7.2 Data Interpretation Challenges
It is, however, noted with concern that there are very few research outcome and
findings of the studies which are applied to address the water challenges through
improvement in planning process and efficient management. Although there are
guidelines which prescribe procedures to be adopted for specific analysis, it is
found that the recommendations of such guidelines (which are based on findings of
research and studies) are rarely followed by the project authorities or even by the
experts. These concerns have also been highlighted by the Mahadayi Water
Disputes Tribunal in their Report. Relevant observations of the Tribunal along with
their recommendations are reproduced hereunder.
“1410. However, the Tribunal found that none of the party States or the Experts
who appeared as witnesses before the Tribunal, followed the procedure prescribed
in the Guidelines. Most of the Experts considered hydrology as an in-exact science
and chose to deviate from the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Water Resources
and adopted approach of their own likings.
This has led to considerable variation in the process of assessment of water
availability and hence the ultimate results. Some notable variations/contradictions
noted by the Tribunal are as under.
a. Length of data used for development of rainfall runoff relation varied from 10 to
34 years.
b. Length of data used for generation of time series of annual yield varied from 25
to 85 years.
c. An expert opined that out of 34 years of observed discharge data at Ganjim by
CWC, the data of only 5 years was acceptable. He modified the data of 22 years
and ignored the data of 7 years for the purpose of his analysis on one ground or
the other.
d. Another expert opined that the observed discharge data of 34 years observed at
Ganjim by CWC was consistent, but at the same time, he decided to ignore the
data of 9 years for the purpose of development of Rainfall–Runoff relations.
However, for the purpose of assessment of water availability at a project site, the
Expert used the observed data of all the 34 years including those which were
ignored by him for development of Rainfall–Runoff relations. The expert also
opined that the data observed at Collem by CWC was not consistent and that he
decided not to use the data in one of his Reports, but he used the data of Collem
for estimation of yield at a proposed project site.
e. Even CWC opined that the data of Ganjim were consistent but the data of 9 out
of 20 years were ignored by CWC for the purpose of development of
Rainfall-Runoff relation.
f. Various Experts employed different methods for filling-in the missing rainfall
data.
154
A. B. Pandya
It is, however, noted with concern that there are very few research outcome and
findings of the studies which are applied to address the water challenges through
improvement in planning process and efficient management. Although there are
guidelines which prescribe procedures to be adopted for specific analysis, it is
found that the recommendations of such guidelines (which are based on findings of
research and studies) are rarely followed by the project authorities or even by the
experts. These concerns have also been highlighted by the Mahadayi Water
Disputes Tribunal in their Report. Relevant observations of the Tribunal along with
their recommendations are reproduced hereunder.
“1410. However, the Tribunal found that none of the party States or the Experts
who appeared as witnesses before the Tribunal, followed the procedure prescribed
in the Guidelines. Most of the Experts considered hydrology as an in-exact science
and chose to deviate from the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Water Resources
and adopted approach of their own likings.
This has led to considerable variation in the process of assessment of water
availability and hence the ultimate results. Some notable variations/contradictions
noted by the Tribunal are as under.
a. Length of data used for development of rainfall runoff relation varied from 10 to
34 years.
b. Length of data used for generation of time series of annual yield varied from 25
to 85 years.
c. An expert opined that out of 34 years of observed discharge data at Ganjim by
CWC, the data of only 5 years was acceptable. He modified the data of 22 years
and ignored the data of 7 years for the purpose of his analysis on one ground or
the other.
d. Another expert opined that the observed discharge data of 34 years observed at
Ganjim by CWC was consistent, but at the same time, he decided to ignore the
data of 9 years for the purpose of development of Rainfall–Runoff relations.
However, for the purpose of assessment of water availability at a project site, the
Expert used the observed data of all the 34 years including those which were
ignored by him for development of Rainfall–Runoff relations. The expert also
opined that the data observed at Collem by CWC was not consistent and that he
decided not to use the data in one of his Reports, but he used the data of Collem
for estimation of yield at a proposed project site.
e. Even CWC opined that the data of Ganjim were consistent but the data of 9 out
of 20 years were ignored by CWC for the purpose of development of
Rainfall-Runoff relation.
f. Various Experts employed different methods for filling-in the missing rainfall
data.
154
A. B. Pandya