PREFACE

We are so privileged to publish this valuable book titled Tamilnadu PWD Past & Present authored by

Er.K.Ramalingam, Former CE, TNPWD, Former President,

Association of Engineers, TNPWD and presently the State

President, Tamilnadu PWD Senior Engineers Associaiton

as a Platinum Jubilee Publication of AOE, TNPWD.

We are really fortunate to have I written by a Senior

Stalwart of PWD and our Association.

Infact it is a continuation of Er.C.S.Kuppurajs book 150 years History of PWD, mainly supplementing and complementing the activities of TNPWD in the last 150

years both before independence and also in the post independent period. It

gives not only a detailed account of works implemented but also the engineers

responsible for the execution.

The data furnished relating to floodworks are very extensive and unique one carefully compiled in this treatise. The list of CEs of PWD from its inception

1857 to 2011 is included as a special addition, a reference for the present as well

as for the future.

We are thankful to Er.K.Ramalingam, who took lot of pains including proof correction at this age of 85 years. Er. N.Kailasapathy & Staff Er. AVA for their

assistance.

We convey our sincere thanks to Er. A.Mohanakrishnan, Former CE (I), PWD, Former Chairman CTC & Present Advisor - Water Resources (TN) for his valuable

suggestions and correction of certain data and Thiru. S. Audiseshiah, IAS (Retd)

Former Principal Secretary to Govt., PWD for their forewords adorning this book.

We are grateful to Er. D.Arumugam, President & Er.P.Krishnamoorthy, General Secretary - Association of Engineers for their support and assistance.

Our thanks are also to Thiru. M.Nasar Ahmed (M.S.Xerox) and VPS Printers for preparing the DTP works amd printing.

We hope that this valuable treasure will be useful as a reference guide for the PWD Engineers and their well-wishers for many decades.

Er. A.Veerappan

Chairman, Organishing Committee

AOE, TNPWD A Platinum Jubilee Celebrations

FOREWORD

It is my pleasure and privilege to write the Foreword to the book authored by Er. K. Ramalingam, my esteemed

colleague in the Public Works Department. This is on the

request of Er. A. Veerappan, State Secretary of the

Tamil Nadu PWD Senior Engineers Association and

Chairman, Organising Committee for the Celebration of

the Platinum Jubilee of the Association of Engineers,

Tamil Nadu Public Works Department.

Er. K. Ramalingam is a very simple, honest, frank gentleman, soft and pleasing in his speech and manners. Always action-oriented, given a work to do, he will plunge

into, with only the objective and target in mind. He has been very hard working

and was sought after whenever difficult complicated jobs are to be executed in the

department.

Unlike me, he was versatile and has handled many intricate jobs in record time to the satisfaction of his senior officers. His execution of the Manniar Silt Ejector in the

Cauvery Delta in 1974 with very little of technical help available to him, except for

his visit to see similar Ejectors in the North Indian Irrigation Systems, has been a

talk among us, his colleagues for long, and I am happy to record that Manniar Silt

Ejector is still functioning satisfacatorily.

I still remember how I admired his audacity as Executive Engineer to jump in, to take the wheel of the jeep when we were both taking the then Chief Engineer, of

those days, in that jeep with no other vehicle for rescue, to drive a number of

kilometres in the sandy tract leading to Dhanushkodi after the well known 1964

December devastating cyclone causing a six - metre wave sweeping clean across

the tract into the sea leaving none alive, except a lonely dog which escaped. It is

something of a phenomenon we now call "tsunami". We were taking the Chief

Engineer to show the floating buoys we had erected for wind and tide observations

while engaged in the detailed investigations for the alignment of the Sethu

Samudram Canal which was dredged half way through and is halted at present.

Er. K. Ramalingam, if I remember correct, did a lot of work for the Cooum Improvements and also largely improved the North Buckingham Canal

widening and deepening, for resumption of navigation. He served on deputation for

a period in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation in the formation period. He was the

first Superintending Engineer posted on deputation to the Fishing and Marine

Engineering Corporation and did a lot of initial investigation works to establish

Er.A.Mohanakrishnan

minor ports along the South Indian coast both east and west like Thondi, Muttom,

Colachel etc.

His services were lent to the Space Department when the Centre at Sriharikota was being developed. He made a mark in planning and organizing civil works in the

initial stages for the functioning of the Centre meant for sending out PSLVs

successfully since 1980, carrying satellites of various types, Indian and foreign, of

varying pay loads.

As Managing Director of the TN Tube Well Corporation which he organized, with regional units at Chennai, Villupuram and Trichy, to tap the ground water in

the eastern plains of Tamil Nadu, he maintained close coordination with the

investigations being done by the Ground Water Department, PWD. When he found

too much of interference from the administrators, he preferred to leave and get

back to PWD.

As one who closely followed me in the listing of PWD Engineers, he got promoted as Chief Engineer, PWD, in charge of Minor Irrigation in 1984. During his period

he concentrated on the minor irrigation tanks all over in Tamil Nadu and their

modernization through external funding from the European Economic Community.

Several Ex-Zamin tanks were also improved and brought under the Public Works

Department where the ayacut served exceeded 40 hectares and the local

Panchayat Unions where the ayacut served is less than 40 hectares, for

maintenance.

Coming to the Publication a draft copy of which was handed over to me, which I have read completely, the author by himself has clarified it as a SOURCE BOOK

AND NOT A HISTORY in his "Introduction" chapter which I may extract below:-

"Therefore the present account is not a history and not even an exhaustive

account. But it is a source book. The events are arranged under some

convenient heads for quick reference. Every effort has been made to trace

the eventsfrom the administration and technical reports of the State

Government and some institutions like the Association of Engineers,

Budget speeches and Policy notes of the PWD".

Er. K. Ramalingam rightly points out how we in the department are poor in recording events and maintaining histories of at least major technical

achievements. He has taken enormous pains to collect information from different

sources and perhaps from his own jottings he might have maintained.

Listing of "Former Chief Engineers" in chapter 31 from the first Chief Engineer of the department, the most renowned irrigation engineer Col. Sir Arthur Cotton KC

IRE, appointed in 1857 when the department was created, right upto the latest

appointment on 08.08.2011 is commendable. The advisability of rearranging

according to the subjects they held charge like irrigation, buildings, investigation,

IHH, IMTI, PF, DRCS and so on irrespective of the repetition of the names under

different heads, may be considered while editing.

I should congratulate the Association of Engineers, Tamil Nadu PWD, who have planned the publication of this book to be released in their Platinum Jubilee

Valedictory Function. This Association under the guidance of my elderly colleague

Er. C.S. Kuppuraj got a fillip during ESCO 70 which he organized, .has been

making a steady progress since then, under able successors, to reach this Platinum

Jubilee year and present an image of trust, and respect as an organization serving

the Engineers of the department, not only in representing and obtaining the

reasonable emoluments for their services in the department, but also in improving

their technical caliber through releases of technical hand books and publication of

this nature.

I am sure this Publication will serve the present and future generation of engineers in the Public Works Department as a SOURCE BOOK to whenever they come

across situations, left to handle similar works by themselves, to learn and seek

guidance from the contribution made by several engineers of the past in the

department.

07-09-2011 A.Mohanakrishnan

Advisor to Government,

(Water Resources)

S.AUDISESHIAH, I.A.S. (Retd.)

Former Principal Secretary to Government, PWD

52, Cauvery street,

Kalakshetra Colony,

Besant Nagar,

Chennai 600 090.

FOREWORD

I deem it my honour and privilege to be invited to write the foreword for this compendium titled Tamil Nadu

Public Works DepartmentPast and Present authored

by Er.K.Ramalingam, retired Chief Engineer, Public Works Department and former

President/AOE, TNPWD and also sitting President, Senior Engineers Association,

TNPWD. I thank Er. A.Veerappan, State Secretary & Chairman, Organising

Committee and the office bearers of Senior Engineers Association, TNPWD for giving

me this opportunity.

Er. K. Ramalingam has created an impressive compendium of facts and figures carefully researching through 150 glorious years of Public Works Department. The

content, in the given framework, covering a long history of the Organization cannot

be expected to be more comprehensive. The author has tried to ensure that there

are no gaps in information at any point in time regarding the outstanding

performance of the Department. It is then for the individual reader to seek further

details specific to the given subject depending upon his/her interest. I sincerely feel

that every reader of this publication is obliged to compliment Er. K. Ramalingam for

his sincere effort.

