Connect with us

Opinion

Solution to water deficit in NWP and NCP

Published

on

by BANDULA KENDARAGAMA

Former Section Engineer (Dam), Kothmale Hydro-Power Project and International Dams Consultant, Melbourne, Australia

(Based on an interview with Srilal D. Perera (Construction Project Manager), Melbourne, Australia)

Sri Lanka is now a middle-income country with consistently high economic growth over the recent years. The government’s public investment plans include several development plans and projects for the coming years, to further accelerate economic growth and promote social and human development.

Being a tropical island located close to the equator, Sri Lanka is highly susceptible to adverse effects of climate change. The Global Climate Risk Index (CRI) 2018, which indicates how countries have been affected by the impacts of weather-related loss events (storms, floods, earthquakes, heat waves etc.,) ranks Sri Lanka as the fourth among the most affected countries of the world. This is an alarming situation. Adverse effects of climate change are evident from the severe and long duration droughts as well as severe flooding occurring almost every year in several parts of the country. Water availability is becoming more variable and uncertain, even as demand for bulk water supplies for agriculture, new industries and tourism and clean water for drinking increases. Studies confirm that these impacts are likely to exacerbate, and the wetter areas of the country would eventually become wetter, and the drier areas drier and drier.

The government of Sri Lanka has taken steps to address these challenges with the successful completion and commissioning of Moragahakanda and Kalu Ganga reservoirs, and the ongoing and planned construction of dams and associated feeder canals, hydraulic facilities, Hydro Power enhancements to comply with Paris Convention that His Excellency the President of Sri Lanka has consented under renewable energy promotion in Sri Lanka; as well as, other water resources development investments envisaged under the Public Investment Plan (PIP). The Government is also implementing several other programs and investments to mitigate flooding and flood damages in several river basins which are vulnerable to flooding.

Planning and investments in additional water storages, and transfer infrastructure to transfer water from water surplus river basins of the wet zone to water deficit river basins, will be a major priority to meet the growing demands and challenges of climate change impacts. Additional investments will be required on a priority basis for developing water resources to provide potable water supplies to people and areas currently affected by chronic kidney disease.

These new investments on water resources will demand diligent planning, protection, management and allocation of water for multiple uses and users within river basin context. As the water infrastructure expands through additional infrastructure bringing water to water deficit geographic areas, to new and current groups of farmers, large and small industries, urban and rural drinking water consumers, mechanisms will be required for diligent planning, allocation, and monitoring of bulk water supplies from the major water conveyance systems beyond the mandate and the role played by the existing Water Management Secretariat (WMS) of the Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL).

 

The Project

With the present climatic uncertainty, North Western Province (NWP) and the North Central Province (NCP) are among the most affected areas without reliable supply of water for irrigation, about 40,000 ha, and ensuring domestic water supply to families in such provinces. Major diversions of this water are supplied through the Polgolla tunnel (875 Million Cubic Meters (MCM) / Year) for both the seasons of Yala and Maha. This volume of diversion is entirely depending on the storage above the Polgolla barrage. At present only the Kotmale reservoir with 174 MCM supports to regulate this water. However, the Polgolla tunnel is functioned only with 60% of its capacity, and the tunnel has additional capacity to divert around 400 MCM / Year, if the upstream storage is available.

Therefore, a proposal for increasing the height of the Kotmale dam to increase the retention capacity by additional 250 MCM would be one of the feasible proposals to solve the water deficits in NWP and NCP. Also, the increased head and volume would boost the hydro-power generation by about 20%, once the supplementary water starts to pass through Kotmale and Ukuwela power stations.

The Kotmale Hydropower Project was one of the first projects taken up under the Accelerated Mahaweli Development Program (AMDP). It was the most upstream among those headworks in the Mahaweli river basin, and exploited the hydropower potential of Kotmale Oya, a major right bank tributary of the Mahaweli Ganga. The Kotmale dam site is at Kadadora, located about 6.6km upstream of the confluence of Kotmale Oya with Mahaweli Ganga, where the river forms a narrow and deep valley with steep banks. The powerhouse is underground and situated in the belly of the Atabage mountains, about 6.4km downstream of the Kotmale Oya – Mahaweli Ganga confluence.

The basic elements of the Kotmale Hydro-Power Project are a concrete face rockfill dam (87m high and 600m long) having the active storage capacity of 174 MCM and a tunnel system leading to 201MW power plants with outfall to the Mahaweli Ganga. The primary function is the generation of electric power. Additional benefits arise from an increase in the amount of irrigation water available at the Polgolla diversion, as well as mitigation of floods in the Gampola area as a result of the regulation of flows in the Kotmale Oya. The Project construction work commenced in 1979 and was completed in 1985, with financial assistance provided by the Government of Sweden.

