witness has produced his report dated September 8,
2015 as Annexure B to his Affidavit. The witness has reproduced
the conclusions of the study in paragraph 6 of his Affidavit. At
page 7 of his Affidavit, the witness has stated that in Case-I, he
has extended the annual gross yield series of Mahadayi basin for
the period 1998-99 to 2012-13 based on CWC methodology and
by adopting regression equation used in CWC’s Report of march
2003 i.e, RO = 0.87891*P – 49.6451.
 702

At page 8 of his Affidavit the witness has stated that in

Case-II, he has extended annual gross yield series of Mahadayi
basin for the period from 1998-99 to 2012-13 based on CWC
methodology but using a revised regression equation based on
runoff data of Ganjim measured by CWC for the period 1979-
2012, the revised regression equation being RO = 0.7368*P +
432.28.

143. According to the witness, since long term continuous

flow data of 34 years was available at Ganjim Site, the same is
used for calculating the 50% and 75% dependable gross annual
yield at the Gangim and run-off data observed at Ganjim Site is
the net run-off after abstracting utilizations upstream. The
witness has stated that, to get the virgin run-off at G&D Site, the
upstream utilization has been added, to the net run-off at site,
whereas for the Karnataka catchment, the annual yield has been
worked out based on catchment area proportion method with
respect to the yield at Ganjim. The witness has explained that
Table 11 on page 9 provides summary of 50% and 75%
dependable gross annual yield for Mahadayi basin at Ganjim and
 703

for Karnataka part of the catchment, which is reproduced

hereunder.

Table-11: Annual Gross Yiled in Mahadayi, Ganjim and

Karnataka part of the Basin

Depend Annual Annual Gross Annual Annual Annual

-ability Gross Yield Yield for Gross Gross Gross
For entire Yield for Yield Yield
entire Mahadayi entire At at Goa/
Mahadayi Basin (1928- Mahadayi Ganjim Karnataka
Basin 29 to 2012- Basin (1979- Border
(1928-29 13) – Using (1928-29 80 to based on
to 2012- Revised to 1997- 2012- catchment
13) – Regression 98) – As 13) area
Using Equation per CWC propor-
CWC’s Report tionate
Regression 2003 w.r.t.
Equation Ganjim
(1979- 80
to 2012-
13)
Case-I Case-II
50% 6361 6321 6234 3481 1483
(Mcum)
75% 5784 5838 5652 2896 1234
(Mcum)
50% 224.61 223.20 220.13 122.90 52.37
(tmc)
75% 204.24 206.14 199.58 102.25 43.57
(tmc)

What is emphasized by the witness is that 50% and 75%

dependable annual gross yield of Mahadayi basin worked out by
using the extended data with the old R-R model is not very
 704

different from the one obtained by revising the R-R model after
incorporating the additional run-off observations, and therefore,
it is recommended to use the 50% and 75% dependable gross
annual yield for Mahadayi basin as 6321 Mcum (223.20 tmc) and
5838 Mcum (206.14 tmc) respectively, since it is the outcome of
a correct procedure.

144. If one refers to the yield study of Mahadayi basin

Report of the witness, it becomes evident that the witness has
carried out the study, which is aimed at extending the
assessment of the annual gross yield of Mahadayi basin at 75%
and 50% dependability, by taking into account the additional
available hydrological and meteorological data and employing
the procedure deployed by the CWC. In para 2 of his report, the
witness has described Mahadayi basin in great detail. The witness
has informed the Tribunal that a major portion of the area of
river basin, i.e. 1580 sq.km. (77.76%) lies in the State of Goa, 375
sq.km. (18.46%) area of the river basin falls in Karnataka and 77
sq.km. (3.78%) area falls in Maharashtra. In para 3 of his report,
the witness has mentioned about the availability of the data,
whereas at page 20, which forms part of para 3(i), the witness
has given Gauge and Discharge data of two existing G&D sites in
 705

the basin, maintained by Central Water Commission. In para 3(ii),

which is at page 21 of the report, the witness has provided the
information relating to rainfall data. On reading the said para, it
becomes evident that, the CWC (2003), after making an
assessment has used the rainfall data, for the following rain-
gauge stations in and around the Mahadayi basin,
collected/supplied by IMD, for the respective periods, as shown
in Table 2. The witness has mentioned that in his study, the
rainfall stations used for the period 1964-1998, have been used
for the extended period, i.e. 1999-2012. The Table No.2 provided
by the witness at page 22 of his report is as under:-

Table 2: Data Availability of Rainfall in Mahadayi Basin

Period Rainfall Stations

1928-40 Valpoi, Ponda, Panjim, Mapuca,

Collem, Khanpur.
1941-63 Valpoi, Ponda, Panjim, Mapuca,
Sanguem, Khanpur. Supa
1964-1998 Valpoi, Ponda, Panjim, Mapuca,
Sanguem, Khanapur, Kankumbi,
Castlerock, Jamagaon, Amagaon

145. In para 4 of his report, the witness has mentioned

about the prevalent Methodologies for yield assessment of
 706

catchment of river basins in India and has claimed that in the

present scenario the method used by the Central Water
Commission in its study of 2001 and 2003, has been relied upon
since this is an accepted method. What is mentioned by the
witness is that the Central Water Commission has used the
rainfall-runoff relationship, for working out the long term series
of the Mahadayi River Basin and in the present exercise, since the
data of the additional 15 years has become available, it has been
used to strengthen the CWC studies of 2001 and 2003.

146. In para 5 of his report at page 23, the witness has

stated about the consistency of flow and rainfall data, whereas in
para 5.1 the witness has explained the stream flow data in detail.
According to the witness at the Ganjim site, the observations are
being carried out, using current meter with the help of boat and
cableway during monsoon at higher stages and by wading during
the non-monsoon at lower stages. The witness has further
mentioned that during 2005-2006, a vented weir, 2 meter high,
with a provision for vertical gates up to 4.5 meters high, was
constructed at about 1 km. downstream of CWC site at Ganjim,
to facilitate pumping for drinking purpose to Goa and got into
operation from March 2006 onwards. The witness has informed
 707

the Tribunal that from November 2006 onwards, due to closure

of the weir the discharge could not be observed during non-
monsoon period as the flow velocities die down due to
stagnation of water at the site. What is asserted is, that the
contribution of this non-monsoon flow at the Ganjim site from
December to May is insignificant, i.e. less than 3% of the annual
flow and that, besides velocity, the other important factor in the
discharge computation is the river cross-section at the site. The
witness has stated that as a standard practice in CWC, pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon cross-sections are taken every year
and the Gauge and Discharge curves are updated accordingly
from time to time, and since many of the times, flow data is
measured directly by measuring the velocity in multiple
segments, across the river cross-sections, G&D curves are used
for observations made during the intervening days. The witness
has pointed out that the two most common methods of
discharge measurement practised by CWC are Current meter and
Float methods and as per the standard practice of CWC, the data
collected by both the methods is accepted by CWC for water
availability studies. In para 5.1.1 the witness has mentioned
about the Internal Consistency of Flow Data as well as Ganjim
Flow Series – Mass Curve Analysis and has mentioned that unlike
 708

with rainfall data, where the double mass curve is used for
consistency check, in case of flow data single mass curve analysis
is generally carried out. In para 5.1.1.2, which is at page 26 of his
report, the witness has mentioned about T-test for testing
Homogeneity of the Ganjim series and has stated that mass curve
analysis and t-test analysis of Ganjim series establish that the
flow data is consistent over the years.

147. In paragraph 5.1.1.3, which is at page 27 of his report,

the witness has informed the Tribunal about Collem Flow Series
and Mass Curve Analysis and has stated that, no appreciable kink
is visible in the mass curve for Collem flow and data appears to
be consistent. At para 5.1.1.4, which is at page 28 of the report,
the witness has stated about the Homogeneity Test for the
Collem Flow Series and has mentioned that the tests show a
mixed reponse to the consistency check of the flow series of
Collem, and therefore, the station has not been used further for
detailed assessment of the basin water yield. Again in para 5.1.2,
which is at page 29 of his report, the witness has considered the
External Consistency of Flow Series and stated that there is a dip
in the flow data of both the sites, between the period 2000-2004,
which establishes that in case of Ganjim, change in method of
 709

measurement from float to current meter in 2001 has not

resulted in any kind of systematic error in the data. The witness
in para 5.2 of his report, which is at page 30 of his report, has
referred about consistency of rainfall data and has stated that
the processed monsoon rainfall data for the period from 1928-29
to 2000-01 and for the period from 2001-02 to 2012-13 are given
at Appendix IV and V of the report.

148. In para 6 of his report, the witness has mentioned

about earlier studies for yield assessment of Mahadayi basin,
made by (a) Preliminary Water Balance Study of National Water
Development Agency; (b) Draft report on Yield Studies for
Mahadayi basin by Central Water Commission – September 2001.
While considering the above mentioned draft reports, the
witness has mentioned that the length of the series to be used
for building the Rainfall-Runoff relationship is an important factor
and it is equally important to make appropriate selection of rain-
gauge stations that should be used to get the mean average
rainfall for the respective catchment and (c) Report of March
2003 by the Central Water Commission on the Yield Studies of
Mahadayi basin. In para 6.3.1 of his report, at page 34, the
witness has mentioned about Runoff (Discharge) data, whereas
 710

in para 6.3.2 the witness has discussed the rainfall data and in
para 6.3.3.1 of his report, at page 35, the witness has mentioned
about Weighted Catchment Rainfall of Ganjim, wherein Thiessen
weights obtained are mentioned in Table 6, which is at page 35.
In para 6.3.3.2 at page 35 of his Affidavit, the witness has dealt
with the Weighted Catchment Monsoon Rainfall of entire
Mahadayi basin and has stated that Thiessen weights have been
worked out for different periods for those stations as indicated in
Table 7. The witness has emphasized that considering the
geographical locations of the rain-gauge stations vis-a-vis
catchment and availability of data, Valpoi, Amagaon, Jamagaon,
Castlerock, Kankumbi, Mapuca and Panjim are, the key Stations
for the computation of the basin rainfall. At page 37, in para
6.3.3.3 of his Affidavit, the witness has mentioned about Rainfall-
Runoff Model, whereas in para 6.3.3.4, the witness has stated
about Generation of Water Yield series for the Mahadayi Basin
and in para 6.3.4 the methodology adopted by CWC has been
discussed by the witness.

149. The gross annual yield series from 1928-29 to 2012-

13 for Mahadayi has been mentioned by the witness in para 7, at
page 38 of his report. The weighted catchment monsoon rainfall
 711

of Ganjim is mentioned in Table 8, which forms part of para 7.3.1

at page 40 of his report, whereas the weighted monsoon rainfall
for the entire Mahadayi basin is mentioned by the witness in
Table 9, which is a part of para 7.3.2 at page 41 of his report. In
para 7.4 at page 41, of his report, the witness has discussed the
generation of the Annual Yield series for the Mahadayi basin.
Under the heading, ‘Case-I’, Extended Gross Annual Yield Series
of Mahadayi basin for the period from 1998-99 to 2012-13 based
on CWC Methodology and Regression Equation used in CWC’s
Report of March 2003, are mentioned, whereas under the
heading, ‘Case-II’, Extended Gross Annual Yield Series of
Mahadayi basin for the period from 1928-29 to 2012-13 based on
CWC Methodology and Revised Regression Equation based on
Extended Runoff data of Ganjim, measured by CWC for the
period 1979-2012 are given. What is mentioned in para 7.5 at
page 44 of the report, is the Gross Annual Yield up to Ganjim Site
and of the Karnataka Catchment, whereas in para 7.5.1 the
Annual Gross Yield at Ganjim is mentioned, and the Dependable
Gross Yield at Ganjim is mentioned at Table 10, which forms part
of the said para. Again in para 7.5.2 at page 46 of his report, the
witness has mentioned about the Annual Gross Yield in the
Karnataka catchment and conclusions have been derived in para
 712

8 of his report. At page 49 of his report, the witness has

reproduced Annual Gross Yield in Mahadayi, Ganjim and
Karnataka part of the Basin, in Table 11, which is already
reproduced under Para 143 of this Report.

150. This witness has further filed an additional Affidavit of

Examination-in-Chief on 15th November, 2016 (Volume 193). In
the additional Affidavit, the witness has mentioned that,
pursuant to the order dated 1.9.2016, passed by the Tribunal, he
has filed, the additional Affidavit. This witness, with the
additional Affidavit, has produced the copy of the supplementary
study (‘Supplementary study for yield assessment at project
sites’) along with enclosure as Annexure A to his Affidavit. The
witness has mentioned that, a simple approach of using the
proportional area method, with the rainfall factor of nearest
observed rainfall, to the mean gauged sub-basin rainfall, has
been used. The witness has categorically stated that, the yield at
Bhandura dam is estimated by him as 3.7 tmc at 75%
dependability, whereas the yield is estimated as 4.0 tmc at 75%
dependability in the detailed project report of 2000 (Volume 20).
It is further stated that if the yield is 4.0 tmc, the project will
operate at 70% dependability.
 713

151. A glance at the Supplementary Study for Yield

Assessment at Project Sites, enclosed along with the
Supplementary Affidavit, makes it evident that, the yield
available for power generation at Kotni Dam site is augmented by
the diversion of Bail Nadi and Irti streams which join Mahadayi
river down stream of Kotni dam site. It further shows that, the
witness has computed the monsoon yield on the basis of
catchment area – rainfall proportion applied to monsoon gauged
flow at Ganjim Gauge Station. In para 1.3 of his supplementary
study, the witness has mentioned areas of different catchment
and he has stated that weighted rainfall in the catchment of
Ganjim site is taken from his Affidavit dated 15.9.2015. The
witness proceeds to state that the rainfall of Chapoli and Gavali
stations, available in the near vicinity of Kotni dam catchment
and Bhandura catchment, are taken from the document Volume
98, whereas the monsoon rainfall at Ganjim has been taken from
his Affidavit dated 15.9.2015.