An interesting fact reiterated in this compilation is that the Irrigation System in Tamil Nadu which we are proud of has its origin in the vision and creations of our ancient

dynasties of Chera, Chola, Pandian and Pallava. The author conveys the fact that our

ancient rulers were not only proud of their creations but also were optimistic that the

bountiful water sources created in the form of canals, tanks, anaicuts etc will remain

perennial. However it is a pity that the optimism of our ancient rulers is not fully

realised, in the sense that over exploitation of resource, regional greed of denying

equitable distribution of water flows across the regions and non-compliance of the

well-thought-out past water-sharing agreements has become the rule of the day.

The author has given due recognition to the British rulers as well by highlighting some of the outstanding irrigation projects such as Mullai Periyar, Mettur Dam and

several anaicuts across rivers, initiating significant improvements to the then existing

infrastructure, both before and after establishing a full-fledged Department of Public

Works in 1858. Some of the great contributors during British rule like Captain Arther

Cotton, Col. Ellis, Er.Pennycuik and others are recalled as being synonymous with

monumental irrigation projects created in Southern India.

The author also covers a plethora of irrigation works like Lower Bhavani, Noyyal, Kodumudiyar, Marudanadhi, Palar Porandalar, Uppar, Vaigai, the marvellous

Parambikulam Aliyar Project and many others created after Independence. The basic

details provided in respect to each project i.e. time of execution, project cost, ayacut

area etc will be of immense value for reference and further study.

I compliment the author for adequately elaborating under chapters 16 & 17 the tank modernization schemes undertaken since early 18th century. His summery

presentation of Irrigation Growth in the State before and after Independence in the

following Chapter is impressive too. One can visualise from the presentation that the

network of nearly 30,000 irrigation tanks (PWD & Panchayat) across the State, a

unique feature forming part of minor irrigation system is the main stay of farming

community, particularly in dry regions. Considering the fact that about 33% of

irrigated land is supported by tanks, the author has justified in conveying the

importance of this segment of irrigation. Modernization schemes like WRCP,

IAMWARM and NABARD supported minor irrigation works have aimed at increasing

farm productivity thereby assuring sustainable optimum income to the farmers. This

is believed to be achievable through rehabilitation and modernization of water

sources with particular reference to tanks and canals, up-gradation of water studies

and training institutes, effective participation of water user associations etc. The

author has vividly brought out the positive outcome of these schemes and while

doing so has conveyed, as I understand that water use efficiency in combination with

farmers participation is the key to achieve the objectives of modernization schemes.

While indicating further modernization schemes in the pipeline, the author has specifically mentioned the Cauvery Modernization Scheme, since submitted by the

Task Force constituted under the Chairmanship of Er.A. Mohanakrishnan. I had the

opportunity of examining this report during my tenure as Principal Secretary to

Government in the Public Works Department. I can confidentally say that this is one

of the most meticulously prepared reports and am hopeful that we can soon see the

execution of this project.

Yet another highlight in the compilation is the subject relating to Inter-State Water Disputes. Although the content is not very elaborate, it gives a gist of developments

over a period of time in chronological order. This will enable the reader to appreciate

the amount of effort, time and money consumed despite which just settlements are

still eluding. There is therefore the need for a strong time specific dispute settlement

mechanism including a firm legal frame failing which the food security will become a

serious casualty.

Some of the other notable subjects specifically covered in the compilation are, Tank Improvement Works, IAMWARM Works, Water Users Associations, Training and

Water Institutes, Ground Water and Hydrological Studies, Interlinking of Intra-State

rivers and Public Buildings of monumental value. This information, in my view, will

immensely benefit the departmental Engineers to take existing schemes forward with

imagination, dynamism and dedication for the larger benefit of society.

The author has been meticulous not to miss the administrative systems that were in place at different periods in time, since the full-fledged Public Works Department was

created in 1858.

In all, the author has done an appreciable job in bringing out the subject wise significant developments spanning a period of 150 years of Public Works

Department. The objective of this exercise in my understanding can be twofold:

firstly to provide a handy guide to all the Engineers, particularly beginners in the

Department with readily available information and secondly to motivate the

incumbents to dedicate themselves in their duties for the larger good of society.

More importantly, I should say that a mere reading of this useful compilation inspires

everyone to contribute by way of writing and publishing books / papers on every

subject under the scope of the Organization. I will be extremely happy if the

Engineers serving and retired can make an attempt to elaborate each of the subjects

in this compilation, particularly those relating to Inter-State Water Disputes, Ground

Water and Hydrological Studies, Interlinking of Intra-State Rivers, Expansion of

Minor Irrigation Sources etc and intensively deliberate over them. Such initiatives

will go a long way for the policy makers to do their bit for further improvements to

the irrigation infrastructure and systems thereby impacting sustainable food

production enhancement.

Last but not least is my earnest desire to compliment the retired Senior Engineers who I consider as legends and who continue to make significant contributions for the

good of the Organization and Society. I do not venture to name these outstanding

personalities for the fear of missing some. It is gratifying to note that some of the

serving engineers, particularly beginners show promise in terms of adding further

glory to the Organization.

I conclude by extending my best wishes to one and all on the occasion of Platinum Jubilee of the Association of Engineers, Tamil Nadu Public Works Department.

21-09-2011 S. AUDISESHIAH

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter No. Brief Description Page No.

1. Introduction 1

2. Legacy from the past 3

3. British Period 9

4. Evolution of PWD Structure 13

5. Notable Projects in Andhra Pradesh 23

6. Projects in Malabar of Kerala State 25

7. Cauvery Mettur Project and

Mettur High-Level Canal

27

8. Grand Anicut Canal 33

9. Flood and Flood works 35

10. Buckingham Canal 41

11. I.H.H. Poondi 46

12. Coovum Improvement Works 48

13. Mullaiperiyar and Periyar Vaigai works 51

14. Interstate Water Disputes 54

15. Projects after independence 59

16. Tank Improvement works 105

17. WRCP and IAMWARM works 110

18. Irrigation growth in the state 135

Chapter No. Brief Description Page No.

19. Training Institute 150

20. Rural Employment Guarantee Schemes 152

21. DCR Schemes 153

22. Sand Quarries in the State 155

23. Kudimaramath Works 156

24. Chennai City Water Supply Schemes 159

25. Marine works and Sethusamudram Project 165

26. River Pumping schems and Tube-well Corporation 168

27. Groundwater and Hydrological studies 172

28. Interlinking of Rivers 183

29. Anti-sea Erosion works and Royapuram Beach 186

30. Building works 190

31. Former Chief Engineers 214

32. Bibliography 229

1 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

Er. K.RAMALINGAM, B.E., B.Gl., F.I.C.A., F.I.A.H., F.I.E., (India) Former Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation), TNPWD AP 506, 16th Street, J-Block Anna Nagar West, Ch-40. Ph : 044-26161640, Cell : 99411 28751, E-mail : kempulingam@yahoo.co.in

CHAPTER - 1 : INTRODUCTION :

Tamilnadu PWD is a very live and dynamic institution and is a potent force to bridge the gap between Government and the people, between hunger and hope and between water and crops. It is now proposed to record some events of the past and present, in a chronological order such that it may become a reference book of case-studies to help in applying them, to improve upon them, and to solve our future problems and to fulfill the hopes of people and Government.

In the world, India and Egypt have been pioneering the traditions of applying river waters to raise crops and feed the hungry people over many millenniums and China had been pioneering in the field of innovative tools and machineries to maximize results from the efforts of the mankind. In India, the state of Tamilnadu had been demonstrating how best to harness and distribute the river waters to the fullest extent, eventhough it had not been endowed with any major rivers and it ranks about the last in the country in per-capita availability of water. In the art of building construction, too, we have had a lineage of great builders like Rajaraja Chola and Pallava kings and we continue the same tradition and we have established a distinct style and culture in all our buildings.

Therefore the present account is not a history and not even an exhaustive account. But, it is a source-book. The events are arranged under some convenient heads for quick reference. Every effort has been made to trace the events from the administrative and technical reports of the state governments and some institutions like Association of Engineers, Budget speeches and Policy notes of the PWD Ministers. But all these reports are not readily available in a continuous manner as there is no regular systems of preservation. It is understood from the Secretariat Librarian that the Government have stopped printing the administration reports since the last few years. But a few reports were available from the years 1923 with many gaps in the Connemara Library where access to them is very arduous and forbidding. The Irrigation Department are not publishing the New Irrigation Era regularly or with required care and lately, due to some administrative changes, the

2 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

publication has been relegated to unconnected agencies. Therefore the activities are not highlighted. On the other hand, compared with the past, the tempo of activities and number of schemes and scale of investments have grown over 10 times over the past decade. Therefore it has become very necessary that we keep all the technical, hydrological and financial particulars and publish them periodically. Therefore many particulars had to be collected from the articles of the various engineers presented at some seminars or in some journals. In this connection, the contributions of our eminent Engineer Dr.A.Mohanakrishnan are to be very much appreciated.

