New Delhi, August 26
The Central Water Commission (CWC) today filed a report in the Supreme Court stating that strengthening of the Hansi-Butana canal by Haryana by constructing a concrete toe/protection wall would not obstruct the flow of rain water or cause floods in Punjab.

Since the “top of the toe wall” would be more or less at the natural surface level (NSL), the toe wall “will not act as an obstruction for flow of water,” the CWC that functions under the Union Water Resources Ministry said.

Even the bed level of the Hansi-Butana canal where the protection wall was proposed “is about 20 feet below the highest flood level (HFL) and 12 feet below NSL,” the Commission contended.

Arguing before a Bench comprising Justices JM Panchal and HL Gokhale, Additional Solicitor General Mohan Jain, who appeared for the Centre, said that the CWC had prepared the report after visiting the site.

Senior counsel Harish Salve, arguing for Punjab, however, refused to accept the CWC findings. The CWC had submitted a report in 2008 maintaining that the 10-ft walls of the canal would not cause floods in Punjab, but this was proved wrong when the state had floods in 2010 due to the obstruction of rain water flow by the canal walls. Further, the walls gave way at the “natural pressure point” resulting in floods in Haryana as well. The toe wall was being constructed at this point, he explained.

The CWC report was prepared by the Chandigarh-based Director of the Indus Basin Organisation after visiting the construction site on July 6. He was accompanied by officials from Haryana, including Executive Enginner NK Garg from the Irrigation Department at Kaithal.

Both Punjab and Haryana sought time to file their response to the CWC report. The response would have to be prepared by their respective experts, they said. The Bench then adjourned the hearing for September 8.

Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, who also appeared for Punjab, sought an interim stay restraining Haryana from going ahead with the strengthening work. The Bench, however, said it was not in a position to stay the work at this juncture and would rather like to hear detailed arguments.

The 109-km canal, constructed at a cost of Rs 260 crore, is meant to draw Haryana’s share of water from the Bhakra Main Canal from a new point. Opposing this, Punjab has already taken a stay from the SC restraining Haryana from puncturing the BMC. Rajasthan has also come to the SC objecting to Haryana’s proposal and contending that this would reduce the flow of water to its regions.refused to accept the CWC findings.

The CWC had submitted a report in 2008 maintaining that the 10-ft walls of the canal would not cause floods in Punjab, but this was proved wrong when the state had floods in 2010 due to the obstruction of rain water flow by the canal walls. Further, the walls gave way at the “natural pressure point” resulting in floods in Haryana as well. The toe wall was being constructed at this point, he explained.

The CWC report was prepared by the Chandigarh-based Director of the Indus Basin Organisation after visiting the construction site on July 6. He was accompanied by officials from Haryana, including Executive Enginner NK Garg from the Irrigation Department at Kaithal.

Both Punjab and Haryana sought time to file their response to the CWC report. The response would have to be prepared by their respective experts, they said. The Bench then adjourned the hearing for September 8.

Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, who also appeared for Punjab, sought an interim stay restraining Haryana from going ahead with the strengthening work. The Bench, however, said it was not in a position to stay the work at this juncture and would rather like to hear detailed arguments.

The 109-km canal, constructed at a cost of Rs 260 crore, is meant to draw Haryana’s share of water from the Bhakra Main Canal from a new point. Opposing this, Punjab has already taken a stay from the SC restraining Haryana from puncturing the BMC. Rajasthan has also come to the SC objecting to Haryana’s proposal and contending that this would reduce the flow of water to its regions.