152. The topic of diversion to Kali River Basin is discussed

by the witness in para 2 of his Affidavit and the Kalasa Diversion
Scheme is discussed by the witness in para 3 of his Affidavit. The
 714

Irti Pick up Dam, downstream of Kotni Dam, with independent

catchment, is considered by the witness in para 4 of his Affidavit.
The witness has mentioned that the rainfall of Chapoli and Gavali
stations, as available in the near vicinity of Irti pick up dam,
catchment, is taken from document Volume 98.

153. In his supplementary study, the witness has asserted

the combined flow at Kotni dam site at 50% and 75%
dependability, is 23.9 tmc and 19.4 tmc, respectively, whereas
the combined flow for diversion at Kali Basin at 50% and 75%
dependability, is estimated by the witness to be 6.1 tmc and 5.3
tmc, respectively. The witness has further asserted that, the
combined flow available at Kalasa Nala catchment including the
diversion of Haltara and Surla at 50% and 75% dependability is
4.6 tmc and 3.8 tmc, respectively, whereas the flow available at
Irti dam catchment, at 50% and 75% dependability is, 1.5 tmc and
1.2 tmc, respectively.

154. The witness has filed an Affidavit dated 24.3.2017

(Volume 197), wherein he has referred to the fact of his filing his
Affidavit before the Tribunal on 12.9.2015. According to the
witness, on 22.3.2017, the learned Counsel for the State of
 715

Karnataka had made a statement that due to oversight, his

Affidavit sworn on 12.9.2015 had not been “properly affirmed
and verified” and had sought permission of the Tribunal to file a
properly affirmed and verified Affidavit. Thus by filing the
Affidavit, the witness has reiterated the contents of his Affidavit
sworn on 12.9.2015, and Annexure A and B thereto, and has
verified, the contents of paras 1 to 3, including Annexure A of the
Affidavit sworn on 12.9.2015.

155. This witness has further filed an Affidavit dated

11.5.2017 (Volume 198) in support of the analysis of yield of
Mahadayi basin, taking rainfall data from 1928-29 to 2012-13.
After referring to the fact that he had sworn and filed the verified
Affidavit on 24.3.2017, by annexing the Report authored by him
and Shri A.K. Goyal in September 2015 as Annexure B, the
witness has stated that, in response to question Nos.98-99, put
by the learned Counsel for the State of Goa, he had offered to
conduct the analysis by using rainfall data mentioned therein.
The witness has claimed that, accordingly, he had prepared the
analysis titled as ‘Analysis of Yield of Mahadayi Basin taking
Rainfall Data from 1928-29 to 2012-13’, which was finalized by
him, on 9th May, 2017. The said analysis has been appended as
 716

Annexure A (Colly.) to his Affidavit. The witness has stated that

the contents of Annexure A (Colly.) to his Affidavit, are based on
his expertise in the field of Water Resources Engineering and that
the analysis produced by him provides further credence to his
study mentioned in the Report, prepared in September 2015,
which was filed as Annexure B to the Affidavit sworn on 24th
March, 2017.

Again paras 1 and 2 of his Analysis at Annexure A, describe

Mahadayi basin. In para 3 of the Analysis, the witness has
mentioned about the Gross Annual Yield Series from 1928-29 to
2012-13. In para 3.1 of his Analysis, the Runoff Data is
considered, whereas in para 3.2 the Rainfall Data is considered,
and in para 3.3 the Methodology adopted for working out the
Long Term Annual Yield Series for Mahadayi basin is described.
The estimation of Weighted Monsoon Catchment Rainfall is
mentioned, in para 3.3.1 at page 4 of the Analysis, and the
Weighted Catchment Monsoon Rainfall of Ganjim is mentioned,
in para 3.3.1.1 at page 4 of the Analysis. The Thiessen Weights for
Ganjim Site (CWC Report 2003) is re-produced at Table 1 on page
5 of the Analysis, whereas in para 3.3.1.2, the Weighted
Catchment Monsoon Rainfall of entire Mahadayi basin, is
 717

reproduced in Table 2. The witness has pointed out that, the

weighted catchment monsoon rainfall, for the Mahadayi basin,
for the period from 1928-29 to 2012-13 is appended at Annexure
VI to his Analysis. In para 3.4 of his Analysis, the witness has
referred to, Rainfall – Runoff Model and Generation of the
Annual Yield series for the Mahadayi basin, and in para 3.4.1 the
witness has described, the Extended Gross Annual Yield Series of
Mahadayi basin for the period from 1928-29 to 2012-13, based
on CWC Methodology and Revised Regression Equation, based on
Runoff data of Ganjim, measured by CWC during the year 1979-
2012. The witness has further mentioned the revised R-R
relationship and has stated that the value of R works out to about
0.816, which is considered to be good.

156. Under the heading, ‘Case-I’, mentioned in para 3.4.2

of the Analysis, the witness has stated that the monsoon yield
series have been obtained, by substituting the catchment rainfall
in mm for the monsoon, for the period from 1928-29 to 2000-01
in the best fit R-R relation. The witness has further proceeded to
state that the 50% and 75% dependable annual gross yield, for
the entire Mahadayi basin, adopting this approach, works out to
6105 Mcum (215.59 tmc) and 5619 Mcum (198.42 tmc),
 718

respectively. The Mahadayi gross annual yield series, thus

worked out, has been appended at Annexure VIII to the Analysis.

157. Under the heading, ‘Case-II’, mentioned in para 3.4.3,

on page 7 of the Analysis, the witness has mentioned that the
monsoon yield series, have been obtained by substituting the
catchment rainfall in mm for the monsoon period from 1928-29
to 2012-13 in the best fit R-R relation and the 50% and 75%
dependable annual gross yield for the entire Mahadayi basin,
from this approach, works out to 6141 Mcum (216.89 tmc) and
5736 Mcum (202.55 tmc), respectively. The Mahadayi gross
annual yield series, thus worked out, is appended at Annexure IX
to his Analysis. In para 4 of his Analysis, the witness has
mentioned, details of Gross Annual Yield up to Ganjim site, and in
the Karnataka catchment. This is found in Table 3 on page 8. As
mentioned in para 4.1 on page 9 of his Analysis, the Karnataka
catchment of Mahadayi basin is 375 sq. km. against the Ganjim
catchment of 880 sq.km., and 50% and 75% dependable gross
annual for the Karnataka catchment, by area proportion method,
works out to 1460.35 Mcum (51.57 tmc) and 1223.26 Mcum
(43.57 tmc) respectively.
 719

158. The conclusions have been arrived at by the witness in

para 5 of his Analysis, which are to be found on page 9 of the
Analysis and they are in Table No. 4 which read as under:-

Table 4: Annual Gross Yield in Mahadayi Basin by Different

Approaches

Dependa- Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

bility Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross
Yield Yield Yield Yield Yield
for entire for entire for entire at Ganjim at Goa/
Mahadayi Mahadayi Mahadayi (1979-80 Karna-
Basin Basin Basin to 2012- taka
(1928-29 (1928-29 (1928-29 13) Border
to 2000- to 2012- to 1997- based
01) Using 13) Using 98) As per on
Revised Revised CWC catchme
Regre- Regre- Report nt area
ssion ssion 2003 propor-
Equation Equation tion
w.r.t.
Ganjim
(1979-
80 to
2012-
13)
50% 6105 6141 6234 3427 1460
(Mcum)
75% 5619 5736 5652 2871 1223
(Mcum)
50% (tmc) 215.59 216.89 220.13 121.02 51.57
75% (tmc) 198.42 202.55 199.58 101.37 43.20

159. After reproducing the Annual Gross Yield in Mahadayi

Basin, by different approaches in Table No.4, the witness has
 720

stated that the 50% and 75% dependable annual gross yield, of
Mahadayi basin worked out by different approaches, is very near
to each other, and therefore, the witness has recommended to
use the 50% and 75% dependable gross annual yield for
Mahadayi Basin as 6141 Mcum (216.89 tmc) and 57.36 Mcum
(202.55 tmc).

160. The witness was cross-examined by the learned

counsel for the State of Goa at length and in great detail. Further
to elicit the best information relating to availability of water, the
Tribunal had also put certain questions to the witness. Under the
circumstances, the Tribunal proposes to deal with, only those
questions and answers, which are found to be relevant.

161. The learned Cross Examiner for the State of Goa

wanted to know from the witness as to whether the Science of
Hydrology, and particularly the computations like yield study,
design flood study, etc. require the Hydrologist to make a
judgment based on his experience, or is it an exact science,
where given the same data set, all Hydrologists could reach the
same conclusions.
 721

The answer given by the witness was that the judgment of

the Hydrologist is very important in terms of assessing, what are
the conditions which are prevailing including the data availability
in making a judgment as to which procedure or method is most
appropriate under the circumstances. The witness has further
stated that the Hydrology is not an exact science mainly on
account of the high complexity of the nature and very high
variability of the influencing characteristics as well as weather
conditions. The witness has further clarified that, given the same
data and having defined the procedure to be used, different
Hydrologists should come out with the same answer.

At that stage, the attention of the witness was drawn to

what is stated by him in para 5 on page 5 of his Affidavit dated
12.9.2015, where the witness has stated that “He independently
cross checked the various aspects on which he had sought for
and had received technical computation from Mr. Goyal”. After
drawing his attention to above mentioned statement, a question
was put to the witness as to whether he had accepted the
technical computation, which he had received from Shri Goyal, at
the face of it or had he differed with him on occasions, by
carrying out his own corrections. The witness has categorically
 722

replied that he had not taken the computation given by Shri

Goyal, on the face value and he had, at times, observed some of
the things and had informed Shri Goyal for corrections, but it is
not so stated in his report, nor had it been so mentioned in his
Affidavit.

162. The learned Cross Examiner wanted to know from

the witness as to what are the main differences, if any, between
his yield study and CWC study of 2003. In answer thereto, the
witness has mentioned that there is no difference between the
procedure adopted by CWC study of 2003, and even study of
2001, and his study. The witness has stated that, in Hydrology,
when one uses the method of co-relation, it is always preferable,
to use as long a length of observed flow data, as possible and it is
also preferable that the length and data should be at least of 30
years. Responding to the question, as to why length of such data
should be at least 30 years, the witness has stated that the
nature will exhibit all the variability in terms of good monsoon
years, bad monsoon years and average monsoon years, with the
result, the correlation functions data derived at, shall be more
appropriate, for any extension of flow series, using the long-term
rainfall data. According to the witness, this is the reason that,
 723

when he looked at CWC (2003) Report it was found by him that,

the data used was till around 2001, and at least another 15 years
of flow data had become available, and it was advisable to
update that study, to have a more reliable outcome, on the yields
of the basin. The learned counsel for the State of Goa drew the
attention of the witness to the answer given by him to question
No.66 wherein the witness was specifically asked that the CWC
report does not anywhere, state that the study had been
examined, and approved by the CWC and since the witness had
not chosen to answer this part of the question, whether the
witness would wish to say, as regards that part of the question
No. 66, which had remained unanswered. In answer to this
question, the witness categorically mentioned that he could not
find the word “approved” in the Report of CWC (2003). The
witness further stated that as far as examination is concerned,
the Committee has all along been examining the Report, and
therefore, the term “examined” used in the question, is
irrelevant. The witness further claimed that he had never seen in
any study being mentioned, that the study is approved, and
proceeded to state that he has no knowledge of what was the
fate of the Report, and whether it was placed before the CWC
authorities or not.
 724

The witness was asked as to whether he was able to state

very categorically that the document titled “Reporting State of
Karnataka’s Compliance of the Order dated 30.9.2014” (Volume
98), filed by the State of Karnataka before this Tribunal on
1.12.2014, was in compliance to the Order dated 03.09.2014
passed by the Tribunal, and whether that document was ever
seen by him, while undertaking, carrying out, or before
completion of his study. The categorical answer given by the
witness to this question was that this document (Volume 98), as a
whole, was not shared with him, by the State of Karnataka, and
some pages thereof, where his name had appeared, were handed
over to him. The learned Cross Examiner for the State of Goa
wanted to know from the witness that, when rainfall data is
available at many stations, in and close to a catchment, he should
explain as to how the decision is taken, to either use or not to use
the data of each Station, and also to explain as to what criteria or
tests are applied, to select the Stations, whose data is to be used.
The response given by the witness was that this is where the
judgment of a Hydrologist comes into picture and it is very
difficult to make generic rules, to cover all circumstances,
because there are many issues, which will have to be looked into,
 725

while making such decisions, so as to select a specific Rain Gauge

Station, for a specific area. The witness gave an example and
stated that if there is a station very close to the boundary of a
basin, but is lying on a leeward side, it will not be a good
representative Station, to be taken for that basin, whereas in
other situations, a rain gauge station might be considered, even if
it is not falling within the basin, but is the only one available in
the near vicinity. The witness has asserted that as he had
mentioned earlier, the quality of data and length of data etc., can
play a role in the selection of a Station.