In this electronic age, web-sites will prove to be very good repositories but the trouble comes at the time of updating when the old informations get lost. A system should be evolved to store these data in regular files and preserve them. The Government should also resume publication of the State administrative reports and make them available in the web-sites freely to all those who want them. The Budget and policy speeches must also be stored in web-sties. The Government departments like PWD, Ground Water, Agriculture Engineering and Agriculture must be encouraged to publish monthly bulletins and preserve them in the respective departmental libraries, web-sites and also in Government libraries like Connemara etc.

These Information are being serialised in the bimonthly bulletins of Mooththa Poriyaalar of Tamilnadu PWD Senior Engineers Association since one year and the Association of Engineers, TNPWD have thought it fit to publish this in a book form in connection with the platinum jubilee celebration of the Association of Engineers I hope that this publication will help to establish a recorded history of this type but likely to contain some errors in dates or facts, I request the reading engineers and others to contact me and point them out for later incorporation.

Er.K.Ramalingam

President, TNPWD Senior Engineers Association

3 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

CHAPTER 2 : LEGACY FROM THE PAST

1. The rulers of Chera, Chola, Pandyan and Pallava kingdoms were very sensitive to creation of irrigation facilities. The British who came after 1800 had not constructed any irrigation tanks. They had done only major works like Periyar Dam and Cauvery Mettur project and installed anicuts or regulators across rivers and channels in Cauvery, Krishna and Godavari basins in 1850. They had inherited over 39000 irrigation tanks which account for 45% of the area brought under irrigation through channels tanks and wells. When East India Company took over the state, they had realized the important role played by irrigation tanks in preventing famines and therefore appointed Sir Arthur Cotton as Inspector of tanks. Therefore the tanks formed the infrastructure for irrigation development and it is worthwhile to record when such tanks and related facilities were installed by native rulers before the establishment of PWD by the British in the year 1858. The information on the history of tanks is embedded in the poems of sangam period, and engravings from the stone edicts and etchings in the walls of the ancient temples which date backwards to the period before birth of Christ. Literatures like Silappadhikaram, Thiruvilayaadal Puranam and Puranaanooru and Aganaanooru give indirect information. The stone sluices and surplus weirs have been left with some engravings of names of rulers or donors and their periods. Collection of such information is beyond the scope of this article. However some information are given from ready materials cited in the a bibliography.

2. Aganaanooru (76) states that Cauvery was always flowing full breaking the banks. Puranaanooru (35) describes the Cauvery would never fail to feed the populace even if sun were to change its direction of movement. Poem 68 declared that Cauvery suckled her children like a mother. Manimekalai refers to the myth that Cauvery originated from the pot of saint Agasthya.

3. Poets in Karnataka preserve episodes on battles that took place on the banks of Cauvery river between the ruling families of Karnataka (Chalukyas and Rashtra Kootahs) and of Tamilnadu (Cholas and Pallavas). The massive army of Pulikesi, Vikramadihtya and Vimaladitya checked the flow of Cauvery between Uraiyur and Puhar while marching against Chola capital. In the 18th century Chikkadevaraya Wodaiyar completed building a dam and some Tamil Chieftains of Madurai region are stated to have hastened to Mysore and made unsuccessful attempts to destroy it.

4 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

4. Though Cauvery is born in western ghats, and flows hundreds of miles before entering into present day Tamilnadu, it was exploited more by the Tamils than by Kannadigas. This is satirically observed by a 13th century Kannadya grammarian named Kesiraja, author of Sabdamaniderpana. He wants to know from Tigulas (Tamils) whether they were borrowing the water from Kannadigas or appropriating in the name of past debt.

5. Restoration of old tanks and introduction of minor works between 1800 and 1810 by Dewan Poorniah of Mysore and constitution of PWD in 1856 of the Mysore state were viewed with suspicion and Madras Government formally expressed its concern on these developments in 1870. This brought the two states to the negotiating table at Ooty, in 1890, leading to conclusion of 1892 agreement. Records say that Irrigation facilities in Mysore state in 1900 was sufficient for cultivating 1.1 lakh acres and that this increased to 4.4 lakh acres in 1971. Records say that before the completion of Mettur dam the ayacut was only 14.4 lakh acres and this got increased to 45 lakh acres after commissioning of the dam.

6. The following are some of the irrigation rivers which existed in the period of Chola kings (846-954)

1) Mudikondan Cholapperaaru 6) Veera Rajendra Chola Vadavaru

2) Tanporuttaperaru 7) Vikramanaru

3) Sankatavuta Cholapperaaru 8) Karikala Cholapperaaru (Kollidam)

4) Akalanka Peraaru 9) Veeracholanaaru

5) Veerachola Vadavaru

7. The following are some of the channels which were excavated or named by Chola kings (846-954).

1) Arunmozhidevan Voikkal

2) Arinjikar Voikkal

3) Irajakesari Voikkal

4) Irajendra chola Voikkal

5) Uttamachili Voikkal

6) Utthamachola Voikkal

7) Gangaikonda chola Voikkal

8) Keralamadevi Voikkal

9) Kodandarama Voikkal

10) Cipudhi Voikkal

11) Sangam Thavirtha Chola Voikkal

12) Sundara chola Voikkal

13) Sembian Madevi Voikkal

14) Cenanatha Voikkal

15) Cholakula Voikkal 33) Jayakonda chola Voikkal

5 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

16) Cholachoolamani Voikkal

17) Nittavinodan Voikkal

18) Parachakkara thatta Voikkal

19) Paramesvara Voikkal

20) Parantakan Voikkal

21) Maadevan Voikkal

22) Maadevi Voikkal

23) Mudikonda chola Voikkal

24) Vanavan Madevi Voikkal

25) Vimaladitya Voikkal

26) Subramanya voikal

27) Tiruvengada voikal

28) Thillividanga voikal

29) Padmanabha voikal

30) Parvati voikal

31) Veerachola Voikkal

32) Veeranarayana Voikkal

34) Sri Arinjikar Voikkal

35) Srikanda Voikkal

36) Ganderaaditta Voikkal

37) Sri Sembiyamaadevi Voikkal

38) Sri Parantaka Voikkal

39) Aali Voikkal

40) Irayan Voikkal

41) Ganapati Voikkal

42) Ganapati voikal

43) Karumanikka voikal

44) Kesava voikal

45) Saraswati voikal

46) Valli voikal

47) Veereswara voikal

48) Sri Devi voikal

49) Sri Purushothama voikal

50) Sri Madava voikal

8. The drains excavated in Cauvery delta during Chola period are given below (846 954)

1. Veeranarayana vadi

2. Srikandaraditya vadi

3. Sri Sembiyamaadevi vadi

4. Sri Sembiyamaadevi vadi

5. Sri Rajaskesari vadi

6. Sri Ranga vadi

7. Sri Veeranarayana vadi

8. Kausala vadi

9. Kamadeva vadi

10. Sankara vadi

11. Thiruchitrambala vadi

12. Thiruvaranga vadi

13. Sreedara vadi

14. Perumal vadi

15. Srikamuka vadi

16. Sriveerakamuka vadi

17. Annanarayana vadi

18. Aditha vadi

19. Irajakesari vadi

26. Naratanga vadi

27. Panchavanmaadevi vadi

28. Parameswara vadi

29. Parakrama vadi

30. Madurantaka vadi

6 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

20. Kandarulkanda vadi

21. Kamara vadi

22. Kadarangonda vadi

23. Kulothunga Chola vadi

24. Chola kulavalli vadi

25. Tribhuvana Maadevi Vadi

31. Madeva Adigal vadi

32. Mummudi Chola vadi

33. Vayiramega vadi

34. Vairravan vadi

35. Videvidugu vadi

Some more ancient structures of the past are given below :

No Name of Structure River Period Remarks as to the kings responsible

1. Uyyakondan channel

Cauvery 985-1014 Rajarajacholan

2. Head sliuice for Uyyakondan

Cauvery 1070 1120 Kulothunga cholan

3. Manniyaru

near Konerirajapuram

Cauvery 1216-1256 Rajaraja Cholan

4. Mudikondan Cauvery 1216-1256 Rajaraja Cholan

5. Veeracholan river Cauvery - Veera Rajendra cholan

6. Vikraman River Cauvery 1118-1125 Vikrama Cholan near Kuttalam

7. Kandaraditha Tank Cauvery 950-957 Kandaratyachola

8. Parameswara Thadagam

Cauvery 7th century Parameswara Varman (great grand son)