The dam has been provided with basic facilities for future rising, to three alternative levels 715m, 725m and to 735m above the sea level (capacity of 370 MCM at 728m FSL). The provision for the extension of foundation from the downstream face, and the land around the reservoir rim up to 735 m elevation, have already been acquired since the beginning to enable the future upgrading.

However, the raising of Kotmale dam would be an engineering challenge and need in depth study to check the stability of the Concrete Face Rockfill Dam (CFRD), during and after construction, instrumentation, reliability of foundation and geology, supplementary grout curtain, spill gates and chute with elevated ogee (Flip bucket), added pressure head to tunnels, height of the surge shaft and power station equipment etc., Also, the heightening of the dam shall not affect the ongoing annual supply of water to NCP, as it would generate critical social problems and, therefore, the live construction method statement with the active storage of water available for downstream use would be the most practical approach.

Therefore, a comprehensive feasibility study shall be originated to find a solution for the critical water deficit in NWP and NCP, and for harnessing addition of renewable energy, considering above referred to facts at earliest possible.

The original consultant of this project was Sir William Halcrow & Partners (Halcrow Water) of the United Kingdom (UK); and Skanska (Sweden) with joint collaboration of Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau (CECB) , then local Consultant to the Mahaweli Ministry, had been involved in a preliminary feasibility study, the project design and supervisions during the first construction phase of this development in the year 1979 to 1984 period. Hence, the re-engagement of previously involved qualified consultants would be highly recommended for future studies and development, as well as the previous data, knowhow and experience that retained with them would be essential for accomplishing this challenging task.

In addition, consideration should be given to appointing a Panel of Experts from local & overseas professional bodies, who have extensive knowledge and experience in CFRDs, gates and valves, geology, geotechnical engineering, instrumentation and dam safety.

Consideration should be given to employing a minimum number of expatriate engineers and a maximum number of local engineers.

 

Recommendations

Following studies are needed to execute to enhance the project more feasible to meet the challenges in climate change, and the supply of more renewable hydro-energy, especially from the power plants newly built in Mahaweli Basin from the Kelani water.

1. Raising Kotmale Dam (15, 25, 30m). Note all lands are already acquired and there is no social impact;

2. Check the possibility of building dams at locations 11, 12, 14 etc., in Master Plan above Polgolla near Ginigathhena (Koladeniya, Carolina, Trapalga, Rosalla, to increase the retention above Polgolla, as the water about 1,000 MCM / Year is spilling down Polgolla during flood;

3. Enhance the capacity of Kandalama-Huruluwewa Canal to carry about 200 MCM / Year, at a rate of 10m3/second;

4. Built a new tunnel from Bowatenna Reservoir to Dambulu Oya where the capacity is 30m3/second. This would enhance the deficit of water in NWP (150 MCM / Year) and the water need in Anuradhapura;

5. Expand the capacity of power generation in Ukuwela Powerhouse adding one unit; and

6. Revisit the canal availability from Kalawewa to Nachhaduwa, Tissawewa and Basawakulana etc. via Yoda Ela.

7. A supplementary study to check the availability of water from Kelani Basin to Mahaweli Basin would further enhance this proposal.

The writer has B.Sc. Eng. (Hons), M.Eng. (Structural Engineering & Construction), MASCE, MIE Aust, CPEng NER, APEC Engineer, IntPE(Aus).

 

 

Author


  • News Advertiesment

    See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as ToysGroceryFlowersBirthday CakesFruitsChocolatesClothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,NewsCourier/DeliveryFood Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.

    Author

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Take Human Rights seriously, not so much the council or office

Published

on

By Dr Laksiri Fernando

The 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council started on 22 February morning with obvious hiccups. The Office, to mean the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, finally decided to hold all sessions virtually online, only the President of the Council and the assistants in the high table sitting at the UN Assembly Hall in Geneva. The President, Ms. Nazhat Shammen Khan, Ambassador from Fiji in Geneva, wearing a saree, was graceful in the chair with empty seats surrounding.

In the opening session, the UN General Assembly President, UN General Secretary, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Head of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland (as the host country), addressed remotely the session. In fact, there was no need for Switzerland to have a special place, as the UN is independent from any host country. Switzerland is fairly ok, however, if this tradition is followed, the UN General Assembly may have to give a special place to the US in New York.