The learned Cross Examiner wanted to know from the

witness as to whether while selecting the rainfall Station, whose
data he had used, was the Station being an IMD or non-IMD, a
criterion and was there any occasion for him to reject data of any
Station, because it was a non-IMD Station. The answer given by
the witness was that he would first give the priority to an IMD
Station, but if a situation arises, where a non-IMD Station is the
only data available, then he would consider that data also, with
due verifications. The witness informed the Tribunal that he was
not remembering any specific instance, where he had rejected a
Station only because it was a non-IMD Station, and has stated
 726

that a non-IMD Station would have been ruled out for

consideration, if adequate number of IMD Stations, were
available, for those respective studies. The learned Cross
Examiner for the State of Goa put to the witness that the
difference between conducting an yield study of a river which
ends as a tributary of another river, vis-à-vis a river which outfalls
into the ocean/sea, is that as the river nears the coast, the land
becomes flat and a part of the catchment may drain directly into
the ocean/sea, and therefore, the water resource accruing from
the rainfall from this area cannot be put to beneficial use, and
therefore, this area should be excluded from the computation of
yield study. In answer to this suggestion, the witness stated that
he would not agree to this suggestion. The witness further stated
that if any area is directly contributing to the sea, then while
delineating the area of the basin, such area shall not become part
of the basin and as far as some part of the riverine system
becoming affected by the tides and storm surges, it is a part of
the natural performance of the system and is playing many
important roles which one keeps on aspiring for, and therefore, it
is not meaningful to take off that part of the basin for the yield
computation.
 727

It was put to the witness that when a yield study is

conducted for a basin, which is an inter-State basin, then, since
water resource, if at all, are to be allocated, amongst the party
States, it would be necessary to compute the yield from only that
catchment area, from where the water resource can be captured,
and put to beneficial use. In answer, the witness did not agree
with the suggestion and proceeded to state that one cannot
imply that the water, which is being used by the human beings, is
the only beneficial use and even if it is assumed that, any such
portion, which the State wants to exclude, on account of any
given reason, shall also change the proportion of the yield of the
State, within the remaining basin, and therefore, any way one
looks at, the proportion of the State, out of the total yield, should
remain the same.

It was brought to the notice of the witness that he had

derived the Runoff Equation as: Runoff = 0.7368*Rainfall +
432.28, but on verification of the table containing weighted
rainfall at Ganjim, and also the observed runoff at Ganjim in mm
for the years 1979 to 2012, extracted from his Report, the State
of Goa was unable to get the same equation and that the State of
Goa got the equation as: Runoff = 0.4802*Rainfall + 1751.737,
 728

and therefore, the learned Cross Examiner wanted to know from

the witness as to how he had got the regression equation: Runoff
= 0.7368*Rainfall + 432.28.The answer given by the witness was
that while deriving the regression equation, it is always important
to understand the other conditions also and he further stated
that he was told that the State of Goa had achieved the equation
as: Runoff = 0.625*Rainfall + 1278.113.

The witness further stated that he had used this equation to

derive the Mahadayi yield, as per the procedure and data used in
CWC (2003) Report and he had got the yield of 238.69 tmc at 50%
dependability, which is drastically different from the yield
obtained by CWC (2003) Report. The witness mentioned that he
believed that the State of Goa had ignored a very important line
provided in CWC (2003) Report at pages 9-10, to the effect that
“Regression analysis has been carried out using the monsoon
catchment rainfall and concurrent runoff and best fit R-R relation
obtained, ignoring inconsistent data of monsoon rainfall/runoff
points as per standard practice” and thereafter, the witness
proceeded to state that if the Govt. of Goa had not used the
proper information while deriving the R-R relation, then the Govt.
of Goa was bound to get a different equation, but as far as the
 729

above referred equation is concerned, it is derived by ignoring all

the years, with the runoff factor of more than 1.0.

The learned counsel for the State of Goa put to the witness
that the intercept indicated in question No.190 was positive,
which means, even if the rainfall was zero, there would be some
runoff and for a catchment area of 2032 sq.km., for zero rainfall,
his equation had given the runoff as 31.02 tmc, which was not
proper. In answer to the said suggestion, the witness stated that
the regression equation relationship, is derived using the range of
observed rainfall and observed runoff and it is assumed that the
relationship is linear, which may be an approximation in itself and
these relationships are not supposed to be extrapolated, beyond
the normal ranges of these two entities, and therefore,
relationship would not be valid, if one extrapolates to the level of
zero rainfall.

163. The attention of the witness was drawn to the answer

given by him in question No.193, wherein it was stated by the
witness as under:-

“It is correct, the way it is put. But at the same time, as

I have explained earlier, that the validity of this
 730

regression equation has to be within the range of the

values which have been used while deriving the
equation. If you refer to my September, 2015 Report
at pages 68-69, Appendix-VIII, you will not find even a
single value for all the years beginning from 1928 to
1997 where the yield has been more than the rainfall
by using the same equation.” (Underlining supplied by
me).

The witness was asked as to whether still he stood by the

underlined portion of his statement and the answer given by the
witness was that he was standing by the underlined portion of his
statement.

The attention of the witness was drawn to Appendix XII of

his Report dated 12th September, 2015, more particularly, at
pages 76 and 77 thereto. The witness was asked to look to the
year 1971 where the rainfall was 1331 mm, and the runoff was
1413 mm and it was pointed out to the witness that the runoff
was more than the rainfall, which was completely contrary to his
assertion made by him in answers to questions No. 193 as well as
201, wherein he had categorically stated that not even in a single
year, the runoff had exceeded the rainfall. After bringing the
above facts to the notice of the witness, the learned Cross
 731

Examiner for the State of Goa wanted to have the response of

the witness.

In response, the witness stated that his answer to question

No.193 must be looked into its proper perspective and the
witness reproduced the relevant portion of the answer given by
him to question No.193, which is as under:-

“…that the validity of this regression equation has to

be within the range of the values which have been
used while deriving the equation. If you refer to my
September, 2015 Report at pages 68-69, Appendix-VIII,
you will not find even a single value for all the years
beginning from 1928 to 1997 where the yield has been
more than the rainfall by using the same equation.
(Underlining supplied by me to emphasize.)”

164. The witness stressed that in the above explanation, it

is very categorically mentioned that the range of values used,
while deriving the R-R relationship, is an important aspect of the
equation and that one would find that, the equation remains
true, to the aspect of not having any single value, as is indicated
in Appendix VIII of his Report of September, 2015, which pertains
to the range of values which are quite similar to the ones used
while deriving the R-R relationship. The witness proceeded to
 732

state that there can be one odd value, which in Hydrological

terms is termed as “Outlier”, which is out of range, and that is
why it has emerged and the main question is that how much
impact it has on the final outcome.

165. A question was put to the witness to the effect that

actually, and factually, the data used for his study of September,
2015, and that used for the study in May, 2017, were different
and distinct and that if the witness had not changed it purposely,
then how the different and distinct data were found. In answer to
the said question, the witness mentioned that his September,
2015 Report is extension of the CWC (2003) Report, and the
processed data of CWC (2003) Report is taken for working of that
Report. The witness mentioned that this is also apparent from
Annex. II, page 13 of May, 2017 Report, and Table 10, Page 45 of
his September, 2015 Report, from which, it can be observed that
the observed monsoon runoff for Ganjim is exactly the same
from the year 1998 to the year 2012, and that, the minor
differences, between the two Reports, are because of the reason
that in one (Report of September, 2015), the data has been taken
as such for the period from 1979 to 1997, and in the Report of
 733

May, 2017, the data has been processed, using the detailed daily
data.

166. A question was put to the witness that in his opinion

what should be the value of regression equation factor to be
used at Ganjim site, for Mandovi river, and the answer given by
the witness is that usual value of regression equation applied is in
the near vicinity of 0.85, but the exact value used at Ganjim site
should be known to the CWC.

167. The witness has stated in paragraph 6.3.2 of his report

at page 34 that the rainfall data of some whole years/some
months in a particular year are found missing for some of the
Stations and the same is filled by using the standard method of
Normals, and therefore, a question was put to the witness as to
what is the basis on which the witness has made the said
statement. In answer thereto the witness mentioned that in
filling of rainfall data, using the method of Normals is a standard
procedure in Hydrology for filling of the missing rainfall data.

168. The attention of the witness was drawn to Appendix

IV at page 61 of his Report, wherein in 34th column, data of
 734

Mapuca for the year 1961 was mentioned and the rainfall
indicated was 2874 mm. It was pointed out to the witness that
this continued for the years 1962, 1963, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1976,
1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1988, 1989 and 1998, whereas in the
case of Sanguem in the same Appendix IV at page 61 the rainfall
was stated to be 3638 mm for 10 years i.e. for the years 1961,
1962, 1963, 1967, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1998 and in
case of Valpoi the rainfall was shown as 3934 for the 9 years,
namely 1972, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994
and 1995. The witness was asked to explain why the data of
Mapuca, Sanguem and Valpoi were exactly the same as the last
mm for the aforesaid several years. The answer given by the
witness was that he was not the right person to tell why the
values were the same for many years, because he was not a party
to the process of processing the data.

169. After referring to the errors pointed out to the witness

in question No.86, the attention of the witness was invited to
pages 19 and 33 of Volume 15, wherein in the Table at page 29,
unprocessed data and in the Table at page 33, the processed
data, were mentioned, which made it clear that not only the
missing data have been filled, but the data that was not missing
 735

was also modified, which is apparent from the data relating to

the year 1978. It was also brought to the notice of the witness
that the observed data at page 29 was 2884.6 mm and the
processed data at page 33 was 4905 mm, which was, thus
increased by as much as by 70%, and similarly the data for 1979
for the same station has been increased by 37%; for 1981 by
67%; and for 1989 by 52%, and therefore, the witness was called
upon to explain by which method known to the science of
Hydrology were these increases made.

170. Again in answer to the said question, the witness

stated that he was not party to the process. He also mentioned
that it was very difficult for him to say as to what was the real
reason of the difference and he believed that all these valid
questions must have been resolved by the learned and
experienced water resources personnel of the three participating
States, and by the lead i.e. CWC at the appropriate time. At this
stage a question was put to the witness as to whether he had
compared the data given on two pages, i.e. on page 29 and page
33 of CWC Report (2003) (Volume 15), before undertaking his
study and whether did he find any improvement in Appendix VI
at page 33 over the data given at Appendix V at page 29 of the
 736

said report. The response of the witness was that he had not
checked each station with respect to the data, which was the
outcome of processing for that station, as he was not having the
complete information of what steps of processing had gone in
between the figures appearing in Appendix V and Appendix VI.
The witness mentioned that when the raw data were not made
available, he had adopted the other option of using the
processed data after due verification through the consistency
check.

171. The question was put to the witness that whether

while preparing three different Reports within a span of less than
20 months, namely his Report dated 12th September, 2015, his
another report dated 15th November, 2016 and his still another
report dated 11th May, 2017, whether he had considered taking
into account the factors – reliable yield of the State of Goa on
the water coming from the upstream of Mahadayi region,
presence of thick and thin Stations, the fact that the river passes
through Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary, Bhagwan Mahabir Wildlife
Sanctuary, Mallew National Park, Dr. Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary,
requirement of maintaining the level of water in river Madei for
navigation purposes and highly pristine eco-sanctuaries of the
 737

coastal eco-system. The answer given by the witness was that he

had not taken into consideration those factors and all the factors
mentioned in the question were not required to be considered
while finding out the yield of the basin.

It was brought to the notice of the witness by the learned

Cross Examiner for the State of Goa that the State of Karnataka
has not done any yield study of its own, whereas in his Report
dated 12th September 2015, the witness has extended the series
prepared by CWC in the so called 2003 Report. It was also
brought to the notice of the witness that the CWC had worked
out the yield of Mahadayi basin at 75% dependability as 1958
tmc, whereas in his study dated 12th September, 2015 the
witness had worked out the yield of Mahadayi basin at 50%
dependability as 204.24 tmc and 206.14 tmc, whereas in his
study dated 11th May, 2017, the witness has worked out the yield
of Mahadayi basin at 75% dependability as 198.42 tmc and
202.55 tmc.

172. It was also brought to the notice of the witness that

when he had prepared the second and third Report dated 15th
November, 2016 and 11th May, 2017, respectively, for computing
 738

the yield at the project locations at different places of Karantaka

and for giving so called credence to his Report dated 12th
September, 2015, he was a Member of the NGT Committee,
which had been appointed under the auspices of MOEFCC to
determine, the carrying capacity of Western Ghat. The question
was put to the witness as to whether being a Member of the
aforesaid Committee, had he considered the provisions of
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and more particularly section 29,
which prohibits any person to interfere with the water coming
into the sanctuary or otherwise diverting or by any act,
whatsoever diverting, subjecting or enhancing the flow of water
of the sanctuary. The answer given by the witness was that for
the yield assessment periods, these factors were not required to
be considered.

After drawing the attention of the witness to the answers

given by him to question Nos.57, 60, 65 and 96 that the CWC is
an apex organization of the country, it was put to him that he
dreaded to think of the situation when on the data being
collected by the apex organization, if a challenge was thrown to
it, it would give rise to inter-State dispute about water, which
would not be good for the society and the witness was called
 739

upon to explain as to why, while making report of November

2015 for determining the yield at 8 locations in the State of
Karnataka, he had not followed the methods indicated and used
by CWC for computing the yield on the project sites. The answer
given was that he had used the method which was most
appropriate with respect to the data availability.