9. Gunamalli Cauvery 7th Century Mahendra Varman

10. Mahendra Thadagam

Cauvery 7th Century Mahendra varman

11. Palar anicut Palar 7th century -

12. Mahendra odai Palar 7th Century -

13. Vinnamangalam Palar 920 King Udayendran

14. Thanneer Thadagam (Dravya

Palar 8th century -

7 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

No Name of Structure River Period Remarks as to the kings responsible

Thadagam)

15. Veeramega Thadagam

Palar 8th century Pallava king near Uthira merur

16. Parimelan Kanmoi Palar 8th century near Melur. by Maravarma Sundarapandiyan

17. Walaja Tank Palar 19th century Karnataka Nawab N.A. Dist

18. Kodiveri Anicut Bhavani 1500 AD Vijayanagar king

19. Madurantakam Tank Kiliyar 984-1014 Rajarajacholan

20. Veeranam Tank (Veeranarayana Eri)

Vellar 907-988 Parantaka Chola

21. Kandaratheetha Eri Cauvery 950-957 Kandaratheetha Cholan

22. Kaveripakkam Tank Palar 9th century Nandivarman III

23. Samudram Tank Cauvery basin

19th century Maharatta ruler

24. Perungulam Tank (Chola Samudram)

Cauvery 1250 Rajarajachola

25. Sembyan Endal Cauvery 11th century Chola kings

26. R.S.Mangalam Tank Vellar 900-920 Feeding channel from Vaigai

27. Kodimelazhagam Anicut

Tambiraparani 7th century

Pandyan kings 28. Nathiunni anicut Tambiraparani 7th century

29. Kannadian Anicut Tambiraparani 7th century

30. Kodagan Anicut Tambiraparani 7th century

31. Pazhavan Anicut Vellar 7th century

32. Marudur Anicut Vellar 7th century

8 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

No Name of Structure River Period Remarks as to the kings responsible

33. Gudumelan Anicut Vellar 7th century

34. Ukkal Tank Cauvery 1012-1043 Maintained by lands granted by Rajendra cholan

35. Thinneri Tank (Thinnaneri)

Palar 8th Century Pallava king Thirayan

36. Chembarambakkam Tank

Adyar 8th century Pallava king. Terminal tank of Palar Anicut system strengthened after floods for city water supply

37. Pandyan Dam Palayar 1000 AD Marthanda Varman but silted up and abandoned

38. Ullar Surplus course Cauvery 200 BC Improved by Maharatta king in 1801

9 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

CHAPTER 3 : BRITISH PERIOD

The British formed a full fledged PWD in 1858. The military engineers were assigned on permanent basis. There were 3 branches in 1866 of (i) Military works (2) Civil works including irrigation and (3) Railways. By 1895 military works became heavy and were formed into a separate branch. Sir Arthur Cotton was in front of fame in 1850s with successful execution of works in Cauvery, Krishna and Godavari basins. Irrigation projects appeared like goldmines and private persons entered into the field under guarantees provided by G.O. I who assured 5% return on capital outlay. Two Irrigation companies were floated in 1858 to exploit coastal areas of Orissa and adjoining areas. Madras Irrigation Company was formed in 1863 but failed in their ventures and GOI took over these companies. In 1866 major change took place in the policy of GOI and they ruled that irrigation projects shall be executed to prevent famines and they shall be financed from grants and loans from GOI without any consideration of state boundaries. Though Railway projects were more remunerative, famine occurances opened eyes of many engineers who felt that priority should be given to irrigation. When the East India Company took over the state administration, all irrigation structures were in a state of ruin and neglect due to frequent wars and behaviours of many small rulers and kings. People were diverting water from streams and rivers by means of temporary korambus and mud-dams which were renewed after every flood. Farmers were satisfied with yields from fields even though they were very meager and large land holdings easily made good their requirements.

In response to demands of farmers, British were obliged to construct many anicuts and regulators in the places of mud korambus. But no irrigation tanks seem to here been formed except Chembarambakkam (1893) Periyar and Mettur and Wellingdon reservoir took most of their meticulous planning and investigation. Such works executed during British period (upto independence in 1947) are given below.

Sl. No

Name of Dam / Anicut

Period of Construction

River sub basin

Cost in Rs. lakhs

Capacity MCuM

Area benefited ha

Remarks

1. Periyar 1886-95 Periyar 108.00 443/299 57871

2. Pechiparai 1895-1906 Kodayar 26 152/126 25900 Travancore samasthanam

3. Wellingdon 1913-23 Vellar 23 73/60 11197

4. Mettur dam 1926-34 Cauvery 680 2708/2646 121810

10 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

Sl. No

Name of Dam / Anicut

Period of Construction

River sub basin

Cost in Rs. lakhs

Capacity MCuM

Area benefited ha

Remarks

5. Srivaikundam Anicut

1873 Tambara-parani

16.11 - 9617 Through many tanks

6. Kodivery Anicut 1894 Bhavani 0.71 - 9800

7. Sethiathope Anicut 1895 Vellar 1.19 - 19200

8. Tirukoilur Anicut 1895 Ponniar 0.45 - 15000 Sandy bed 500 m wide

9. Cheyyar Anicut 1852 Cheyyar 1.10 - 28800 Feed 144 tanks

10. Poiney Anicut 1857 Poiney 0.28 - 14600 -

11. Palar Anicut 1857 Palar 2.58 - 4000 -

12. Cauvery grand anicut Head Regulator

1881

13. Upper Anicut 1836-38 Cauvery NA - - Remodelled in 1899-04 with 55 spans of 40 feet

14. Cauvery dam 1845 Cauvery - - - Check erosion of Cauvery bed

15. Papanasam 1943 Papanasam - 158 Conceived in 1928-29 mainly for power

16. Lower Anicut 1836 Cauvery NA - 48000 ha Thanjavur and South Arcot Districts

17. Vennar Head Regulator

1856 Cauvery NA - 1.8 Lakhs

18. Cauvery Surplus at escape near

1850 Cauvery NA - - Surplus into Coleroon

11 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

Sl. No

Name of Dam / Anicut

Period of Construction

River sub basin

Cost in Rs. lakhs

Capacity MCuM

Area benefited ha

Remarks

Perumal koil

19. Chembarambakkam tank

1893 Adyar 0.76 88.3 5269

20. Sathyamurthy Sagar (Poondi)

1944 Kosastalayar NA 0.772 Chennai city drinking water

21. Uyyakondan Channel Restoration

1938-39 Cauvery NA 1310

22. Lower Bhavani 1952 Bhavani 950 929/909 83772 Preliminary works started in British period

23. Nandyar Voikal 1899 Trichy 0.07 3210

24. Pelandur Anicut 1893 S.A 0.69 5044

25. Tamarapakkam Anicut

1909 Chingleput 65.00 Drinking water

26. Marudur Anicut 1894 Tambarap-arani

0.06 7046 5834 II stage

27. Vallur Anicut 1893 Kosastalayar 0.08 - 11.13

28. Pelandur & Sethiahope anicuts

1850 Vellar N.A - 12000 Converted into regulators in 1913

29. Kattalai bed regulator

1933-34 Cauvery NA - 25800 to replace 4 korambus

30. Kattalai North bank canal

1934-35 Cauvery NA - 416

31. Kattalai High level canal

1936-37 Cauvery NA - 822

32. Ayyavayyanar improvements

1928-29 Cauvery NA NA NA

33. upland drainage 1928-30 Cauvery NA NA NA

12 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

Sl. No

Name of Dam / Anicut

Period of Construction

River sub basin

Cost in Rs. lakhs

Capacity MCuM

Area benefited ha

Remarks

34. Barur tank 1891 Salem 0.46 2145

35. Vriddachalam Anicut

1893 South Arcot 0.24 - 3557

36. Mamadur Anicut 1891 South Arcot 0.09 - 1919

37. Puthan Dam Paralayar 1894 16.11 - 23769 Cochin Samasthanam

38. Kodayar 1906 Kanyakumari

40. Panamarathupatti Tank

1911 Salem 6.98 - - -

The British Government had constructed barrages across Cauvery and Vennar rivers in Cauvery Delta wherever branch rivers took off and helped to form 1505 A class channels and 19000 km of branch channels in the old delta.

13 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

CHAPTER 4 : EVOLUTION OF PWD STRUCTURE

The origin and development of the departments executing the Public Works in the State could be briefly stated as follows :

A. Prior to the year 1858

All Public Works were carried out and maintained by three distinct and independent departments in the presidency.

(i) The Maramath department of the Board of Revenue :

Irrigation works, navigational canals, all civil buildings, all minor roads and bridges not on the trunk roads or cantonments.

(ii) The Trunk Road Department :

All trunk roads or great links of communication.