 

Initial Addresses

UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres’ address could have been quite exemplary if he gave a proper balance to the developed and developing countries. He talked about racism and fight against racism but did not mention where racism is overwhelmingly rampant (US and Europe) and what to do about it. Outlining the human rights implications of Covid-19 pandemic, he made quite a good analysis. It was nice for him to say, ‘human rights are our blood line (equality), our lifeline (for peace) and our frontline (to fight against violations).’ However, in the fight against violations, he apparently forgot about the ‘blood line’ or the ‘lifeline’ quite necessary not to aggravate situations through partiality and bias. He never talked about the importance of human rights education or promoting human rights awareness in all countries.

His final assault was on Myanmar. Although he did not call ‘genocide,’ he denounced the treatment of Rohingyas as ethnic cleansing without mentioning any terrorist group/s within. His call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders undoubtedly should be a common call of all. However, he did not leave any opening for a dialogue with the military leaders or bring back a dialogue between Aung San and Min Aung, the military leader. With a proper mediation, it is not impossible. Calling for a complete overhaul as the young demonstrators idealistically claim might not be realistic.

High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s address was brief and uncontroversial this time without mentioning any country or region. It is clear by now perhaps she is not the real author of the Report against Sri Lanka, but someone probably hired by the so-called core-group led by Britain. Her major points were related to the coronavirus pandemic trying to highlight some of the socio-economic disparities and imbalances of policy making that have emerged as a result. The neglect of women, minorities, and the marginalized sections of society were emphasized. But the poor was not mentioned. As a former medical doctor, she also opted to highlight some of the medical issues underpinning the crisis.

Then came the statements from different countries in the first meeting in the following order: Uzbekistan, Colombia, Lithuania, Afghanistan, Poland, Venezuela, Finland, Fiji, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Vietnam, Belgium, and Morocco. The obvious purposes of these statements were different. Some countries were apparently canvassing for getting into the Human Rights Council at the next turn perhaps for the purpose of prestige. Some others were playing regional politics against their perceived enemies. This was very clear when Lithuania and Poland started attacking Russia.

But there were very sincere human rights presentations as well. One was the statement by the President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. He outlined the devastating effects that Afghanistan had to undergo during the last 40 years, because of foreign interferences. The initial support to Taliban by big powers was hinted. His kind appeal was to the UN was to go ‘beyond discourse to practice’ giving equal chance to the poor and the developing countries to involve without discrimination.

 

Controversial Presentations

China’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Wang Yi, made his presentation almost at the end of the first day. This is apparently the first time that China had directly addressed the Human Rights Council. Beginning with outlining the devastating repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic he stressed that the world should face the challenges through ‘solidarity and cooperation.’ He broadened the concept to human rights solidarity and cooperation. His expressed views were quite different to the others, particularly to the Western ones.

He frankly said that what he expresses are the views of China on human rights without claiming those are absolute truths or forcing others to believe or implement them. There were four main concepts that he put forward before the member countries. First, he said, “We should embrace a human rights philosophy that centres on the people. The people’s interests are where the human rights cause starts and ends.” Second, he said, “we should uphold both universality and particularity of human rights. Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom are common values shared by all humanity and recognized by all countries.” “On the other hand,” he said, “countries must promote and protect human rights in light of their national realities and the needs of their people.”

“Third,” he said, “we should systemically advance all aspects of human rights. Human rights are an all-encompassing concept. They include civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights.” He then emphasized, “Among them, the rights to subsistence and development are the basic human rights of paramount importance.” Fourth, “we should continue to promote international dialogue and cooperation on human rights. Global human rights governance should be advanced through consultation among all countries.”

It was on the same first day before China, that the United Kingdom launched its barrage against several countries not sparing Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, delivered the statement from top to bottom attacking alleged violating countries on human rights. But there was no mentioning of Israel for the repression of Palestinians or the systemic racism rampaging in the United States, including the 6 January attacks on the Capitol by extremist/terrorist groups.

His first sermon was on Myanmar without acknowledging the British atrocities or mismanagement of this poor and diverse country during the colonial period. He was quite jubilant over implementing sanctions and other restrictions over the country. Many sanctions, in my opinion, are extortions. Undoubtedly, Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders should be released, and democracy restored. This is a task of the whole council and when one or two countries try to grab the credit, there can be obvious reservations of others.

His further scathing attacks were against Belarus, Russia, and China. Some appeared factually correct but not necessarily the approach or the motives genuine. The following is the way he came around Sri Lanka. He said,

“Finally, we will continue to lead action in this Council: on Syria, as we do at each session; on South Sudan; and on Sri Lanka, where we will present a new resolution to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.”

