Mullaperiyar Lease Agreement Renewal

For Tamil Nadu, the Mullaperiyar dam is like a lifeline for the inhabitants of the Madra presidency for irrigation, drink and also for the generation of power in the lower water station of Periyar and, as we know, the region of the presidency of Madra is shadow and drought. The tamil Nadu government therefore insisted that the water level in the dam be raised to 142ft. According to one estimate, crop losses due to the reduction in dam height between 1980 and 2005. Tamil Nadu also raised a problem with the surrender of the Tamil Nadu dam as a 999-year lease. Thus, it is fully entitled to control of the and its water, but Kerala prevents Tamil Nadu from doing so by calling the lease invalid. The Mullaperiyaru Dam is a dam on the Periyar River in the Indian state of Kerala[2][10] It is located 881 metres above sea level from the kardamm hills of the Western Ghats in Thekkady, Idukki district of Kerala, southern India. It was built between 1887 and 1895 by John Pennycuick and was also transferred to the territory of the madras presidency (now Tamil Nadu) in an agreement to divert water to the east. It has a height of 53.6 m (176 ft) of foundations and a length of 365.7 m (1,200 ft). [2] Thekkady Periyar National Park is located around the lake`s holding lake. The dam is built at the confluence of the Mullayar and Periyar rivers. The dam is located in Kerala, on the Periyar River,[2] but is managed and maintained by the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu.

[2] [12] [13] Although the Periyar River has a general basin of 5398 km2 at 114 km2 downstream of the Tamil Nadu Dam,[15] the Mullaperiyar Dam basin itself is entirely located in Kerala, not in an intergovernmental river. [16] [17] [18] However, according to the Estoppel principle, the opinion is different. On November 21, 2014, for the first time in 35 years, the water level reached 142 feet. [19] After unrelenting rains in Kerala state, the dam again reached the maximum limit of 142 feet on August 15, 2018. [20] Kerala drew attention to the injustice of the 1886 lease and questioned its validity.