(iii) The Engineering department of the Military Board :

All fortifications, all cantonments, all military buildings in the Province All roads, bridges, public buildings in the Presidency town of Madras.

I. THE MARAMATH DEPARTMENT :

This department was practically incharge of the majority of the public works of all kinds and was thus a very important department of the Government in the early British period. At first the collectors assumed the charge of these works without adequate professional assistance which resulted in unprofitable outlay and waste of public money. Thereafter several periodical changes were effected for better progress which may be serialized as below :

1809 : The engineers under the designation Superintendents of Tank Repairs were appointed to aid the Collectors.

1819 : The Maramath department was regularly formed. The Inspector General of Civil Estimates at the Presidency town had under him Civil Engineers in each of the three divisions into which the then Presidency was divided.

1825 : The Inspector General of Civil Estimates came under the control of the Board of Revenue but had the power to record his views for the information of the Government if they differed from those of the Board.

1836 : The post of Inspector General of Civil Estimates was redesignated as the Public Works Engineer. This engineer had a seat in the Revenue Board for matters connected with his subject and was also Ex-officio Secretary of the Board.

14 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

1838 : The whole Presdency was rearranged into 8 maramath divisions each under a Civil Engineer working under the Public Works Chief Engineer. The construction and maintenance of civil buildings in the Provinces so far under the Engineering department of the Military Board were taken over.

1858 : The Maramath department was abolished. The duties of the Civil Engineers and of the establishment under them were mainly of supervision only and consisted of

(a) Preparation of plans and estimates

(b) Inspection and direction of works under execution.

(c) Measuring up of works when finished.

(d) Execution of large building works and such project works in exceptional cases.

The actual execution of works were done by Revenue Maramath department working under the Tahsildars.

The strength of the department just at the time of its breaking was as follows :

Maramath department : 24 Civil Engineers (permanent)

11 Civil Engineers (temporary)

25 East Indian Surveyors 23 European overseers

35 Native Maistries

Revenue Maramath establishment : 12 Superintendents of Maramath & 79 Taluk Maistries

II. The Madras Public Works Department

The Court of Directors in England appointed a Public Works Commission in 1855 to review the working of the Maramath Department and they came out with the following recommendation.

(1) The Work of the Presidency are generally in a neglected state except in a few favoured Districts.

(2) The annual grant allotted is inadequate.

(3) The establishment appointed is inadequate.

(4) The Board of Revenue is no longer able to deal with the business of Maramath department.

(5) The executive establishment employed under the Tahsildars as Revenue Maramath is inefficient

15 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

(6) It is bad management and bad economy to have three establishments to be in charge of different classes of work scattered over the Presidency

(7) One department should be established to manage all Public works and should both supervise and execute the works.

Based on these recommendations and on the advice of the Home Government and the Government of India, the Madras Public Work Department was first formed in 1858 with the following cadre strength.

Chief Engineer 1

Inspecting Engineers .. 3

District Engineers 20

Executive and Assistant Engineers 78

Upper Subordinates, Sub Engineers, Supervisors and overseers 204

Lower Subordinates or Sub Overseers 714

B. 1859 1872

A few administrative changes that came in, during this period may be listed as below:

1860 : The Chief Engineer was appointed as Secretary to Government in the Public Works Department. Three Inspecting Engineers i.e. Deputy Chief Engineers were temporarily vested with the powers of Chief Engineer.

1863 : Radical administrative changes came in posts of Inspecting Engineers which were abolished. Eight Superintending Engineers were posted. The Presidency was divided into 84 Public Works ranges and each put in charge of an Executive Engineer. The Chief Engineer and Secretary to Government, Public Works Department was mainly concerned with preparation of budgets, allotment of funds and promotion of subordinates.

1867 : Chief Engineer, (Irrigation) was appointed. In 1870 the Public Works Commission was appointed. Main points of reference were:-

(i) To consider the agency by which the minor works of Irrigation should be effectively maintained.

(ii) To consider the efficient working of the Public Works administration as organized in 1863.

The Commission stressed that maintenance of minor irrigation works should not be handed over to the Revenue Department but considered that as their number were far too great to admit of their effective maintenance by any Government

16 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

Department, arrangement should be made for the execution of all ordinary repairs not requiring professional skill by the agency of the ryots themselves by providing a reduction of assessment in the form of a remission of revenue to be granted for execution of such repairs. The Committee also recommended the revival of Kudimaramaths or unpaid village labour of the ryots upon works of irrigation by a legal enactment and also gave a draft act for enactment.

On the organization side, the Commission desired that the posts of Superintending Engineer could be abolished and instead, 21 District Engineers could work in close coordination with the District Collectors and in direct communication with the two Chief Engineers. The Chief Engineer who was also the Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department was asked to exercise all powers of the professional Head of the Department as Chief Engineer instead of merely being a Controlling Officer as envisaged in 1863. These recommendations were implemented in 1872.

C. 1873 1942.

Further changes came in, during this period as the country was heading for self Government and independence and more development oriented works were in the offing. The executive and the Superintending Units were rearranged more than once to suit the needs. A few such changes are as below :

1878 : The District Engineer system was abolished and the posts of Superintending Engineers were revived. 5 Superintending Engineers were appointed and the executive divisions were 39.

1879 : Executive divisions were further reduced to 29.

1880 : Local fund works were transferred to the Local Boards. The Superintending Engineers were reduced to 3 and the number of executive divisions to 19.

1881 : The Presidency was rearranged into 6 Superintending Engineers circles and 30 executive divisions.

1895 : Military works became heavy and got separated out of PWD.

Since then, the administrative units remained generally the same for well over five decades. Large increase in works came in with several major irrigation projects being taken up. Mention has to be made of the Periyar Dam built between 1885 and 1895 and the Mettur including the Grand Anicut and the Upper Anicut carried out during this period. For all such project works special divisions and construction circles were formed then and there according to necessity. Special units to deal with famine and drought works and also flood works were also functioning at different times.

17 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

1850 : Financial and social profits were note worthy and especially after successful works carried out in Cauvery, Krishna and Godavary deltas and irrigation work considered as a goldmine.

1858 : Government allowed reluctantly private enterprises to enter irrigation sector under guarantee scheme of 5% on investments. Irrigation companies floated in England and went into operation in 1863.

1863 : Madras Irrigation company was formed but failed in their venture. Government of India took over both the companies.

1866 : G.O.I. announced major irrigation policy of (a) states only to launch projects (b) projects to be met from loans and (c) political state boundaries not an interference.

1879 : State Government took up schemes as productive and non-productive as recommended by a committee and this productirty test depended upon the rate of return.

1903 : Irrigation Commission headed by Col. Scott Moncrief recommended changes in principle from producturty to protection against famine and G.O.I. approved this.

1914 to18 : Funds became scarce due to diversion to war efforts and emphasis shifted to productivity from social security.

1918-21: Irrigation works were virtually under G.O. I before Montagu Chemsford Reforms of 1921 States could take up schemes upto Rs.10 lakhs Imperial and provincial names were given to all works States allowed to raise loans. Funds given by G.O.I to States as advances.

1821 : G.O.I. did not allow States to undertake any works above Rs.50 lakhs without approval of Secretary of State until 01.04.37 when provincial autonomy was introduced.

1825 - 26 : Superintendent post was sanctioned for Workshop and Stores.

1928 - 29 : 3 workshops were set up at Madras, Dowaleshwaram and Bezawada and Rs.7.09 lakhs sanctioned.

1935 : Government of India Act Radical irrigation left to the sole legislative completence of the states and of princes. G.O.I. stepped in, only in cases of disputes when Governor General would appoint commissions.

1861-1921 : Irrigation was a central subject and was closely watched by G.O.I. From 1837 it became a state subject.

18 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

1943-1968 :

This quarter century was a crucial period in the history of our country. Following the Quit India movement, the historical transfer of power from the British hands to our countrymen was effected in the most cordial atmosphere. Immediately after independence we launched gigantic projects for overall development through Five- Year plans drafted in succession. Our state, which had contributed in no small measure in the struggle for independence, was now also in the forefront, in implementing the development schemes.

The administrative machinery had to be geared up to handle these development and construction schemes. Following the resolutions of the Indian Roads Congress held in Nagpur in 1945, a massive programme for expansion and development of the National and State Highways was drawn A separate department to be in charge of all the roads was considered essential and the State Highways Department was thus formed in 1946.

Through the Madras Act No.17 of 1961 the State Housing Board was formed to execute housing and improvement schemes throughout the state. This restricted the building activity in the Public Works Department to the public buildings, educational medical, judicial, institutional and so on.