‘Action’ to him basically means repeatedly passing resolutions, of course imposing economic and other sanctions. He said, “as we do at each session”; like bullying poor or weak countries at each session. Can there be a resolution against Russia or China? I doubt it.

What would be the purpose of presenting a resolution against Sri Lanka? As he said, “to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.” This will satisfy neither the Tamil militants nor the Sinhalese masses. But it might satisfy the crafty Opposition (proxy of the defeated last government). This is not going to be based on any of the actual measures that Sri Lanka has taken or not taken on reconciliation or accountability. But based on the ‘Authoritarian and Hypocritical Report’ that some anti-Sri Lankans have drafted within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This what I have discussed in my last article.

In this context, successful or not, the statement made by the Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardena, in rejecting any resolution based on the foxy Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in my concerned opinion, is absolutely correct.

Author

Continue Reading

Opinion

President’s energy directives ignored by the Power Ministry: Another Point of View

Published

on

Dr Tilak Siyambalapitiya

Dr Janaka Rathnasiri laments (The Island 19 Feb 2021) that the Power Ministry has ignored the President’s directive to draw 70% of energy from renewable sources by 2030. I saw the approved costs of electricity production for 2019, published by the Public Utilities Commission (PUCSL).

PUCSL has also approved the prices to sell electricity to customers. Although various customers pay at various “approved” prices, the average income from such “approved” prices in 2019 was Rs 17.02 per unit. It is not only the Ministry, according to Dr Rathnasiri, ignoring the President; PUCSL is also breaking the law, which says prices and approved costs should be equal.

So there is already an illegal gap of Rs 21.59 minus 17.02 = Rs 4.57 per unit of electricity sold. If electricity prices are not to be increased, as stated by many in the government and PUCSL, let us say the following: Distribution costs should decrease by 0.57 Rs per unit. Generation costs should decrease by Rs 4.00 per unit.

PUCSL also published the approved cost of purchasing or producing electricity from various sources for 2019. The actual energy values were different to what was approved, but let us stick to PUCSL approved figures:

I suggest Dr Rathnasiri fills-up the following table, to show how much electricity will cost in 2030 to produce and deliver, if the President’s 70% target is to be achieved and for PUCSL to abide by the law. Let us assume that electricity requirement in 2030 will be double that of 2019.

Since PUCSL has to save Rs 4 from 13.92, the average selling price for energy should be Rs 13.92 minus 4.00 = Rs 9.92. With a target network loss of 7% (in 2019 it was 8.4%), the average cost of production has to be Rs 9.27 per unit. Eight cages have to be filled-up by Dr Rathnasiri.

In 2012, PUCSL approved the energy cost of electricity produced from coal power to be 6.33 Rs per kWh. In 2019, PUCSL approved 9.89 (56% increase). For renewable energy, it was 13.69 in 2012, and 19.24 in 2019 (a 40% increase, but double the price of electricity from coal fired generation). In 2012, rooftop solar was not paid for: only give and take, but now paid Rs 22, against Rs 9.89 from coal. There seems to be something wrong. The price reductions of renewable energy being promised, being insulated from rupee depreciation, are not happening? Either Sri Lanka must be paying too little for coal, or it may be renewable energy is severely over-priced?

On coal we hear only of some corruption every now and then; so Sri Lanka cannot be paying less than it costs, for coal.

 

Enough money even to donate
vaccines

Another reason for the Ministry of Power to ignore the President’s directive may be the Ministry’s previous experience with similar Presidential directives. In 2015, the President at that time cancelled the Sampur coal-fired power plant, and the Ministry faithfully obliged. That President and that Prime Minister then played ball games with more power plants until they were thrown out of power, leaving a two-billion-dollar deficit (still increasing) in the power sector. Not a single power plant of any description was built.

Where is this deficit? You do not have to look far. In the second table, replace 24.43 with 9.89, to reflect what would have happened if Sampur was allowed to be built. The value 12.79 will go down to 8.55, well below the target of Rs 9.27 per unit to produce. Not only would CEB and LECO report profits, but the government too could have asked for an overdraft from CEB to tide over any cash shortfalls in the treasury. All this with no increase in customer prices. Producers of electricity from renewable energy could enjoy the price of 19.24 Rs per unit. And that blooming thing on your rooftop can continue to enjoy Rs 22 per unit. The Minister of Power, whom Dr Rathnasiri wants to replace with an army officer, would have been the happiest.