173. After the cross-examination of the witness by the

State of Goa was over, the learned counsel for the State of
Maharashtra was called upon to cross-examine the witness, but
the learned counsel Shri D.M. Nargolkar representing the State of
Maharashtra had stated that he had no question to ask to this
witness by way of cross-examination. Thereafter, the witness was
put several questions by the Tribunal but it is proposed to refer
to only the relevant questions put to the witness by the Tribunal.

174. It para 5.1.1.3 on page 27, relating to Collem Flow

Series – Mass Curve Analysis of his Report of September 2015, it
is stated by the witness that there was some falling trend
observed in the later part of the series, whereas from Table 4: t-
Test: Paired Two Sample for Means-Collem on page 28, it is noted
that the mean of first 16 years of data was about 25% higher than
 740

the mean of the later 16 years of data. Therefore, the Tribunal

wanted to know as to what could be possible reasons for such
falling trend and why such reasons should not be taken into
consideration, while assessing the water availability for the
Mahadayi catchment as a whole. The answer given by the
witness was that it is very difficult to assign specific reasons for
such behavior, without thorough examination of all the data,
pertaining to the basin, and one possible reason could be less
rainfall in those years. According to him, in the present case
because of another gauged basin namely Ganjim, which is much
bigger in size, being available having consistent data, there was
no requirement of exploring this small basin further.

175. It was noticed by the Tribunal that pursuant to the

average monsoon rainfall for the catchment area of Mahadayi
upto Ganjim, as assessed by the Expert Witness of the State of
Goa, and that, by the witness indicated considerable variations. It
was found that the mean of the average monsoon rainfall
estimated by the Expert Witness of the State of Goa during the
period from 1979 to 2005 was 4685.5 mm, whereas, on the other
hand, the mean of the average monsoon rainfall estimated by
this witness for the same period was only 4072.2 mm and thus
 741

the mean of the average monsoon rainfall estimated by Expert

Witness of the State of Goa was about 15% more, than the mean
of the average monsoon rainfall, estimated by this witness. It was
also noticed that for the year 1998, the average monsoon rainfall
assessed by the Expert Witness of Goa was about 59% more than
that assessed by this witness. Therefore, the Tribunal wanted to
know from the witness as to whether such considerable
variations are possible only due to selection of different groups of
rain gauge Stations by two Experts and what could be other
possible reasons for such variations. In answer, the witness
stated that one possible reason, as mentioned, could be the
selection of rain gauge Stations, but the selection of Stations
could not have made huge differences. The witness further
proceeded to state that the other possible reason for such
variation could be application versus non-application of
prescribed consistency checks, as part of the data processing.

176. It was noticed by the Tribunal that in his Report titled

“Analysis to Check the Consistency of Rainfall Data in and around
Mahadayi River Basin”, [Annexure A of “Further Response of the
State of Karnataka to the Brief Note handed over to the Hon’ble
Tribunal at the Hearing on 11.2.2015 (read with Orders dated
 742

3.9.2014 and 12.2.2015)” filed by the State of Karnataka on

15.4.2015] (Volume 122), it is stated that recently a new product
of India Meteorological Department, in the form of high
resolution gridded daily rainfall data (0.25°x0.25° resolution),
derived using quality controlled Station data
(http://www.imd.gov.in/ doc/nccraindata.pdf) has come into
being, which is supposed to be a much better product, which has
been used here for consistency analysis. It was also stated that
the location of these grid points in and around the Mahadayi
basin have been shown in Figure 2, and therefore, under present
situation, it is decided to use a recent product of India
Meteorological Department, in the form of high resolution
gridded daily rainfall data (0.25°x0.25° resolution), derived using
quality controlled Station data, but, in the Report titled “The
Yield Study of Mahadayi Basin” submitted as Annexure-B of the
Affidavit of the witness, he had not used the data contained in
the new product of India Meteorological Department, in the form
of high resolution gridded daily rainfall data which in his opinion
was, much better product. Therefore, the witness was called
upon to explain the reasons for not using a much better product.
The witness was further asked also to tell, whether the high
resolution gridded daily rainfall data included in the new product
 743

of India Meteorological Department, which in his opinion is much

better product, should be invariably used for development of
rainfall runoff models and if not, the reasons therefor.

In answer to the said question, the witness stated that

personally he felt that the gridded daily rain fall data as provided
by the IMD was more suitable for the end users, since it was a
processed rainfall data, checked for most of the possible errors,
but in the present case, since it was a matter of difference of
opinion between the parties, he did not want to bring in another
parameter i.e. the authenticity of the gridded data itself, since he
knew that it was an end product of interpolation of the available
actually observed rainfall and transformed on a uniform grid of
0.25°x 0.25° by IMD, and having started in that direction and
having submitted one Report of consistency of the gridded data,
he had decided to use the actual rain-gauge Stations for his
analysis.

177. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the witness had

carried out, the detailed analysis in respect of homogeneity and
consistency of flow data, observed at Ganjim and the results of
the same have been presented at Para 5.1.1.1, Para 5.1.1.2 and
 744

Para 5.1.2 at pages 26 to 30 of his September, 2015 Report. It

was further noticed that the witness had asserted at page 39 that
the “observed series at Ganjim had been found consistent”.
Further it was noticed that while carrying out the analysis for
development of linear regression equation, Central Water
Commission had ignored, the data set of, as many as 9 years out
of 19 years, and therefore, the Tribunal wanted to know from
the witness that how can such data be considered as consistent
and reliable. In answer to the said question the witness
mentioned that by excluding these 9 years out of 19 years, for
the process of formulating the R-R equation, does not imply that
there is something wrong with the observed flow of these 9
years. The witness proceeded to state that those have been
ignored by CWC as well as by him, as part of the stipulated
process, to ensure that there is no unnecessary bias on account
of such extreme events, in the R-R equation, since the equation is
required to be used for extrapolation of runoff using the rainfall.
What is important to notice is that the witness has admitted that
this implicit explanation was not mentioned in CWC (2003)
Report as well as in his September, 2015 Report.
 745

178. In para 4 at page 3 of the additional Affidavit dated

15.11.2016 (Volume 193), the witness has mentioned that “the
methods deployed by the respective departments to estimate
the water yield have been variable since there is no unique
approach that is universally used”. Therefore, the witness was
called upon to name the various respective departments and the
methods deployed by each of them, to estimate the water yield.
In answer to the said question, the witness has mentioned that
he did not have the record as to which Department had used
which method of estimating water yield. The witness has
proceeded to state that he was able to tell the methods
employed by the various Departments ranging from empirical
relationships, such as Inglis Formula, and Rational method to
approaches such as Area Proportion method.

179. In para 2.2, on page 8 of the additional Affidavit of

November, 2016 (Volume 193), the witness has stated that “the
monsoon measured yield at Collem G&D site and Ganjim G&D
site is adopted for the study”. It was noticed by the Tribunal that
from para 2.3 and para 2.4, on page 8 for the purpose of
estimation of yield for the Katla-Palna diversion and Diggi
diversion sites, the witness had used the gauged data of Collem
 746

G&D site, whereas in Para 5.1.1.4, on page 29 of the Report

dated 15.9.2015 (Volume 166), he has concluded that “the tests
show a mixed response to the consistency check of the flow
series of Collem, therefore, the Station has not been used further
for any detailed assessment of the basin water yield”. Under the
circumstances, the witness was called upon to explain as to why
the data of Collem G&D site was now used, although he had
decided earlier not to use the same any further for assessment of
basin water yield. The answer given by the witness was that the
data of Collem G&D site was not rejected altogether, and only, it
was not used for the extrapolation using the R-R method. The
witness has emphasized that it is important to understand that in
Hydrology, whatever has been recorded through observations, is
the truth and it is not possible to go back in time, to re-observe it,
and any segment of data that is available, must be re-looked at,
for appropriateness of its use, after checking it from various
angles, under different situations. What is claimed by the
witness was that in any case, the Collem data only failed the t-
Test, which means that it had shown two parts of the flow time
series, which were different in mean value and this could have
happened, on many different accounts, such as the area getting
low rainfall consistently for some years. According to the
 747

witness, the same Station of Collem passed the F-Test for

variance, and therefore, the station was never discarded in true
sense, because there was nothing grossly wrong found.

180. It was found by the Tribunal that from Table under

para 7, page 4 of the additional Affidavit dated 15.11.2016, the
witness has estimated the yield at 10 sites for 50% dependability,
60% dependability, 70% dependability and 75% dependability,
but in his Report of September, 2015, he has estimated the yield
at 50% dependability and 75% dependability only. Therefore, a
question was asked to the witness as to why has he estimated,
the yield at the 10 sites for 60% dependability and 70%
dependability in addition to 50% dependability and 75%
dependability and what is the utility of estimated value of yield at
60% dependability and 70% dependability, for the 10 sites? The
answer given by the witness was that while estimating the yields
for various projects, the dependability computations were also
made for other values beyond 50% and 75%, such as 60% and
70%, since the worked yields of these projects by the respective
organisations, were available, and he was trying to find out, by
how much per cent of dependability, the various earlier
computed yields by different Departments, would be different
 748

from the present value. The witness gave the example that on
page 4 of his November, 2016 Report, it is mentioned that “The
yield at Bhandura dam is estimated by him as 3.7 tmc at 75%
dependability, whereas the yield is estimated as 4.0 tmc at 75%
dependability”, and therefore, the idea was to arrive at more
clarity in the results.

181. In para 8 at page Nos. 4 and 5 of the additional

Affidavit of November, 2016, the witness has stated that the yield
at Bhandura dam was estimated by him as 3.7 tmc at 75%
dependability, whereas the yield was estimated as 4.0 tmc at
75% dependability, in the Detailed Project Report of 2000
(Volume 20), and if the yield was 4.0 tmc, the project would have
operated at 70% dependability. Therefore, a question was put to
the witness as to whether had he gone through the Detailed
Project Report of 2000 (Volume 20) of the Bhandura dam and
had critically examined the procedure for estimating the yield at
75% dependability. The answer given by the witness was that he
had looked at the hydrology part of the Detailed Project Report
of 2000 (Volume 20), of the Bhandura Dam, but he was not
remembering at the juncture, all the details regarding the
procedure for estimating the yield at 75% dependablility.
 749

Thereafter, a copy of the page 9 of the Detailed Project

Report of Bhandura Water Diversion Scheme prepared in 2000
(Volume 20) was handed over to Prof. Gosain and he was asked
to tell whether he agreed with the procedure adopted for
estimation of 75% dependable yield and that whther the rainfall
can be taken as yield. The witness stated that he did not agree
with the procedure adopted in the DPR (Volume 20).

182. With the objective to ascertain, the extent of

variations in the data, of a rain-gauge Station in the Report of the
witness of May 2017 (Volume 198) with respect to the data of
same rain-gauge Station included in his Report of September
2015 (Volume 166), the rainfall data for the period from 1979 to
2012 was examined by the Tribunal and a Statement was
prepared. The Table showing comparison of rainfall data in mm
and percentages in Reports of the witness of 2015 and 2017 was
prepared and the same was handed over to the witness and was
taken on record and marked as MARK-26. It was found by the
Tribunal that for Valpoi, the average value of monsoon rainfall
included in the Report of the witness of May 2017 (Volume 198)
was about 2% less than the average monsoon rainfall indicated in
his Report of September 2015 (Volume 166) and in several years,
 750

there were considerable variations ranging from 52% more to

28% less. For Ponda, it was found that the average value of
monsoon rainfall included in the Report of the witness of May
2017 (Volume 198) was about 3% more than the average
monsoon rainfall indicated in his Report of September 2015
(Volume 166), but, in many years, there were considerable
variations ranging from 70% more to 12% less. For Panjim, the
average value of monsoon rainfall included in the Report of the
witness of May 2017 (Volume 198) was about 3% less than the
average monsoon rainfall indicated in his Report of September
2015 (Volume 166). It was noticed by the Tribunal that in few
years, there were considerable variations ranging from 8% more
to 43% less. For Mapuca, the average value of monsoon rainfall
included in the Report of the witness of May 2017 (Volume 198)
was about 2% less than the average monsoon rainfall indicated in
his Report of September 2015 (Volume 166), and in few years,
there were considerable variations, ranging from 12% more to
45% less. For Sanguem, the average value of monsoon rainfall
included in the report of the witness of May 2017 (Volume 198)
was about 8% less than the average monsoon rainfall indicated in
his report of September 2015 (Volume 166), whereas in several
years, there were considerable variations ranging from 18% more
 751

to 50% less. For Khanapur, the average value of monsoon rainfall

included in the Report of the witness of May 2017 (Volume 198)
was found to be about 4% less than the average monsoon rainfall
indicated in his Report of September 2015 (Volume 166),
whereas in several years, there were considerable variations
ranging from 60% more to 33% less. For Kanakumbi, the average
value of monsoon rainfall included in the Report of the witness of
May 2017 (Volume 198) was about 11% less than the average
monsoon rainfall indicated in his Report of September 2015
(Volume 166), but in many years, there were considerable
variations ranging from 44% more to 44% less. For Jamagaon, the
average value of monsoon rainfall included in the Report of the
witness of May 2017 (Volume 198) was about 3% less than the
average monsoon rainfall indicated in his Report of September
2015 (Volume 166), but in many years, there were considerable
variations ranging from 56% more to 42% less. For Amagaon, the
average value of monsoon rainfall included in the Report of the
witness of May 2017 (Volume 198) was about 37% more than the
average monsoon rainfall indicated in his Report of September
2015 (Volume 166), whereas in most of the years, the rainfall
included in Volume 198 was relatively much higher than that
 752

mentioned in Volume 166 with maximum variation being of the

order of 130% for the year 1999.