The Public Health and Sanitary works of the State were, over a long time, in the charge of a special wing of the Public Works Department. With the fast development of the urban water supply and sewerage schemes and the avowed policy of the Government, to provide safe drinking water to all the villages the workload in this wing had increased enormously. A separate Public Health and Municipal Works Department was hence constituted in 1962 which has since merged into the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board on 14.04.1971.

Tamil nadu Slum clearance Board was formed in 1972

1968 Reorganisation :

Recommendations of the 1968 commission are given in this chapter.

With the several development projects executed in the Five Year Plans, the departmental activity both in the Irrigation and Buildings Branches had increased. Besides, the permanent circles and divisions, several special construction circles and divisions were functioning. A Special circle for food production schemes was functioning with the entire state as the unit and similarly separate divisions executing special minor irrigation schemes.

The new Government took a policy decision that the administrative set up should have territorial jurisdiction rather than functional divisions and ordered reorganization.

19 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

As per this, each district was placed in charge of a Superintending Engineer with three or four divisions under him, each Executive Engineer having three or four Assistant Engineers. Each unit was placed in charge of both the irrigation works and buildings in its territorial jurisdiction. New Capital works, construction works and also the maintenance works within the territorial jurisdiction were brought under the same unit. Sixteen circles were formed in the reorganized set up as against the fifteen existing circles. Of these sixteen, ten were district circles with the smaller districts like Salem and Dharmapuri, Coimbatore and Nilgiris and Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari forming single units. The other six were special circles like the Designs, Central Mechanical, Floods, P.A.P. etc.,

1973 : Hindu Published the proposal of Tamilnadu Govt. to recruit direct Assistant Executive engineers and Govt. issued G.O.Ms.No.1964 dated 18.12.1973 for direct recruitment of Assistant Executive Engineer and the Association of Engineers objected to the proposal. Government also issued a G.O.Ms.No.1905, dated 10.12.73 to split PWD into 2 wings of buildings and irrigation and to allow transfers during the next 10 years and not beyond. This was also vehemently opposed by the Association of Engineers, TNPWD.

1984 Tamilnadu Irrigation Management Training Institute was established in the year 1984 with financial assistance from United States Agency for International Development under Water Resource Management and Training Project

Government in G.O.Ms.759, dated 6.11.96 establishing Irrigation management Training Institute at Trichy for training engineers and farmers on modern trends. Engineer-in-chief will be the vice-chairman of the Governing council of the institute.

1993 : World Bank comes forward to help irrigation branch with aid for rehabilitating all the irrigation structures and to complete some on-going schemes to tide over financial problems of government and suggests separation of the water resources wing from the Buildings. Again this proposal was opposed by the Associations.

1994 : The Government sets up a high power committee under the chairmanship of Dr. M.Anandakrishnan and 15 other members to suggest reorganization proposals and it recommended gradual separation. The W.RC.P report copy is enclosed.

1995 : Government issued G.O.Ms.No.530, dated 3.7.1995 ordering separate organization called Water Resources and 4 zones at major basins and number of sub-basins.

1995 : The Association of Engineers vehemently opposed the separation proposal.

20 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

1995 : Government appoints Engineer-in-chief in G.O.No.1185, dated 23.11.1994 with starting pay of Rs.5100 and Er. K.O.Palanisamy assumes charge as the first Engineer-in-Chief.

2002 : Government appoints another committee under Er. C.A.Srinivasan and 3 other members for separation of the PWD into 2 separete departments. Er. A.Mohanakrishnan was also a member of the committee. The committee did not recommend separation and Er. Mohanakrishnan gave a dissent note.

2002 : Technical secretariat for water Basin Management and development Board formed in 2001.

2003 : Expert committee formed to review Engineering Reforms Committee recommendations to modernize based on latest technological advancement consisting of 1) Ramasamy R.Iyer 2) Dr. V.C.Kulandasamy, 3) S.T.Deokale and 4) Engineer-in-Chief of WRO

21 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION 1968 Government of Tamil Nadu A Report on the PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION Volume I : SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To the extent possible engineers should be allowed to specialise in either Irrigation or Buildings, so that eventually the department may be bifurcated into two independent departments to be able to keep pace with modern developments. (paras. 2.7. and 2.8.).

2. Methods should be devised by which a few of the engineers will work for short spells in the PW Secretariat as Under secretary/Deputy Secretary / Joint Secretary and a few of the IAS Officers will work for short spells in the PWD under the control of the Chief Engineer in certain non-technical areas-to promote mutual undersatanding between the policy-making and programme executing wings of the Government. (para.3.5.)

3. The Public Works Secretariat while processing major projects involving large outlays should engage the services of independent consultants for technical scrutiny of the scheme. (para. 3.7.)

4. The Board of Engineers should be authorized to facilitate and regulate the horizontal movement of engineers from one department to another to relieve undue stagnation (para. 4.3.)

5. Deputations to outside agencies, interdepartmental movement of work-charged establishment and tools and plants may also be arranged by the Board of Chief Engineers. (para. 4.5. and 4.6.)

6. A smaller Board consisting of the Chief Engineers of the Government Departments only, may be delegated with the power to settle all tenders above a value of Rs.25 lakhs, so long as the tender excess is within 5% (para. 4.7. and 4.8).

7. A three-year tenure may be given to every officer appointed as a Superintending Engineer/Chief Engineer irrespective of his normal age of retirement. (Para. 5.9.).

8. To avoid stagnation of graduate engineers and to ensure that they could assume higher responsibilities at appropriate ages, the intake of the graduates at the level of the section officers should be restricted so that all of them will normally get promoted to the level of Executive Engineer before the age of 32. Rest of the vacancies at the level of section officers will be filled in, by Licentiates who could normally hope to move up only to the level of the Assistant Engineers before retirement. A job evaluation of the section-charge may be done by independent experts to assess whether most sections could be manned by licentiates with

22 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

marginal improvements to the curriculum of the LCE Course, if necessary (para 5.11.1. and 5.11.2).

9. If the recommendation in para 5.11 was found unacceptable on the basis of the studies mentioned in para 511.2., then direct recruitment at the level of the AEs should be revived. Four to five persons may be recruited every year based on both written competitive examinations and viva voce and aptitude tests and designated as Assistant Executive Engineers and given a scale of pay slightly better than that of Assistant Engineers. The promotion procedures may be so devised that all of them in the normal course, could hope to become EEs in the 6th year of their service. (paras. 5.12.1., 5.12.2. and 5.12.3.).

10. Stagnation may be relieved to some extent by facilitating horizontal movement of Engineers among the various engineering departments and organizations upto the level of AEs (para. 5.14.).

11. Stagnation may also be relieved by a judicious use of the opportunities to depute engineers to outside agencies. (para. 5-15. and 5-16).

12. The creation of Common Cadre of engineers for all engineering departments and organizations is not recommended as it will be unmanageably large and will not be conducive to specialization. (para 5-17).

13. Direct recruitment at Assistant Engineers level to the different departments of engineering, may be by a common competitive examination. (para 5-18).

14. A training programme of three months duration should be organized for all newly recruited section officers. (para 5-19).

15. A more detailed training programme of 8 to 12 months duration should be organized for the directly recrutted AEs. (para-5-21).

16. Engineers of the department should undergo at least once in 5 years, Refresher courses of 6 to 8 weeks duration to be organized by the department every year, to update their technical knowledge. (para 5-22).

17. Every year, at least 25 to 30 engineers in the age group of 25/35 should be sent for advanced courses of training in such fields as materials management, work - study, industrial engineering, personnel administration, structural engineering building science, pre-stressed concrete designs, computer applications, etc. All the Executive Engineers should be trained in the use of PERT/CPM. (para. (5-23).

23 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

CHAPTER 5 : NOTABLE PROJECTS IN ANDHRA PRADESH

Andhra Pradesh separated from Madras Presidency in 1956. Until then PWD was

executing all works in Andhra Pradesh. Some important works are only covered in this history.

A. Tungabhadra Dam (713000 mcft; irrigate 3 lakhs acres (cost Rs.17 crores) was mooted.

1929 to 1931 Investigations being continued.

1933 to 1934 Experts of Madras, Bombay, Mysore and Hyderabad conducted 2 meetings at Bangalore but could not reach any agreement.

1933 to 1935. Joint river gaugings were conducted and Government of India approached to approve and constitute Interstate Arbitration committee to fix the ratio of sharing the cost.

1938-1939 sharing of cost and waters discussed jointly in November 1938 and provisional agreement reached based on available data on water flows.

1944-1945 Inauguration of scheme under consideration. Agreement reached between Hyderabad and Madras. Cost will be Rs.10 Crores. Dam 8200 feet long and 160 feet high. Headquarters will be at Hospet. Cost to be shared equally. Capacity of reservoir will be 113500 Mcft and waterspread 138 square miles. Project will be developed in 2 stages. 2.90 lakh acres will be benefited.