In the absence of Sampur (PUCSL’s letter signed by Chairman Saliya Mathew confirmed cancellation and asked CEB not to build it), PUCSL approved electricity to be produced at Rs 21.59 and sold at Rs 17.02 per unit. The annual loss would be Rs (21.59 – 17.02) x 15,093 = Rs 69 billion per year of approved financial loss. Sri Lanka has a Telecom regulator, an Insurance regulator, a Banking regulator, who never approve prices below costs. Sometime ago the telecom regulator asked the operators to raise the prices, when operators were proposing to reduce prices amidst a price war. But the electricity industry regulator is different: he approves costs amounting to 27% more than the price, not just once but, but continuously for ten long years !

That is 370 million dollars per year as of 2019, the economy is spending, and for years to come, to burn oil (and say we have saved the environment). Did the Minister of Health say we are short of 160 million dollars to buy 40 million doses of the vaccine? Well, being a former Minister of Power, she now knows which Presidential “order” of 2015 is bleeding the economy of 370 million dollars per year, adequate to buy all vaccines and donate an equal amount to a needy country.

Prices are the production costs approved by PUCSL for 2019. The selling price approved by the same PUCSL was Rs 9.27 per unit.

Author

Continue Reading

Opinion

Confusion on NGOs and NSOs in Sri Lanka

Published

on

If you listen to politicians and journalists here, you will hear of that curious creature rajya novana sanvidane, a Non-State Organization (NSO). Where do you get them? In the uninstructed and dead minds of those who use those terms. In the real world, where politicians and journalists have developed minds, there are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). The United Nations is an organization set up by state parties, not by governments. It is true that agents of states, governments, make the United Nations work or fail. Governments may change but not the states, except rarely. When Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia, a new state was formed and was so recognised by the United Nations. However, the LTTE that tried to set up another state was crushed by the established state that it tried to break away from, and the UN had nothing to do with them.

This entirely unnecessary confusion, created out of ignorance, is so destructive that organizations completely loyal to the existing state, are made to be traitorous outfits, for they are ‘non-state organizations’ within the state. There are citizens of each state, but no citizens of any government. Government is but an instrument of the state. In most states there are organizations, neither of the state nor of government: religious organizations including churches. But none of them is beyond the pale of the state.

Those that speak of rajya novana sanvidane give that name partly because they have no idea of the origin of non-governmental organizations. NGOs came into the limelight, as donor agencies, noticed that some governments, in East Africa, in particular, did not have the capacity and the integrity to use the resources that they provided. They construed, about 1970, that NGOs would be a solution to the problem. Little did they realize that some NGOs themselves would become dens of thieves and brigands. I have not seen any evaluation of the performance of NGOs in any country. There was an incomplete essay written by Dr. Susantha Gunatilleka. NGOs are alternatives to the government, not to the state.

Our Constitution emphatically draws a distinction between the government and state, and lays down that the President is both Head of Government and Head of State (Read Article 2 and Article 30 of the Constitution.) It is as head of state that, he/she is the Commander of the Armed Forces, appoints and receives ambassadors and addresses Parliament annually, when a prorogued Parliament, reconvenes. He/she presides over the Cabinet as head of government. The distinction is most clear, in practice, in Britain where Queen Elizabeth is the head of state and Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister and head of government. However, in principle, Johnson is the Queen’s First Minister appointed by the sovereign, and resigns by advising her of his decision to do so.

In the US and in India the term ‘state’ has special significance. In India there is a ‘rajya sabha’ (the Council of States) whose members represent constituent States and Union Territories. Pretty much the same is true of the United States. In the US, executive power is vested in the President and heads the administration, government in our parlance. The Head of State does not come into the Constitution but those functions that one associates with a head of state are in the US performed by the President of the Republic. The US President does not speak of my state (mage rajaya) but of my administration, (mage anduva). Annually, he addresses Congress on the State of the Union. Our present President must be entirely familiar with all this, having lived there as a citizen of the US for over a decade. It is baffling when someone speaks of a past state as a traitor to that same state. It is probable that a government was a traitor to the state. ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their (States’) enemies, giving them aid and comfort’. That a state was a traitor to the same state is gobbledygook.

Apart from probable confusion that we spoke of in the previous paragraph, it is probable that a president and other members of a government, including members of the governing party here, find it grandiloquent to speak of his/her/their state (mage/ape rajaya), rather than my government (mage anduva) or Sirisena anduva’ and not Sirisena state; it was common to talk of ‘ape anduva’ in 1956; politicians in 1956 were far more literate then than they are now.

When translating from another language, make sure that you understand a bit of the history of the concept that you translate. A public school in the US is not the same as a public school in the UK.

 

MAHADENAMUTTA

 

 

Author

Continue Reading
  • HomePage Advertiesment – middle11

    Author

  • HomePage Advertiesment – middle11

    Author

  • HomePage Advertiesment – middle11

    Author