For Castlerock, the average value of monsoon rainfall

included by the witness in his Report of May 2017 (Volume 198)
is about 60% more than the average monsoon rainfall indicated
in his Report of September 2015 and in most of the years, the
rainfall included in his Report of May 2017 is relatively much
higher than that indicated in his Report of September, 2015, with
maximum variation being of the order of 226% for the year 1982.

The Tribunal was of the prima facie opinion that the

variations in data of different rain-gauge Stations included by the
witness in his two Reports were erroneous, and therefore, a
question was put as to whether the witness had thoroughly
checked the data that was made available to him from time to
time and which had been used by him for his two Reports and
why such major variations were not noticed and/or ignored by
him. The answer of the witness was that he had thoroughly
checked all the values that had been used in his analysis of
May, 2017 and the variations between his Report of September,
2015 and Report of May, 2017, as depicted in MARK-26, were on
 753

account of the additional data, that was earlier missing and which
had become available from IMD. According to the witness the
other reason for these variations could have been the result of
the application of consistency check.

183. It was noticed by the Tribunal that rainfall data of the

rain-gauge station of Castlerock was used for assessment of yield
of Mahadayi basin in various Reports namely;
a. CWC Report of 2003 (Volume 15),
b. Report of Mr. Gosain of September 2015 (Volume 166), and
c. Report of Mr. Gosain of May 2017 Volume (198).

184. The rainfall data of the rain-gauge Station at

Castlerock was furnished to the witness by the State of
Karnataka, vide Volume 98 filed on 1.12.2014. On examination of
the above stated data the Tribunal had prepared a Table of
comparison of rainfall data of Castlerock in mm used for analysis
in different Reports and the said Table was given MARK-27, a
copy of which was handed over to the witness. A similar exercise
was undertaken by the Tribunal in case of Ponda, Mapuca,
Sanguem, Khanapur, Kankumbi, Jamagaon, Amagaon and
 754

Castlerock, and the variations found in Table MARK-26 were

pointed out to the witness.

The observed rainfall data as well as the processed rainfall

data of the rain-gauge Station at Castlerock as available in
different documents and Reports were examined by the Tribunal
and a Table of Comparison of Rainfall Data of Castlerock in mm,
used for Analysis in different Reports, was taken on record and
was marked as MARK-27. A copy of the aforesaid document was
also handed over to the witness. From MARK-27, it was evident
that Annexure V(xv), page 32 of CWC Report of 2003 provided
the observed rainfall data of IMD rain-gauge Station at Castlerock
for the period from 1964 to 2001 and it was found that the data
of three years, namely 1980, 1982 and 1987 were missing and
using the available data, the average monsoon rainfall of IMD
rain-gauge Station at Castlerock was found to be 2307 mm.
Similar such discrepancies found by the Tribunal, were brought to
the notice of the witness and it was put to the witness that: (i)
there are considerable considerable variations in the values of
rainfall data of rain-gauge station at Castlerock from one Report
to the other; (ii) the data were inconsistent; and (iii) the approach
 755

used for finalizing the data to be used for further analysis, was
not at all rationale.

It was further noticed by the Tribunal that no care had been

taken by the witness to verify whether the values of rainfall of
Castlerock furnished by the State of Karnataka were authentic,
correct and reliable, and therefore, he was called upon to offer
his response. In reply, the witness mentioned that variations in
the Comparison Table (MARK-27) are on account of the fact that
due to some reason the data of this Station was not consistent,
as it could be made out from the averages provided for various
periods as part ‘c’ of the question. The witness mentioned that
while preparing the September 2015 Report, since the decision
was taken to use the processed data prior to 2001, for all the
Stations, as was done in CWC (2003) Report, reprocessing of this
data would not have been meaningful. The witness stated that
while preparing the May 2017 study, re-processing of the whole
rainfall data sets with respect to infilling and consistency analysis
was done. According to the witness, as it can be observed from
column 4 of MARK-27, the data prior to 1981 was appreciably
different from the data after 1981, as has been indicated by the
averages of this period in the last two rows of column 4 of MARK-
 756

27. The witness informed the Tribunal that one could not afford
to make any corrections without doing the proper analysis, and it
was possible that all these years, before 1980, could have been
drought years, but such inference can only be drawn, by
performing consistency check, wherein the double mass curve is
plotted between the Station in question and a group of adjoining
Stations. The witness further asserted that it was through this
analysis that in his study of May 2017, this Station of Castlerock
was found to be violating the consistency, and correction for
consistency was made as per the details given in spread sheet
‘Consistency RF 1964-12’of Volume 199. The witness admitted
that there were variations of values in Castlerock from one
report to other, but there were reasons for the same, which have
been enumerated by him in his reply. The witness stated that the
data can be inconsistent in the raw form, but proper consistency
check had been applied and the consistency of the final
processed data had been ascertained. According to the witness,
the approach used for finalizing the data series for the Mahadayi
basin yield analysis was rational and every care had been taken
to ensure that he was using the most correct and reliable values.
This is the sum and substance of the evidence of Prof. A.K.
Gosain (RW-1).
 757

Oral evidence of RW-2 Shri A.K. Bajaj for the State of Karnataka

185. Having discussed the evidence of Professor A.K.

Gosain, the Tribunal feels it proper to discuss the evidence of
Shri A.K. Bajaj, RW-2, deposing as an expert witness on behalf of
the State of Karnataka on the subject of Hydrological Analysis of
the Diversions and Utilization by the Upstream States in
Mahadayi Basin.

186. Affidavit in evidence of Shri A.K. Bajaj, deposing as

an expert witness, on behalf of the State of Karnataka, was filed
on 30.12.2016 (Volume 194). In Para 1 of his Affidavit the
witness has referred to his educational qualifications, posts held
by him as well as his experience in the field.

187. In Paragraph 2 of his affidavit the witness has stated

that the Govt. of Karnataka through its Chief Engineer (ISW),
Water Resources Development Organization requested him to
carry out Hydrological Analysis of Diversion by the Upstream
States in Mahadayi Basin, which would also include a water
balance analysis in the context of trans-basin diversions of the
 758

Mahadayi waters to Malaprabha Reservoir and Kali Reservoir as

planned by the Govt. of Karnataka. The witness has proceeded
to state that he had gone through the complaints (the
complaints filed by three States to the Central Government),
amended Statement of Claims, submissions and other relevant
documents filed before the Tribunal by the three States of Goa,
Karnataka and Maharashtra, besides other related technical
reports and available data, and after studying these submissions
and other materials, he had prepared his study titled
‘Hydrological Analysis of Diversions and Utilizations by Upstream
States in Mahadayi Basin which was annexed by him to his
affidavit as Annexure-A (colly). In Paragraph 4 of his affidavit the
witness has mentioned conclusions of his Analysis as under:

“(i) There is a large quantity of water in Mahadayi

Basin as estimated at around 200 TMC by both the
CWC and Prof. A.K. Gosain of IIT Delhi. Out of this
water, the present utilisations of Goa are only 9.395
TMC and the planned utilisations being only 38.53
TMC inclusive of the present utilisations (Reply of
Goa to interrogatories of Maharashtra and
Karnataka at Volumes 102 and 103).

(ii) Even after considering Maharashtra’s

proposed diversion of 180 Mcum (6.35 TMC), the
diversions and utilisations claimed by Karnataka are
 759

not incompatible with the planned utilisations by

Goa, in particular the 10 projects in Goa (namely
Sonal , Surla, Surla II, Derode I, Mandovi Nanoda,
Surla III, Kharmol, Mayada, Khadki weir and Ganjim
weir) which are in the shared catchment for
utilisation of 10.59 TMC are not likely to suffer
hydrologically.

(iii) As against the originally estimated inflows

which were the basis for the planning of both
Malaprabha Reservoir and Supa Reservoir across
Kali river, they have suffered acute shortage of
inflows as discussed above and therefore
augmentation of inflows into these reservoirs from
Mahadayi which is in surplus as discussed above
becomes necessary in the larger interests of the
inhabitants of the State of Karnataka.

(iv) The non-utilisation by Karnataka or

Maharashtra as planned would only result in surplus
going to sea.

(v) The maintenance of natural equilibrium of

Mahadayi River in Goa would be wholly
inconsistent with the principles of water utilisation
and management of the Mahadayi basin.”

188. In Para 1 of Hydrological Analysis, the witness has

mentioned about scope of the study, whereas in Paragraph 2 of
Hydrological Analysis, the witness has mentioned about
Hydrology of Mahadayi Basin. According to the witness in March
 760

2003, CWC had done an estimation of the total water availability

in the Basin and this estimation made by CWC was based on the
regression analysis developed from the gauge data at Ganjim G
& D site maintained by CWC (in the territory of State of Goa) for
the years 1979-80 to 1997-98; and the rainfall data available with
the Indian Meteorological Department, and according to this
study, the total available water in the Basin as a whole was:

(i) 5652 Mcum (199.6 tmc) at 75% dependability; and

(ii) 6234 Mcum (220 tmc) at 50% dependability.

189. The witness further stated that Professor Ashwani

Kumar Gosain of IIT, Delhi had also estimated the yield in
Mahadayi Basin and his study shows that 5838 Mcum (206.14
tmc) was available at 75% dependability and 6321 Mcum (223.20
tmc) was available at 50% dependability. The witness has
mentioned that in the CWC study, non-monsoon flows were
about 2.67% of the gross monsoon flows which came to about
147.50 Mcum (5.21 tmc) and 162 Mcum (5.72 tmc)
corresponding to 75% and 50% dependable flows respectively.
The witness pointed out that Govt. of Karnataka has planned
diversion of 7.56 tmc from the monsoon flows to Malaprabha
 761

Dam for meeting drinking water and other needs of that area,
and besides, at Kotni reservoir, as per the study done on yield
figures from 1980 to 2009, the surplus water available is varying
from nil in some years to 23.787 tmc. The witness informed in
his affidavit that, out of this surplus water, the State of Karnataka
had planned to divert about 7 tmc of water by using carryover
capacity of Malaprabha reservoir during the monsoon months
for meeting the agricultural and drinking water needs in the
drought prone areas of the Malaprabha command and adjoining
areas and that in addition, 5.527 tmc is planned to be diverted
to the Kali Basin. The witness further informed in his affidavit
that Karnataka is proposing to consumptively utilize, a total of
24.15 tmc from the Mahadayi Basin, which inter-alia includes
in-basin utilisations, evaporation losses etc. in addition to afore-
stated diversions.

190. In Paragraph 5 of his Hydrological Analysis, the

witness has mentioned that there were no measurements at the
Malaprabha Dam site during the planning stage in 1970 when,
the project was being formulated, and the yield at the dam site
was estimated on the basis of 30 years rainfall records and
gauge data of 12 years of a downstream site (Kolchi Weir). The
 762

witness has stated that this was cross verified by using isohyetal
methods, and on the basis of records of hydrologically similar
catchments. The witness, in clear terms, has stated that the yield
at 75% dependability, on the basis of rainfall record, was
adopted as 47.25 tmc, but during the performance of the
project after construction, the inflows started to be recorded
giving yield figures at the dam site, and the yield on the basis of
the measured series of the 34 years for the period from 1972-73
to 2005-2006, at 75% dependability was 26.76 tmc only. The
witness has proceeded to state in his hydrological analysis that,
thus, the project report which contemplated an utilization of 44
tmc had to be modified for the revised actual water available and
the report titled “Modified Detailed Project Report of
Malaprabha Project” was prepared by the office of the Chief
Engineer, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., in the year 2009, for
utilization of 27 tmc.

191. The witness has mentioned in his hydrological analysis

that the revised DPR of Malaprabha Project of 2009 was posed
to the CWC and the Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India
for clearance, and in the 100th meeting of the Advisory
Committee of Ministry of Water Resources, held on 9.10.2009,
 763

the Malaprabha DPR 2009 was considered and was accepted. By

stating the above facts the witness has attempted to show that
Malaprabha Reservoir is a deficit reservoir.

192. In Paragraph 8 of his hydrological analysis, the

witness has referred to hydrology of Kali Reservoir and has
mentioned that the catchment area at Supa Dam site across river
Kali, which is a west flowing river, is 408 sq. miles (1057
sq.km.), and the average yield estimated on the basis of rainfall
was 119.84 tmc (3394 Mcum). According to the witness the
construction of the project was started in 1971 and was
completed in 1987 and the gross storage capacity at full reservoir
level and maximum water level is 147.54 tmc (4178 Mcum =
5605 Meters and 151.96 tmc (4303 Mcum), respectively,
whereas the live storage capacity is 132.73 tmc (3758.4 Mcum).
The witness has stated in his analysis that the main components
of the project are the Supa Dam with a designed capacity of
147.54 tmc and a power house for hydel generation, and as in
the case of Malaprabha Dam, the water yield at the time of
planning the project was over-estimated, and the Supa Dam was
filled only twice out of 29 years i.e. in 1994 and in 2006, since
the start of filling in 1984. The witness has mentioned that the
 764

recorded average yield is only 95.66 tmc, whereas the power

potential with the originally estimated yield and storage created
in the Supa Dam was 1255 Mw with a head of 488 Mtrs. The
witness claimed in his analysis that the maximum annual energy
that could be generated is 5605 Mu, but due to shortage of yield,
the average annual energy generated is of the order of 3600 Mu
only, by the planned diversion of water from Malaprabha Basin
to Kali Dam, and the total generation could be augmented by
182 Mu.