1950 1951 Excavation in progress for dam and canals.

1951-1952 excavation for dam completed and dam being raised.

1955 Project completed and commissioned Er. M.S.Thirumale Iyengar, was Chief Engineer till 1952 followed by Er. N.Padmanabha Iyer, Er. L.Venkatakrishna Iyer and Er. K.V.Ekambaram

B. Machkand Hydro Electric Project.

1944-1948 : Joint development with Orissa. Sanctioned for Rs.492 Lakhs.

1951 : Machkand H.E. Project was commissioned.

24 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

C. Krishna Pennnar Project Investigation

1948 50 : 2 Special Divisions formed for investigation under Er. N.Padmanabha Iyer as S.E., Er. Kuttiammu and Mr. Mahadeva Iyer, were executive engineers. The headquarters was Chennai.

1951 : Detailed Project report prepared.

1953 : Scheme dropped on formation of separate state of Andhra Pradesh.

D. Ramapada Sagar across Godavari.

1949 50 : Investigation was carried out.

1950 : Foundation revealed no rock. Soil experts Karl Terzhagi and J.C.Savage brought to the site for consultancy. Dr. K.L.Rao was the Superintending engineer, design and all drawings prepared in detail.

1953 : Andhra Pradesh formed and the project was transferred.

25 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

CHAPTER 6 : PROJECTS IN MALABAR OF KERALA STATE :

The Madras PWD was attending to the projects until 1953 when Malabar district was transferred to Kerala. Some important projects are dealt here.

A. Malampuzha Reservoir Project

1949 : Malampuzha reservoir project sanctioned under first five year plan for post-war reconstruction. Er. J.E.Vaz was the executive engineer. Project across Malampuzha was costing Rs.528 lakhs Ayacut of 47200 acres for 2 crops. New Ayacut of 5800 acres and 12000 acres of 3rd crop. Dam 195 feet length 626 mcft capacity and 88.5 feet height and water spread is 816 acres. L-B canal is14 miles and R.B. Canal 8 miles long.

1953 : Partly completed and water let down for 10000 acres on 02.10.1953. expected food was 70000 tonnes. Entire work was done through job workers limited to Rs.25000 at a time.

1955-56 : Nearing completion. Water let down for 18000 acres. Project completed on 09.10.1955.

B.Walayar Reservoir Project :

1947 : Project costing Rs.92.37 Lakhs taken up to irrigate 6500 acres. Capacity is 520 Mcft.

1954-55 : Masonry dam completed and canals in progress; work transferred to Malampuzha division. Water let down for irrigation for 18500 acres.

1956 Project completed and final cost was Rs.99.92 lakhs.

C. Meenankara Reservoir Project :

1928-1929 : Meenankara Project investigated and abandoned as unproductive.

1947 : Included in first five year plan under post war development.

1955-56 : Project sanctioned on 14.08.1956 for Rs.46.56 lakhs. Dam 3150 feet long. 2850 feet earthern and 300 feet masonry. 2 canals on left bank and right bank to irrigate 4100 acres. Anicut across Shireya river.

1956 1957 : completed and handed over to Kerala.

26 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

D. Cochin Port :

1939 : Cochin Port. Wharves opened in Wellingdon island.

1944-48 : Cochin port development works at Rs.17878 lakhs.

E. Mangalam Reservoir Project :

1951 : Started on 3.4.1951. Reservoir of 250 Mcft capacity and pickup dam to irrigate 3280 acres across Cherukunnapuzha.

1955 : Completed and commissioned.

D. Manjalar Reservoir Project (1951-56)

Project sanctioned under post war reconstruction project under first five year plan. Dam was across Cherukkampuzha with a Capacity of 386 mcft to irrigate. 809.4 hectares in new and stabilise 1315.85 hectares. The cost was Rs.44.80 lakhs.

27 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

CHAPTER No.7 : CAUVERY METTUR PROJECT AND

METTUR HIGH LEVEL CANAL

The following are the calendar of activities completing the above project. Er.Barbers report gives full details.

1854 : Captain Arthur Cotton gave a report but modified later by col. Ellis.

1800-1810 : Restoration of old tanks and introduction of minor irrigation work by Dewan Poorniah in the Mysore Kingdom.

1850 : Formation of PWD in Madras Presidency and also in Mysore State.

1870 : Madras Government formally informed its concern on the developments in Mysore State.

1890 : Representatives of 2 States negotiated at Ootacamund.

1892 : Madras Mysore agreement signed. It put on record schemes already completed and those which were in progess in the Mysore state covering main rivers and tributaries. Agreement reached that no more projects to be undertaken and no attempt to restore the tanks. It was also agreed that if any dispute arose, it should be resolved by arbitration commission of Government of India.

1906-1910. Both States proposed major projects like Kannambadi dam and Cauvery Mettur projects. Madras Government emphatically argued that Mysore project should not be cleared without first getting its Cauvery Mettur Project cleared.

1915 : Dispute between the states referred to Arbitration Committee which turned down Madras proposals and upheld the Mysore case. Madras approached the Secretary of State, London.

1919 : Secretary of State upheld Madras case.

1920 -1924 : Negotiations were resumed and agreement reached. Disputes raised on sizes of reservoiors and were resolved by Sir C.P.Ramasamy Iyer who was a member of the Viceroys executive council and full support was extended by Lord Wellington who was Governor of Madras.

18.02.1924 Agreement was signed between the 2 states.

1911 to 1931 Though foundation stone was laid in 1911, dam was realised only in 1931.

28 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

1910 1924 : Seven sites were investigated for Mettur dam, they were Urachi, Nerunjipet, Navapet and 4 places at Samballi. Some proposals were for earthern dam. There were many alternatives submitted by a few engineers including Er.Moss and Er.Ellis. The proposal of Er.Ellis was accepted for Rs.912 Lakhs.

20.07.1925 : Dam construction was inaugurated by Governnor Viscount Goschen.

1925 : Er.Mackay was in charge of dam and Er.Narasimha Iyengar was in charge of canals under the Superintending Engineer Er.Stoney. The surplus discharge was proposed at 2.5 Lakh cusecs based on the observation of 2.07 lakhs recorded in 1806 at this site. In 1924 heavier flood of 4.50 lakh cusecs was encountered at the dam site and therefore Ellis Saddle was designed for 5 lakh cusecs and hence it could pass higher floods encountered in 1961 and 1981 without any danger.

1925-26 : Camp office was established at Mettur. There were 5000 labourers. Engineers deputed to England in April for getting overhead ropeway. Roads were laid and best site upstream of Dam chosen. 3 new divisions were formed for the dam and 2 for canals were formed.

1928 29 : All building materials were being collected and power supply procured from Mysore state and 2 electric travelling cranes procured.

1929 sudden floods submerged the foundation and cleared. Instead of stones proposed to be implanted in surki mortar, Portland cement was used at the instance of Er.Mullings and this accelerated the works. Original plan was to do concreting in lifts by steel shutters for which 2 high steel towers (340 ft high and 1800 tonnes) painted black and red erected at either ends. Hand pouring was found faster and hence cable was used as a crane for lowering. Pillars and cables were erected in 1929-30 and this invited lot of interest from everyone. Stone masonry was adopted instead of poured concrete. Power was got from Mysore. Construction joints were introduced at every 128 feet intervals. In an ingenious way reinforced concrete pillars 30 ft x 30 ft were laid cast-in-situ across joints to block the gaps.

Inspection galleries were formed in the body of dam for the first time. Ellis Saddle of artistic beauty was built between 2 hill sides in a curve of radius of 800 feet just to follow the rock outcrop and this helped in increasing the length of surplus escape. 16 spans of 60 feet each with arches. Saddle constructed only in lime-surki and not in cement. Floor concrete alone was laid with 20% replacement of concrete with surki mortar. Sluice gates 60x20 feet were made at PWD, Madras Workshops who had quoted lower than M/s.Glenfield & Kennady even though more massive and erected in less than 2 years by middle of March 1934 and last stone was laid on

29 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

14.07.34. 546200 cft of concrete used. 96400 tons of cement were used and rest 449900cft was in masonry. Cement rate for concrete was Rs.42.20 and masonry Rs.35.75 for cft. The entire work had taken 5 years and 10 months. Engineer-in-Chief was in full command of the work and dam was commissioned on 21.8.34 from on ornamental parlour by Sir George Stanley., then Governor of Madras. Modern design with all cross masonry works at 72 duty. But ayacut did not develop beyond 256000 acres. Capacity was 93.5 Mcft and it was highest. Per capita water availability was 0.03 mcft for Madras, 0.11 for Karnataka and 0.12 for Kerala.

