The Mullaperiyar Dam was built in 1886 on the Periyar River located in Kerala but is operated by Tamil Nadu. There is an ongoing dispute between the two states over the safe water level in the dam, with Kerala arguing it is unsafe above 136 feet due to seismic activity, while Tamil Nadu wants to increase it to meet irrigation needs. Protests have erupted in both states over this unresolved issue that involves the dam's safety, water rights, and historical agreements between the states.

1. Mullaperiyar dam controversy
The Mullaperiyar Dam or Mullaiperiyar Dam is a masonry gravity dam on the Periyar River in
the Indian state of Kerala. It has a height of 53.6 m (176 ft) from the foundation, and a length of
365.7 m (1,200 ft). The Periyar National Park in Thekkady is located around the dam's reservoir.
The dam is located in Kerala on the river Periyar, but is operated and maintained by Tamil
Nadu state.
A number of developments following independence have fuelled the ongoing debate between the
Kerala and Tamil Nadu government on the dam reservoir level. There was a drastic increase in
population on the downstream of the Idukki River in Kerala followed by microclimatic changes
and a decline in the rainfall, which led to decline in the water levels in the Idukki dam. Power
generation fell and the diversion to the Mullaperiyar dam was blamed for this decline. Kerala
thus argued for reduction in water levels in the dam. The then chief minister of Tamil Nadu
agreed to this and when the water level in the dam was brought down in 1980, around 8,000
hectares of Tamil Nadu's rain shadow districts suffered.
Tamil Nadu, in recent years, has made demands that the storage capacity of the dam be
increased from 136 feet (41.5 m) to 142 feet (43 m) to meet the rising demand of water needed
for irrigation. However, Kerala has been arguing since 1970 that the existing structure has
outlived its safety and longevity and that there is a need to construct a new structure and that it is
unsafe to maintain water at the full capacity.
The current deadlock between the two states over the dam is essentially not a dispute for water,
but has its roots in the colonial times, and has to do with the need to come to terms with the
agreements and decisions made in those times with changing economic, political and
environmental contexts and concerns about the safety of the dam in Kerala versus the irrigation
needs of the farmers in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Timeline:
 1886: The British (Madras presidency) built Mullaperiyar dam with a lease agreement
with Kingdom of Travancore for 999 years.
 1970: Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu ratified this agreement.
 Mid-70s: Kerala became worried about leakage from the dam and wanted Tamil Nadu to
repair it. Kerala govt. communicated with union.

2.  Union government directed Tamil Nadu state government to
 Repair this dam.
 Keep water level in the dam at 145 feet.
 Now, Union believed there is no longer any danger to the structure.
 2006: SC allowed Tamil Nadu to raise water height to 142 feet after strengthening the
dam. (Total height of the dam is 176 feet).
 But Kerala passed a law the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act,
2006, to prevent the neighboring State (Tamil Nadu) from raising the water level beyond
136 feet.
 Tamil Nadu challenged Kerala’s dam height law in Supreme Court.
 May 2014: Supreme Court Order
 Kerala dam Law of 2006 is unconstitutional and void.
 Permitted Tamil Nadu to increase water level up to 142 feet. (present ~136ft)
 June 2014: Union government decided to setup a Committee to supervise this water
rising. Kerala assembly requested President of India to refer the matter to the Supreme
Court under Article 143
The debate in its present form raises a number of dilemmas that complicate the matter even
further. For example, raising the level of water in the dam can pose a serious danger to the lives
of the people living downstream. At the same time, experts believe that the construction of a new
dam besides creating a heavy financial burden would pose as a threat to the Periyar Tiger
Reserve causing tremendous environmental damage and would be subject to the same problem
of seismicity. At the same time, the irrigation needs of the farmers in Tamil Nadu are equally
important and relevant.
Meanwhile major protests erupted in both states, which turned violent in many parts. Trade of
vegetables, milk, etc. between both states suffered and the ordinary people faced increased prices
of commodities for a period.