193. In Paragraph 9 of his aforesaid analysis, the witness

has dealt with the water needs as claimed by three co-basin
States of Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra, and stated that Kalasa
Project Report of 2000 as well as the revised Report of 2010,
and Bhandura project report of 2000 and revised report of 2012,
indicate that the Government of Karnataka had planned the
diversion of about 7.56 tmc of waters from the monsoon flows of
River Mahadayi to the Malaprabha sub-basin of the Krishna
basin for meeting the drinking water requirements of the twin
city of Hubli-Dharwad, which has the highest priority amongst
the uses of water, as per the National Water Policy. What is
emphasized by the witness is that the Govt. of Karnataka, in its
 765

amended Statement of Claims dated 17.4.2015, has also

mentioned that it had plans to divert some of the monsoon
flows of the Mahadayi to the Kali River for augmenting the
generation of electricity under the existing Kalinadi Hydro Power
Project. The witness has further mentioned that Karnataka Govt.
had also proposed a run-of-the-river scheme on the main river
Mahadayi for power generation which would not entail any
consumptive use of water. It is also mentioned by the witness
that besides this, at Kotni Reservoir, the surplus water varying
from nil in some years to 23.787 tmc is available, and out of this
surplus water, the State of Karnataka had planned to divert
about 7 tmc of water to Malaprabha Reservoir for meeting the
agricultural and drinking water needs, in the drought prone
areas.

194. In Paragraph 10 of his analysis the witness has

mentioned about water needs, as claimed by Goa. According to
the witness the State of Goa in its amended Statement of Claims
dated 23.04.2015 has submitted its long term needs in the
Mahadayi river basin, and in Para 189, the State of Goa has listed
the water requirement upto 2051 AD, which are: (a) Domestic
water supply 208 Mcum; (b) Industrial Water Supply 208 Mcum;
 766

( c) Irrigation 2050 Mcum (d) Salinity Control 158 Mcum

and (e ) Forest Management 50 Mcum, totalling 2674 Mcum
by 2051 AD which is equal to 94.4 tmc, but the Govt. of Goa has
submitted the project report/preliminary reports in respect of
63 projects in answer given to the interrogatories issued by the
States of Karnataka and Maharashtra. The witness proceed to
state that the total water requirement for these projects added
upto only 37.22 tmc as per Annexure 1-1 of Volume 102 and
38.53 tmc, as per the so titled ‘Detailed Project Reports’ of 63
projects, and lift irrigation schemes, bhandhuras, tanks, drinking
water requirement and industrial use. According to the witness,
out of these 63 projects only 18 projects for utilization of 17.04
tmc fell in the shared catchment of the Mahadayi basin and even
out of these 18 projects only 8 projects are on streams, where
Karnataka has not proposed any of its projects, which are: (1)
Kodal HEP; (2) Golali; (3) Iverkhud; (4) Ragada II; (5) Avarda; (6)
Nandran; (7) Derode II; and (8) Khandepar.

195. According to the witness, the utilization by Goa from

the balance 10 projects in the shared catchment would be only
10.59 tmc. It has been stated that out of the 10 projects in the
shared catchment, only 7 projects were upto Ganjim and the
 767

utilisation from these would be only 8.14 tmc and the remaining
53 projects fell in the catchment of Mahadayi, which would not
depend on the flows coming from Karnataka.

196. The witness has emphasized that the Mahadayi River

has little utilization, and at the present, utilisation in Goa is
9.395 tmc, whereas at the present, utilisation in Karnataka and
Maharashtra was negligible, and therefore the entire water of
199.6 tmc at 75% dependability, excluding 9.395 TMC of the
present utilisation by the Goa is going unused to Sea. What is
emphasized is that wastage to Sea has not found favour with
Krishna Narmada Tribunals in the past, and even the public
policy of India is to avoid wastage.

197. In Para 11 of his hydrological analysis, the witness has

mentioned about plan of the State of Maharashtra at the Virdi
Project and several other projects. According to the witness the
requirements of the State of Maharashtra are: Irrigation, 132.27
Mcum, Drinking Water needs, 3.65 Mcum (1.65 M.cum in
Mandovi Basin + 2.0 Mcum in Tillari basin), Industrial Water
Supply 2.10 Mcum and provision for future development 25.0
Mcum and Evaporation losses 16.30 Mcum, totalling 179.32
 768

Mcum which is equal to 6.35 tmc. It is also mentioned by the

witness that Maharashtra, has so far filed information on 4
projects and one DPR of Virdi Project, which proposes utilisation
of only 43.396 Mcum.

198. In Para 12 of his hydrological analysis, the witness has

referred to Water Balance Analysis and stated that even if one
takes the entire claim made by the State of Goa at its face value,
the total water claims of the three States of Goa, Maharashtra
and Karnataka add upto 124.90 tmc annually, but the available
water as estimated by CWC in Mahadayi basin is much larger
being 199.60 tmc annually at 75% dependability and 220 tmc
annually at 50% dependability. According to the witness, even if
the yield of 199.60 tmc at 75% dependability is considered, there
will be a surplus water of 74.70 tmc annually, and therefore, the
claims of the three riparian States of Goa, Maharashtra and
Karnataka are not incompatible to each other, and there is
enough surplus water and potential in Mahadayi basin for all the
co-basin States.

199. This witness was cross- examined at length by the

learned counsel for the State of Goa, and was also put several
 769

questions by the Tribunal, for eliciting the information relating

to availability of water. Therefore, the Tribunal propose to deal
with only relevant questions put to the witness and answers
given to those questions by him. A question was put to the
witness by the learned counsel for the State of Goa as to what
are the upper and lower limits of run off factor, for the
catchment upto Ganjim, beyond which the data for that year
would be considered as an outlier.

The answer given by the witness was that there can be no

specific two values of upper and lower limits of runoff factors,
which can be termed as outlier, and this depends upon the
judgment of the Hydrologist carrying out the study, and the final
data set arrived at, before deciding the regression equation. The
witness categorically stated that he was not aware of the values
which were treated as outlier by the Hydrologists, carrying out
the study. It was put to the witness by the Tribunal that if he was
not knowing even the data details which Prof. Gosain had used
in his studies/Report, or even CWC used in 2003 Report, then
how and on what basis and on which principles he had agreed
with the Report of the study conducted by Prof. Gosain and/or
the CWC (2003) Report.
 770

The response of the witness was that he had gone through

the CWC (2003) Report, and examined the data available therein,
and the procedure used in calculating the yield. According to the
witness the Report contained all material data relevant for the
study, but they did not contain some of the minor details like
the specific values of runoff factor etc., but the general contents
of the Report were to his satisfaction, and it is for this reason that
he had taken the values of yield derived in the study.

200. The witness was asked as to whether he was able to

show the learned cross-examiner of the State of Goa from his
Report or from his affidavit, having stated that the environmental
studies should be first conducted or that the necessary
permission and clearances ought to be first secured and if not,
would it not mean that the support the witness proposed to lend
to the projects of the State of Karnataka, proposed in the midst
of Western Ghats, would be undermining the implication and the
likely adverse effects on the ecological system.

The answer given by the witness was that he had not talked
about the environmental clearances required, or even other
clearances required, before taking up these projects. The witness
 771

stated that this was a standard requirement with Government of

Karnataka, taking the clearances in the course of proceedings,
and going ahead with the construction of these projects. The
witness mentioned that his study is regarding the available
water being sufficient to meet the requirements of the three
States, and is not in support of any specific project. The witness
clarified that whether the project proposed to be undertaken by
the Government of Karnataka would or would not, and how
much it would affect the environment, can only be determined
by carrying out a proper Environmental Impact Assessment of the
project proposed. The witness proceeded to state that he
presumed that proper process of obtaining all clearances from
various agencies of the Govt. of Karnataka for the project to be
undertaken, would have been taken.

201. In his affidavit in evidence, as well as in his Report

dated 30.12.2016 (Volume 194), Page 14, Para 9, the witness has
stated that as per the National Water Policy, the drinking water
needs has the highest priority, and similarly in answer to
Question No.74, the witness has stated that drinking water needs
have the highest priority as per the National Water Policy.
Attention of the witness was drawn to Volume 33 (B), i.e
 772

Modified Detailed Project Report of Malaprabha Project

submitted by the State of Karnataka on 18.3.2013, more
particularly, at Page 17, wherein allocation is made for water
supply and for industrial purpose as per the revised Project
Report. Having drawn the attention to the above stated facts,
the learned cross-examiner deduced that it was evident that as
per the revised Project Report, the total allocation of water for
industrial and drinking water taken together was 0.216 tmc, and
a question was put to the witness as to whether this allocation of
only 0.216 tmc, was in accordance with the National Water
Policy, which the witness had claimed giving highest priority to
the drinking water.

The answer given by the witness was that at the time of

preparing a revised Project Report of an already ongoing
project, generally the existing usages have to be protected and
it is probably on this basis that the allocation have been
apportioned. The witness categorically admitted that he was not
in a position to say as to why or what were the conditions in the
command areas due to which, the Govt. of Karnataka has given
the quantities for the purpose as mentioned in Volume 33 (B) at
 773

Page 17, and he was not in a position to say whether the

allocations were justified or not.

202. The attention of the witness was drawn to the

following facts, by the learned Cross-examiner of the State of
Goa:
(a) At the time of initial estimation of yield in the
Malaprabha Reservoir, cultivation of sugar crop, was on the
rise in the Northern Karnataka Region. In Volume No. 86
which are answers on behalf of the State of Karnataka to
the interrogatories of State of Goa, at Annexure-1 thereof
at Page 11, the State of Karnataka has given the figures of
area irrigated under Malaprabha Reservoir from 1979-80 to
2012-13. At Col. 1 in Sl. No.1, the figure for 1979-80 for
sugarcane crop is 224 Ha., but, for the year 2009-10, the
sugarcane cultivation figure has risen upto 3038 Ha. and in
the years 2010-11, it has gone upto 3421 Ha.
(b) The figures given by the office of the Cane
Development Commissioner and Director of Sugar are
reflected in Annexure 2 at Sl. No.3 at Page 12 of Volume 86.
The sugarcane demarcated/allocated, Taluka-wise/District
wise for sugarcane development for each of the existing
 774

and proposed sugarcane factories in command of

Malaprabha Reservoir are given vide Annexure-1 and
Annexure-2 thereof, at Page 13 of the said document,
namely, Volume 86. In respect of the five factories the
area allocated for sugarcane development of the existing
factories works out to 24827 Ha., and in the Table on the
same page, another five proposed sugarcane factories are
reflected.
(c) The modified DPR of Malaprbha Project [Volume
33(B)] there is no whisper about sugar cultivation or the
area allocated for the same, but in his Report annexed to
the affidavit dated 30.12.2016 (Volume 194), the witness
has dealt at Page 11 therein with the hydrology of
Malaprabha Reservoir and that the witness had
deliberately avoided any reference to Malaprabha Basin as
such or its tributaries.
(d) In Para 7 of his Report on Page 12, the witness had
concluded, based on the revised DPR of 2009, that
Malaprabha Reservoir is a deficit reservoir.

After pointing out the above mentioned facts to the

witness, the learned Cross-examiner had put questions as to why
 775

the witness had, instead and in place of dealing with Malaprabha

Basin and its tributaries dealt with only the reservoir,
conveniently leaving out a large portion to the extent of 80% of
the water in the Malaprabha basin. The witness was also asked
as to why he had not dealt with or addressed the issue of large
scale untamed and uncontrolled rise in sugarcane cultivation,
which consumes the water from the Malaprabha reservoir in his
Report, and whether the Witness had, before undertaking or
carrying out the study which had culminated in the Report,
undertaken an enquiry as regards 2009 modified DPR vis-à-vis the
answer given in Vol.86 by the State of Karnataka, which display
figures from 224 Ha. in 1979-80 to 3038 Ha. in 2009-10, as also
the other figure of 24827 Ha. as mentioned earlier.

In answer to the said question, the witness stated that he

had dealt with the water available in the Malaprabha Dam
Reservoir, as this was the utilisable water, and for harnessing the
water flowing in the rest of the basin, proper infrastructure
would have to be provided. According to the witness he was
discussing the limited issue of reduction in the flows to the
reservoir in his Report and not the cropping pattern in the
 776

command, and as such he had not addressed the issue of

cultivation of sugarcane in the command, in his Report.

The witness candidly admitted that he had not undertaken

the detailed study of sugarcane figures ranging from 224 Ha. In
1979-80 to 3038 Ha. In 2009-10 or the worked out figure of
24827 Ha mentioned by the Cane Development Commissioner
allocated to the five factories.