3. Conflict Issues:
The NegotiationConcepts usedin this situation:
1. BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement):
a. Kerala- New dam be constructed
b. Tamil Nadu - No BATNA
2. Position v/s Interests:
This particular situation is where position matters to both the parties. They are not trying to
understand the other party’s interests. Kerala is concerned of the life of people near the dam
while Tamil Nadu is concerned of its own irrigation problem only. Mutual adjustment has to
be made.
3. Conflict Management:
a. It is a substantive conflict.
b. Both the parties have focused on their own concerns only.

4. c. The conflict resolution style used is adjudication (Conflict is resolved using the
judicial system).
4. Integrative v/s Distributive Negotiation:
This situation is an example of Distributive Negotiation wherein each of the party wants to
win. Kerala wants to win over the case as the dam is constructed on their land & given to
Tamil Nadu only for lease. They want this agreement to be invalid whereas Tamil Nadu
considers that the dam is in its full control.
The negotiation has to be turned into an integrative one.
5. Creating value v/s claiming value:
Each of the parties is trying to claim the value. The creation of value is not done. Options are
not being generated; however Kerala has proposed to construct a new dam. The parties
should first try to create value (options) and then claim the value.
6. Power: Power is always relative. Kerala seems more powerful as it has stronger BATNA and
also because of the “Dam Safety Act”. Tamil Nadu can also be perceived as powerful as the
Supreme Court has ordered in their favor to increase the height of the dam and the apex body
in its favor can also make Tamil Nadu powerful.
7. Emotions: Emotions play an important role in this situation. Kerala on one hand is
concerned about its people’s safety near the dam as well as the property (also National Park
is located near the dam), Tamil Nadu is concerned over its irrigation needs without which
there would be crop failure and ultimately threat to life. It is an emotional issue for both the
parties.
8. Trust: In any negotiation, trust is an important issue. The trust paves the path to negotiation
in a way. In this situation, both the parties have to trust each other to reach to a settlement
keeping in mind each other’s’ interests.
Suggestions
 The best solution could be to construct a new dam, with adequate protection
against any earthquakes, while retaining the right of Tamil Nadu to get
continuous supply of water – in other words, Water for Tamil Nadu and Safety
for Kerala. The ownership of the new dam would vest with Kerala as it is funding

5. the dam entirely from its pocket. However, the operation of the reservoir shall be
by a joint committee of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
Analysis of the construction of a new dam
Gain: (Tamil Nadu):
Gain: (Tamil Nadu)
Gain 1: 30 Lakhs people of Tamil Nadu will get the same amount of water as they are
getting as of today as assured by Kerala Government and so the CERTAINITY of water
is GURANTEED.
Gain 2: Tamil Nadu can use the channel water for power generation as they are doing
right now( Periyar Power Station , Tamil Nadu).
Gain 3: Dam SAFETY is GURANTEED and so the water guarantee- as "Baby's(Dam’s)
health will always be a worry for baby's Mother(Kerala), not for the neighbour(Tamil
Nadu)".
Loss: (Kerala):
Loss: (Kerala)
Small Loss: By building the new dam, Kerala has to finance the new dam but will not be
using the DAM for Kerala.
Big Loss: Kerala politicians will loose this opportunity (if NO SOLUTION) to blame the
ruling government.
Big Loss: Kerala politicians will loose the opportunity to unite people under their flag (by
injecting hatred on Tamilians) and to emerge them as the leader of that united people
(by RISKING the innocents peoples LIFE/LIVELYHOOD)
Gain: (Kerala):
Gain: (Kerala) Gain 1: 35 Lakhs people of Kerala will be SAFE for sure and NO
WORRY of dam bomb explosion.
Gain 2: Keralites can use the spill over water for power generation. (If they are thinking
of this provision)
Gain 3: Kerala will get the control of new Dam so they can ensure safety to the new
Dam.
Loss: (Tamil Nadu):
Small Loss: Tamil Nadu will loose control of new Dam.
Big Loss: Tamil Nadu politicians will loose this opportunity (if NO SOLUTION) to blame
the ruling government.
Big Loss: Tamil Nadu politicians will loose the opportunity to unite people under their
flag (by injecting hatred on Keralites) and to emerge them as the leader of that united
people (by RISKING that innocents peoples LIFE/LIVELYHOOD)
POST MORTEM OF LOSSES: :
Small Loss: TN will loose control of new Dam. This is a smaller loss because already
the old/new dam is KERALA’s property and so it is not a real loss.

6. Small Loss: By building the new dam, Kerala has to finance the new dam but will not be
using the DAM for Kerala. This is a smaller loss because already Kerala Government
allotted the money for the safety of the people.
REAL LOSS will be to OPPOSITION PARTIES of both the states or for the
POLITICIANS WHO ARE NOW FISHING IN THIS MUDDY WATER
In short if there is NO SOLUTION, then REAL LOSS is FOR PEOPLE OF BOTH
STATES and REAL GAIN is FOR CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN BOTH STATE
 The other solution could be Tamil Nadu government should repair the dam in the
surveillance of Union government, after that giving that report to Centre. TN state
govt should also give a written assurance that whatever damage and destruction
would occur in future, due to increasing the dam height, would be compensated
by them.
 Adequate quantity of water could be diverted to Tamil Nadu for agricultural
purposes.
 Scientific solution:
1. As requested by Kerala people the water level in the lake can be
maintained at FRL +120ft. The amount of water supply demanded by
Tamilnadu from Periyar lake from FRL +136ft can be supplied even by
keeping FRL at +120ft by lifting the water or by filling the lake whenever
the water levels get depleted and this shortage can be made up by cloud
seeding operations. Cloud seeding operations are conducted by 50
countries in the world for more than 40 years and as confirmed by China
which uses 37,000 people every year for cloud seeding operations to get
about 1800 TMC of water at a cost benefit ratio of 1:28 for both irrigation
and hydro-power generation. If Chief Ministers of Kerala and Tamilnadu
make immediate visits to China, Tasmania, New South whales, Texas,
Honduras and California along with their experts they can prepare cloud
seeding operation reports and implement them to augment annual rainfall
by 40% in Periyar lake which has an annual rainfall of about 1000mm and
the rains occur almost in the 4 out of 5 days in a year with annual flodds of
1 to 11 TMC per day. Kerala can fill up Idduki reservoir by this method as
followed by Tasmania for the last three decades with a cost benefit ratio of
1:20.
2. In order to avoid any earthquake risk to the dam the Kerala state must
conduct air borne magneto meter surveys and try to identify any emerging
hidden faults that can trigger large earthquakes that produce high peak
ground accelerations of more than 6 magnitude as conducted by the US

7. geological survey for protecting the townships of Portland Vancouver in
USA
3. Since Kerala people do not know when a large earthquake may occur to
make the Periyar dam burst they have to always live in tension even
during sleep in the nights similarly they do not know when a cloud burst
can occur to provide 1m depth of rainfall in a day as had happened
recently in Mumbai. They have to be constantly vigilant to monitor when
such clouds cluster during cyclones and other cloud burst seasons and to
prevent such massive clouds raining over Periyar lake catchment. They
should adopt cloud seeding technology to stop unwanted rainfall in Periyar
catchment as implemented by China during the opening and closing
functions organized for the Olympic games of 2008. For this purpose they
must take the advice of cloud seeding experts from foreign countries or
those who worked for 5 years for the AP State Government cloud seeding
programmes during 2004 to 2010.
SOURCES:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullaperiyar_Dam#Interstate_dispute
 http://mrunal.org/2014/05/judgement-mullaperiyar-dam-controversy-kerala-tamilnadu-
supreme-court.html
 http://blog.ipleaders.in/everything-want-know-mullaperiyar-dam-dispute/
 http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/mullaperiyar-dam-debate-issue-safety-versus-
rights