203. The witness was made aware of the fact by the

learned cross-examiner that the total catchment area of
Malaprabha Basin is 11549 sq.km., whereas the total catchment
area of Malaprabha Dam Reservoir is only 2204 sq.km. and from
the perusal of his Report, it appeared that he had restricted his
study to only Malaprabha Dam Reservoir, catchment of which
constituted approximately 20% of the total catchment area of
Malaprabha basin. Having been so aware about the ratio of
catchment area of Malaprabha Dam Reservoir, question was put
to the witness as to why he had restricted his study to only
Malaprabha Dam Reservoir and not extended it to the whole of
the basin.
 777

In answer, the witness stated that he had considered the

water availability upto the Malaprabha Dam site only, as this was
the utilisable water available to the Project Authorities for
meeting the various requirements in the command of
Malaprabha Project, and for meeting the drinking water
requirements being fed from the reservoir. The witness
mentioned that he did not consider the water available in the
balance Malaprabha basin, as, in order to utilise the water
available in the balance catchment, further infrastructure
projects would have to be taken up.

204. In view of the above stated answer, a question was

put to the witness as to whether he meant that based on his
Report dated 30.12.2016, it could not be deduced or found out
as to whether the Malaprabha basin, as a whole, is deficient
basin or not and the witness answered that it was correct.

205. The attention of the witness was drawn to the

document MARK-GOA/12, which was the interview given by the
witness, and more particularly to a question and an answer
 778

given by the witness to the said question. The aforesaid

question and answer from the interview were reproduced:

“Give an insight into the CAD&WM programme

launched by the Government.

Government of India has launched the Command Area

Development and Water Management (CAD&WM)
programme with the objective of developing the last
mile irrigation infrastructure for delivering the water
to the fields. This addresses the issue of micro level
infrastructure development and efficient water
management at the farm level. The programme also
includes actions required for correction of system
deficiencies besides the development and management
activities below the outlet. Efficient water
management cannot be achieved unless the
infrastructure for water conveyance and delivery
system is in good condition to retain its operational
efficiency”.

206. Thereafter a question was put to the witness to the

effect that whether from his report dated 30.12.2016 (Volume
194), he was in a position to show that before commenting on
the fact that Malaprabha reservoir is a deficit reservoir, all the
requirements for correction of the system for efficient water
management had been carried out by the State of Karnataka,
with respect to the infrastructure for water conveyance.
 779

The answer given by the witness was that he was not in a

position to show from his Report dated 31.12.2016 whether
before commenting on the fact that Malaprabha Reservoir is a
deficient Reservoir, all the requirements for correction of the
system for efficient water management had been carried out by
the State of Karnataka with respect to the infrastructure for
water conveyance.

207. It was brought to the notice of the witness that the

total catchment area of Kali Basin is 4843.3 sq.km., whereas the
total catchment area of Supa Dam Reservoir is only 1056.72 sq.
km. but from the perusal of his Report it appeared that he had
restricted his study to only Supa Dam Reservoir, catchment of
which constituted approximately 25% of the total catchment
area of Kali Basin, and therefore, a question was put to the
witness as to what was the reason to restrict his study, only to
Supa Dam reservoir and not to extend it to the whole of the
basin.
The answer given by the witness was that it was correct
that he had considered the catchment up to the Supa Dam
Project site only, as it was the only water that is utilisable for
generating power.
 780

208. Another question that was put by the learned counsel

for the State of Goa was that based on his Report dated
31.12.2016, it could not be deduced or found out as to whether
Kali Basin as a whole was a deficit basin or not and the response
given by the witness was that he agreed that based on his report
dated 31.12.2016, it could not be deduced or found out as to
whether Kali Basin as a whole, was deficit basin or not.

209. The learned Cross-examiner wanted to know from

the witness as to whether he had personally verified and
checked the facts and figures, data and its application, as well as
the choice of rainfall stations and the Thiessen Polygon done in
the Report dated 12th September 2015, by Prof. A. K. Gosain,
(Volume 166), before agreeing with the same, and if not, why
had he not done so when he was knowing that his report would
be presented as evidence by one of the parties to the dispute
before the Tribunal. In response, the witness stated that he had
not done a detailed analysis of Professor Gosain’s Report
regarding the facts and figures, data and its application, as well
as the choice of rainfall stations, and the Theissen Polygon done
in the Report. The witness however, claimed that he had
verified the contents and facts and noticed that it was basically
 781

an extension, with subsequent data, of the CWC (2003) Report,

and the final yield figures were also more or less matching with
the results of the CWC (2003) Report.

210. The witness was informed by the learned cross

examiner that there were two major tributaries on the right
bank of Malaprabha River i.e. Joul Nala and Bennehalla Nalla and
that Joul Nalla has a catchment area of 224 sq.km., whereas the
Bennehalla Nalla had a catchment area of around 5048 sq.km.,
which is more than twice the entire Mahadayi basin area, and a
proposal to utilise the water of Bennehalla Nalla was prepared
by Shri Sudheer Sajjan, who is/was an Engineer with the Water
Resources Department of Government of Karnataka and that
while answering a question put by the Tribunal he had admitted
that he had been provided with the Report submitted by Shri
Chetan Pandit, the expert witness for the State of Goa. It was
further brought to the notice of the witness that in his proposal
Mr. Sajjan had estimated the yield of Bennehalla Nala as 10.92
tmc on 75% dependability of which, as per the same proposal,
hardly 1.5 tmc had been put to use. Having pointed out the
above stated relevant facts, the witness was asked as to why in
his Report, while considering the availability of water for
 782

Malaprabha Reservoir, he had not considered this important

aspect. The witness responded that the document Annexure-D
at Page 146 of Volume 192 of Additional Affidavit of Examination-
in-Chief, Shri Chetan Pandit was mentioned as a Flood Control
Scheme, and as such he did not consider it for the purpose of
water availability. He further stated that he was not in a
position to say as to whether it was technically feasible or not
to divert this water to the Malaprbha Reservoir.

211. It was brought to the notice of the witness by the

learned counsel for the State of Goa that Annexure-D
mentioned in Question No.108 dealt with, and was cited as
“Flood Control and Utilization of Water in Bennehalla Basin – a
Scientific Proposal”, and that the very first line mentions
Bennehalla Basin is the biggest tributary of the Malaprabha river.
Therefore, it was put to the witness that Annexure-D was not a
Flood Control document, as mentioned by the witness, but
indeed it spoke of utilization of water also. The cross-examiner
put to the witness that he had not considered this important
document annexed to the Affidavit of Shri Chetan Pndit, wherein
the study made, an attempt to propose a major diversion
scheme for its utilisation, and that having not adverted to this
 783

important document, which would have thrown much light on

the reasons for the deficiency of water, if any, in Malaprabha
reservoir, as well as the remedy which was available within the
Malaprabha basin, the report of the witness fell short of the
required level of a study to be presented as an expert evidence
before the Tribunal and his response was sought.

In answer thereto, the witness stated that there was no

techno-economical feasibility study for diversion of this water
from Bennihalla tributary and it was for this reason that he had
not included in his study the possibility of whether or not this
quantity of water or any lesser quantity therefrom, could be
diverted to the Malaprabha Reservoir. The witness further
explained that it is definitely possible to divert water from both
the sources, the present proposal of Govt. of Karnataka from
Mahadayi, as well as from Behhihalla, after making a detailed
study and D.P.R. for this diversion.

212. In view of the above stated answers given by the

witness it was noticed by the Tribunal that while answering
Question No. 108 put to the witness by the learned cross-
examiner for the State of Goa, the witness had stated that the
 784

document Annexure-D at Page 146 of Volume 192 was

mentioned as a Flood Control Scheme, and as such he had not
considered it for the purpose of its water availability, whereas
while answering Question No. 109, the witness had attempted
to provide some other justification for ruling out the said
document. The Tribunal had, therefore, put to the witness that
once as admitted by him earlier, he had even chosen not to take
into consideration the said document, the question of providing
some other justifications for not considering the same as being
not the proper solution to the problem posed a question would
not even arise and, therefore, the witness was required to offer
his explanation. The witness gave following reply:

“I wish to apologize if answers to the two questions

are contradictory to each other and seek indulgence
of the Hon’ble Tribunal”.

213. The attention of the witness was drawn to document

MARK-GOA/12 i.e. his own interview and the question and
answer to the said question at Page 1 wherein the witness had
stated that “few large rivers like Brahmaputra and Ganga
(particularly their northern tributaries), Mahanadi, Godavari and
rivers originating from the Western Ghat, have been found to be
 785

surplus in water resources. India can capitalise on the surplus

water by diverting water from these rivers to other parts of the
country which are deficient in water. This will help to reduce the
regional imbalance and benefit will accrue in terms of additional
water for irrigation, domestic and industrial water supply, hydro
power generation and navigational facilities. A Master Plan for
this has been prepared after a proper technical examination
under the overall scheme of inter linking of rivers.” Having
brought necessary facts to the notice of the witness, the learned
Cross-examiner put it to the witness as to why river Mahadayi,
though originating from Western Ghats, has not been mentioned
therein to be a river of surplus in water resources, and further
whether a technical examination of the diversion of waters of
Mahadayi outside the basin being carried out by any Central
Agency, namely, NWDA, Planning Commission or Ministry of
Water Resources.

The response given by the witness was that during his

aforesaid interview, he had mentioned a few rivers like
Brahmaputra, Ganga, Godavari, Mahanadi and a general term
“rivers of Western Ghats” as an example of some of the rivers
with surplus water. According to the witness as it was not an
 786

exhaustive list of the rivers having surplus waters, the name of

Mahadayi was not appearing in his aforesaid answer in the
interview. The witness further stated that he was not in a
position to say as to whether any Central Agency, named in the
question, had carried out any proper technical examination of
the water diversion of waters of Mahadayi outside the basin.

214. After the cross-examination of the witness by the

learned counsel for the State of Goa was over, Shri D.M.
Nargolkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra was
requested to examine the witness, but he stated that he had no
questions to ask this witness. Shri Brijesh Kalappa, the learned
counsel for the State of Karnataka also stated that no opportunity
for any re-examination of the witness was required.

215. Thereafter the Tribunal had put certain questions to

the witness, to elicit best information relating to the availability
of water in Mahadayi Basin. It was brought to the notice of the
witness by the Tribunal by putting Question No.6 that the
contents of Para 4 on Pages 9-10 of his affidavit are based on
the information and data included in the Statement of Claims of
the State of Karnataka, and other related documents filed by the
 787

State of Karnataka, from time to time. Therefore, the witness

was asked as to whether he had undertaken any studies with
additional data and information to review, and/or update the
findings of earlier studies and if so, the results thereof. The
witness stated that that the Govt. of Karnataka had planned
diversion of 7.56 tmc from the monsoon flows to Malaprabha
Dam for meeting drinking water and other needs of that area and
the witness was required to inform the Tribunal regarding:

(i) The quantum of water planned to be utilized for

drinking purpose; and
(ii) The quantum of water planned to be utilized for
meeting other needs and to clearly specify the various
needs and water planned to be used for each and
specific needs.

216. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the witness had

mentioned that at Kotni Reservoir, as per the study done on yield
figure from 1980 to 2009, the surplus water available was varying
from nil in some years to 23.78 tmc, and therefore, a question
was put to the witness as to which was the said study and
whether it is on record of this case or is it reflected in a study and
 788

why the data after the year 2009 had not been used to update
this study.

217. It was also noticed that the witness had stated that
Karnataka was proposing to consumptively utilise a total of 24.15
tmc from the Mahadayi basin, which inter alia includes in-basin
utilisation, evaporation losses etc. in addition to diversions.
Therefore, the witness was required to inform the Tribunal
about complete break-up of 24.15 tmc of water including (i)
Quantum of water proposed to be diverted out of Mahadayi
basin for irrigation; (ii) Quantum of water proposed to be
diverted out of Mahadayi basin for irrigation (iii) Quantum of
water proposed to be diverted out of Mahadayi basin for hydro-
power generation; (iv) Quantum of water proposed to be
diverted out of Mahadayi basin for any other purpose; (v)
Quantum of water to be used within Mahadayi basin for drinking
purposes; (vi) Quantum of water to be used within Mahadayi
basin for irrigation; (vii) Quantum of water to be used within
Mahadayi basin for hydro-power generation; (viii) Quantum of
water to be used within Mahadayi basin for any other purpose;
(ix) Quantum of water earmarked towards evaporation from
 789

reservoir; (x) Quantum of water earmarked for any other losses

through the planned projects.

The response given by the witness was that he had not

undertaken any study with additional data in order to review
and/or update the findings of earlier studies. The witness
expressed his inability to give a specific break up of the diversion
of 7.56 tmc for drinking water purposes and for meeting other
needs. The witness stated that as per the proposal of Govt. of
Karnataka, the quantity of water is proposed to be transferred to
Malaprabha Dam to augment the water availability and then
the utilisation will be according to various needs. The witness
further mentioned that water is planned to be used for
augmenting water supply to the twin city of Hubli-Dharwad and
some other nearby areas which are not being provided with
water from the Dam, and there is also a reference to some small
quantities of water being utilized for irrigation also. The witness
stated that he was not in a position to say as to why the data
after 2009 had not been used to update his study and that he
was not aware of the detailed break-up of 24.15 tmc uses
referred to in Question.
 790

218. The attention of the witness was drawn to Para 14

on Page 10 of his affidavit, as well as Para 13.2 on Page 93 of the
amended Statement of Claims by the State of Karnataka (Volume
129). It was also brought to the notice of the witness that the
availability of water at (i) Bhandura Dam site and (ii) Kalasa
Dam site, including portion of Haltara Nalla and Surla Nalla had
been assessed by Prof. A.K. Gosain, expert witness of the State
of Karnataka in his Report of November 2016 (Volume 193), and
relevant information in respect of Bhandura Dam site were culled
out from Table 4 at Page 15, Volume 193 and water availability
at 75% dependability was computed by the Tribunal, and the
witness was confronted with the results thereof.

219. It was brought to the notice of the witness that the

available water at Bhandura Dam site at 75% dependability,
assessed by Prof. Gosain, was only 3.675 tmc, against the
proposal of diverting 4 tmc from Bhandura Dam site, and thus
the diversion of 4 tmc from Bhandura Dam site was not feasible,
and as a result, the proposal for diversion of 7.56 tmc from
Kalasa Nalla diversion and Bhandura Nalla, taken together
would also be not feasible. It was noticed by the Tribunal that
Shri Chetan Pandit, an expert witness of the State of Goa had
 791

also assessed the water availability at 75% dependability at

Bhandura Dam site and Kalasa Nalla site and were indicated as
1.4961 tmc and 1.9767 tmc, respectively, in Table 1 at Page 4 of
the additional affidavit of Shri Chetan Pandit (Volume 196). It
was further noticed by the Tribunal that the quantum of water
available for diversion would get further reduced after taking into
consideration the demand of water, for various purposes and
mandatory environmental requirements, particularly by those
for Karnataka region in the down stream reaches of proposed
Kalasa Dam, Haltara Dam and Bhandura Dam. Under the
circumstances the witness was called upon by the Tribunal to
inform as to whether he was endorsing a proposal which was
apparently not feasible in its present form.

The answer given by the witness was that the earlier

studies conducted by the Govt. of Karnataka did not indicate 4
tmc of water available for diversion at Bhandura pick up point,
but the studies by Professor Gosain indicated the lesser amount
of water of 3.675 tmc at Bhandura Dam site and this meant that
the dependability of the proposal would reduce from 75% to a
lesser percentage of 70%, as indicated in the Table 4 referred to
in the question. The witness further stated that regarding the
 792

diversion of 3.56 tmc from Haltara Kalasa sites, the water

availability figure as per the Table No.4 was indicated as 3.8 tmc
at 75% dependability, whereas regarding the figures of water
availability worked out in the Report of Shri Chetan Pandit, he
had not taken those figures into consideration, as the Report
suffered from some inconsistencies and the figures were not
reliable. The witness also explained that the mandatory releases
for environmental requirements and various other purposes, if
any, would have to be made at the time of operation of these
projects and these releases would further reduce the water
available for diversion from the Bhandura point.

220. Further, the attention of the witness was drawn to

Para 5 on Page 11 of his affidavit wherein he has stated that
initially the yield of Malaprabha Reservoir was estimated to be
47.25 tmc at 75% dependability on the basis of observed gauge
data of 12 years at Kolichi Weir site and 30 years of rainfall, and
after cross verification with the records of hydrologically similar
basin, the figure of 47.25 tmc was adopted. However, it was
also noticed by the Tribunal that in Para 6 at Page 11, the
witness has stated that the yield on the basis of measured series
of 34 years for the period from 1972-73 to 2005-06 at 75%
 793

dependability, was 26.76 tmc only, and thus the estimated yield
of 47.25 tmc at the time of planning was on a very high side.
The Tribunal was of a prima facie view that these two figures did
not match and therefore there was an error somewhere in the
assessment. Under the circumstances a question was put to the
witness as to whether he had examined as to what led to such
erroneous assessment and what measures he would suggest for
ensuring that such errors are avoided during the course of
planning in future.

The witness responded that, he did not feel that the

hydrology of the project, as worked out in the earlier Project
Report as 47.25 tmc, was erroneous and hydrology was based on
the available hydrological data and was checked by CWC before
approval being granted by the Planning Commission to the
Project Report in 1963. According to the witness the figure of
26.76 tmc in the revised DPR was on the basis of annual inflows
into the reservoir from 1972-73 to 2005-06. The witness further
mentioned that hydrology of any proposed project, to be taken
up in future, should be done only after long term data is
available, which could avoid such type of over or under
estimation, besides observing due care in processing of the data.
 794

221. The attention of the witness was drawn to what he

had stated in Para 8 on Page 13 of his affidavit and it was
pointed out to him that the information included in the said Para
was limited to average yield and no information related to yield
at 75% dependability, was provided. Similarly, it was brought to
the notice of the witness that he had not provided any
information relating to yield at 90% dependability which is
generally taken into consideration while planning hydropower
projects. Under the circumstances, three questions were put to
the witness, namely: (a) as to why the live storage capacity of
132.73 tmc i.e. about 10% more than the then assessed average
yield of 119.84 tmc at the Project site was considered necessary;
(b) whether he had examined the relevant data and information
to identify the possible reasons for erroneous assessment of
yield on higher side at the time of planning and what measures
he was suggesting to ensure that such errors were avoided
during the course of planning of future projects; and (c) as to
whether he did not agree that average yield estimated at
119.84 TMC and the live storage capacity estimated at 132.73
tmc were wrong and erroneous because the yield was only
95.66 tmc.
 795

The witness answered that he was not in a position to

comment on the reason why the live storage capacity was fixed
at 10% more than the average yield as that decision was taken
by the officers of Karnataka Government framing the Project
Report. The witness further stated that he had gone through the
hydrology of the Project as it appeared in Volume 100 (b) but it
was not appropriate to say that this was an erroneous
assessment of yield on higher side at the time of planning. The
witness maintained that the Project Report prepared by
Government of Karnataka officials must have been prepared
with due care, and it had been checked by the Central Agencies
for its correctness, before being accorded an approval. The
witness referred to his answers given to Question No.12, and
stated that generally the Hydrology for any project should be
worked out on the basis of long term data which then takes care
of any abnormal figure for a few years in the data set and that he
did not agree with the suggestion that the average yield
estimated at 119.84 tmc and the live storage capacity estimated
at 132.73 tmc, were wrong and erroneous.
 796

222. The answers given by the witness to Question No.74

and Question No.75, put by the learned Sr. Counsel for the State
of Goa on 14.9.2017, were brought to the notice of the witness
and apprehension was expressed on behalf of the Tribunal that
the reply raised serious issues relating to sanctity of provisions
of National Water Policy as well as State Water Policy of the
Govt. of Karnataka, in respect of the first priority assigned to
drinking water needs. The witness was informed that the
aforesaid issue becomes more severe and worrisome in respect
of Malaprabha Dam, in view of the reported changes in the
cropping pattern, in accordance with the areas of sugarcane crop
requiring more waters. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the
witness had chosen not to reply those queries, stating that he
had not undertaken the detailed study of the sugarcane figures
ranging from 224 Ha. in 1979-80 to 3038 Ha. in 2009-10 or the
worked out figures of 24827 Ha. mentioned by Cane
Development Commissioner. Further it was noticed by the
Tribunal that the State of Goa had highlighted the issue of
supply of Malaprabha water to Pepsico unit of Dharwad by the
Karnataka Water Board, which also raises the issue of priority of
allocation of water for commercial purposes, while the twin city
 797

of Hubli-Dharwad were facing reported serious crisis of drinking

water for local population.

Under the circumstances a question was put as to why the

witness did not examine all these issues at the time of
preparation of his affidavit and Report of December 2016, as
most of the related information, were available in the
documents filed by the party State. Another question which was
put to the witness was as to why did he not feel that his Report
was deficient on account of many important aspects, not having
been examined in proper perspective.

The answer given by the witness was that he had not

discussed the issue of water allocation from Malaprabha Dam
Project with the Project Engineers and the reasons for not
withdrawing water from the existing agricultural uses and
diverting it to drinking needs of the twin city of Hubli-Dharwad.
According to him, he was informed that there was severe stress
in the existing command and in fact there was a demand for
more water. The witness mentioned that it was not possible to
divert water from the existing agricultural uses to drinking
purposes at the time of framing the revised DPR, and regarding
 798

the sugarcane areas under cultivation, the figures indicated in

the allocation letter of the Cane Development Commissioner he
was informed that although this land had been allocated for
sugarcane cultivation, the actual area under sugarcane
cultivation was a very small percentage of the allocated area
because of severe shortage of water. The witness proceeded to
mention that regarding allocation of water for industrial
purposes to the Pepsico Factory, he was not in a position to say
with surety about the reasons for doing so, more particularly,
since the quantity allocation had not been indicated and he had
not come across the same while preparing his study. The
witness denied the suggestion that his Report was deficient on
account of many important aspects not having been examined
by him in proper perspective.

223. The attention of the witness was drawn to Question

No.71 put by the learned Senior Counsel for the State of Goa on
13.9.2017 and his reply thereto, and it was pointed out to him
that the witness on referring to both the National Water Policy
2012 (MARK KA/4), as well as National Water Policy of 2002
(MARK KA/13) and a prima facie view was expressed by the
Tribunal that it was felt that once NWP 2012 was in place, all
 799

previous versions of National Water Policy stood replaced, and

that the provisions of latest version i.e. NWP-2012 should have
guided actions for planning and management of water
resources. From the Report given by the witness, a prima facie
impression was gathered by the Tribunal that he had looked at
relatively very complex water related issues in a highly simplistic
manner by selectively citing specific provisions of the NWP-
2012, which itself was against the basic principles identified in
Para 1.3 of NWP-2012 and that the witness had not taken into
consideration the contents of said Para 1.3, which identifies the
basic principles to be borne in mind, while looking at relatively
complex water related issues. Under the circumstances, a
question was put to the witness that as to whether he felt the
need for considering the provisions of NWP-2002, when the
same was replaced by NWP-2012. Another question put as to
whether the basic principles listed at Para 1.3 of NWP-2012, and
all related provisions of NWP-2012, were considered during the
process of techno-economic appraisal of the water resources
projects in the Central Water Commission and if so, in what
manner.
 800

The answer given by the witness was that basically he had

relied on the provisions contained in NWP-2012 only, and his
statement on 14.9.2017 referring to the NWP-2002 was only to
say that the drinking water had always been a priority. The
witness further informed that he had retired from Central Water
Commission in 2011, whereas the provisions relating to latest
NWP are of the year 2012, and therefore, he was not in a
position to indicate whether or not, the basic principles listed in
Para 1.3 of NWP-2012, and all related provisions of NWP-2012,
were being duly considered during the process of techno
economic appraisal of the water resources projects in the
Central Water Commission.

224. It was noticed by the Tribunal that National Water

Policy 2002 was in place at the time of preparation of “Modified
Detailed Project Report of Malaprabha Project” prepared by the
Government of Karnataka, and its techno-economic appraisal by
the CWC. It was brought to the notice of the witness that NWP-
2002 provided for collection of reliable data regarding water
availability and actual water use, collection of information
relating to ground water resources and its consumptive use, and
planning of water resources, development and management, for
 801

a hydrological unit, such as drainage basin as a whole or for a

sub-basin, multi-sectorally, taking into account surface and
ground water for sustainable use incorporating quantity and
quality aspects as well as environmental consideration etc. It
was further noticed by the Tribunal that all individual and
developmental projects and proposals should have been
formulated and considered within the framework of such an
overall plan, keeping in view the existing agreement/award for a
basin so that the best possible combination of opinions can be
selected and sustained.

225. Therefore, the Tribunal had asked a question to the

witness as to whether reliable data regarding water availability
and actual water use including that for respective water needs
for twin city of Hubli-Dharwad were collected and considered for
Malaprabha Sub-basin as a whole before planning for
Malaprabha Project and whether these aspects were
considered during the course of techno-economic appraisal of
the Malaprabha Project. It was further asked by the Tribunal, as
to whether the future water needs for various purposes,
including that for twin city of Hubli-Dharwad were scientifically
assessed and examined with reference to Allocation Priorities.
 802

Yet another question put to the witness was as to whether

ground water potential was assessed on a scientific basis and
duly considered for incorporating and carrying development of
surface and ground water in respect of Malaprabha Project, and
if yes, particulars be provided. The last question which was put
by the Tribunal was as to what was the total water availability
for Malaprabha Sub-basin and what was the percentage of
usable water.

The witness answered that as per his information data for

drinking water requirements of Hubli-Dharwad were considered
at the time of preparing DPR. The witness further stated that he
was not able to state regarding up to what future date the
requirements were projected in the revised DPR. The witness
also expressed his inability to provide particulars regarding the
ground water potential assessed and the provisions made for
integrated use of surface as well as ground water and that, he
was not able to give the figure of total water availability of the
Malaprabha sub-basin whereas the percentage of utilisable
water was not readily available with him. It was brought to the
notice of the witness that National Water Policy 2002 accorded
highest priority to drinking water, and calls for providing
 803

adequate safe drinking water, both in urban and rural areas,

and therefore a question was put to the witness as to why
necessary provisions were not made to meet the full
requirements of drinking water of the region including that of
the twin city of Hubli-Darwad before allocating water for
irrigation and other purposes in “Modified Detailed Project
Report”. The witness was further asked as to on what basis the
allocations of 0.201 tmc water only was made for drinking and
industrial purposes, in the Modified Detailed Project Report of
Malaprabha Project.

The answer given by the witness was that the existing water
uses for irrigation etc. had to be protected while framing revised
DPR, and it was not possible to divert water from there for the
drinking water requirements. The witness further stated that he
was not in a position to say why only 0.201 tmc had been
provided for drinking water, as this decision was taken by the
Project Engineer, while framing the revised DPR.

This is the sum and substance of the evidence of Shri A.K.

Bajaj, (RW-2).