1933-34 : completed on 14.7.34. Irrigation was released on 21.7.34, dam completed 99%, canals 7%, 7 siphons, 3 bridges, 8 canals except for 1 mile in last reach (31/10 to 32/6).

1934-35 : All works completed Bridge at 32/6068 in progress Earthwork between 31/1 and 33/40900 and 34/08 and 34/60 was in progress.

1938-39 : Stepped apron was in progress at dam.

1952-53 : ayacut is 301000 acres Rs.4.8 crores. F.R.L. raised by 10 feet.

Under this scheme Grand Anicut Canal was excavated for a length of 101.08 km and Vadavar extention canal in Mannargudi area was carried out to benefit 3.01 lakhs acres in erstwhile Thanjavur district.

30 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

31 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

VIEW OF STANLEY RESERVOIR AT METTUR

32 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

METTUR HIGH LEVEL CANAL :

Sanctioned under postwar-reconstruction scheme in 1949 under 1st Five year plan to benefit Bhavani Taluk of Coimbatore district and opened for irrigation on 25.07.1957. Ayacut will be 48000 acres in lieu of shortfall in ayacut under G.A.Canal for which 3.01 lakh acres was approved. Only one crop was permitted. It irrigates 17000 acres in Coimbatore and 28000 acres in Salem. Canal runs at the foot of the hills for 4 miles and 2 furlongs. It bifurcates into one on the right margin and the other on the left margin of Cauvery by means of a pressure aquaduct to irrigate. This canal is 39 miles long and irrigates 2800 aces in Tiruchengode, Omalur and Namakkal taluks of Salem district.

1949 : Scheme sanctioned and taken up.

1949 55 : Work was in progress.

1955-56 : West bank canal completed and released water in August 54. East bank canal was in progress.

1956-57 : Water released for 16000 acres.

September 2 1954 : Cauvery pressure aquaduct, Box culvert and steel pipes done departmentally at a cost of Rs.24 lakhs.

1958-59 : Major part completed. Water released on 18.7.59 for 43214 acres instead of 45000 fully completed by 1.8.62.

33 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

CHAPTER No.8 : GRAND-ANICUT CANAL

The canal starts from Grand Anicut on the right side. The Head sluice contains 4 vents. It has 9 regulators and many drops. There are 16 branch channels on the left side. The largest are Rajamadam and Kalyana Oodai. As designed and executed under C.M.P. the canal was dug upto 35/8100 or 109.23km. There were 583 existing irrigation tanks. The flow in the canal was designed for irrigation at a duty of 72 acres. All the sluices were fitted with shutters which could be controlled. There were 14 jungle streams crossing the canal and 20 anicuts were built across them to supplement the tail end command of the main canals. This being a contour canal, all irrigation took place only on the eastern side of the canal.

1929-35 : 2 additional sub divisions attached to Thanjavur circle to speed up G.A. Canal was commissioned and opened for irrigation.

1935-1960 : Canal was drawing lot of silt due to the take-off direction being 90o to the river. Many model studies were conducted at IRS Poondy to exclude the silt and on their recommendation 2 groynes were built one on the east of the main head and another on the west preventing the direct entry of upland drainage. In the initial 5 kilometers it was going south of Vennar river at a higher level ranging from 3 metres to 1 metre. The vents were designed to draw 3400 cusecs or more. But the western most vent was almost not helpful as its opening was more often allowing back-flow into the Grand-Anicut.

1939 : Heavy rains in Tambaraparani and breaches in New main channel extending G.A. Canal from Merpanaikadu by 13.20 kilometer and finally feeding Mumbalai tank executed to feed an additional ayacut of 30380 acres. Breach in Vettikkadu embankment due to heavy rains.

1944-48 : Investigation taken up for G.A. canal extension by Narasinga Cauvery.

1949 : Breach in Vettikkadu embankment.

1953-54 : Olavayal channel executed under grow more food scheme from the right side of canal to irrigate 7000 acres in Pudukottai district.

1960 : Vettikkadu reach lined on bed and sides Er.P.K.Vedanayagam was the executive engineer.

1967 : Breach occurred in Chitrakudi embankment at 8/0 near Budalur and water stopped for nearly one month and breach closed. Staff concerned reshuffled and

34 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

changed mainly due to efforts of Mr. S.D.Somasundaram MP of Pattukottai who had served earlier in PWD as Assistant Engineer.

1968 : Desilting of G.A.canal from o/o to 4/0 upto Sholingavari embankment carried out during the closure season at an expenditure of Rs.4 lakhs.

1968 1969 : Rs.55 lakhs sanctioned for carrying out improvements to canal and to carry 4000 cusecs. Canal lining on the sides carried out from o/o upto 4/0. Intermediate berms created in Chitrakudi and Vettikadu embankments to withstand percolation and erosion. Canal water drawn upto 4200 cusecs successfully. Both the bunds strengthened and width increased to 3 metres even at aqueducts for easy transport by lorries and Dozers.

1969 : Large scale repairs carried out to Olavayal channel and the damaged syphon repaired.

1970 : Desilting of Mumbalai tank carried out and revetments done to banks to prevent seepage and leakage. Quarters constructed for Executive Engineer and Personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer at Thanjavur.

GRAND ANICUT

35 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

CHAPTER No.9 : FLOOD AND FLOOD WORKS

1903 : Some portions of Palar Anicut were washed away and brought back to standards in 1905. Founded on 2 rows of wells 3 ft diameter and 12.5 feet deep. Body wall 7 feet high. (1951) : Falling shutters installed. 300 feet long breaching section was built with brick work. R.C.C. cut off built on upstream side and on 3 steps on the downstream side. R.C.C piles were driven at the end of 2nd stage apron. Catchment area is 3974 sq miles and maximum flood was 158477 cusecs.

1924 : Unprecedented floods at Mettur of 4.50 lakhs cusecs and Mettur dam redesigned for 5.0 lakh cusecs.

1930-31 : Coleroon bank breached @ Koviladi in the Cyclone on 28.11.30. Breaches in Kattalai, S.B.Canal, Ayyan Vaikkaal and all rivers in Cauvery delta.

1931-32 : Heavy rains in October 1931. All channels breached in Thirunelvely district above and below Srivaikuntam Anicut North main channel.

1936-37 : Unprecedented rains on 02.11.36. All anicuts and channels breached in Pollachi, Udumalpet and Dharapuram taluks. Sudden floods in Amaravati in November 1936.

1913 : Pelandurai Anaicut across Vellar built in 19th century went into ruins. Reconstructed in 1876 but affected by floods on 1877, 1880 and 1884. Crest lowered in 1896 and fitted with 6 feet high shutters. Again damaged in 1913 floods which went 23 feet above crest. It was converted into a regulator in 1916. It irrigates 12000 acres. Sethiathopu regulator in Chidambaram Taluk above Pelandurai regulator was also damaged in 1847-50. Repaired in 1880 and crest raised by 3 feet shutters in 1904 to standards. Water brought into Vadavar and Raja Channel. Affected by 1913 floods and repaired.

1937-38 : November very heavy rains and Ponnery Taluk badly affected. Chennai city north completely flooded. Spills from Kosastalayar entering Coovum through Buckingham canal.

1938-39 : G.A.Canal breached. Kannadian and Nathunni channels in Tambaraparani breached in Nov. 1938.

1943 : Coovum suffered catastrophic floods which were described by Er. A.R.Venkatachary in his report which suggested various remedial measures.

1946-47 : Heavy rains on 29.07.46. Heavy damages in Chengalpattu and Nellore districts. New Divisions formed.

36 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

1948-49. Vettikadu embankment breached in G.A.Canal. G.A. extension channel at R01/04 also breached and closed. Total cost Rs.53000. Perumal tank was repaired and surplus arrangements completed at a cost of Rs.53.70. lakhs

1952-53 : Thirukkoilur anicut damaged and 2 feet falling shutters fixed.

1954-55 : Heavy rains in Thirunelveli, Thanjavur and Periyar ayacut areas. Number of tanks breached and were closed Er. S.Ramachandran prepared report on mitigation of floods in Cauvery Delta.

1955 56 : Heavy rains in November 2005 and January 2006 flood flows were 3781 cusecs in Vaigai river, 15645 in Tambraparani, 64969 in Manimuthar and 2768 in Saruganiar. Breach at Koviladi in Cauvery for a width of 1000 feet velocity was very high. Loaded boats were sunk and floods did not abate. Took time to close and restore normalcy. Cauvery barrage was suggested with 41 vents of 40 feet each with lift shutters of 10 feet height. Permeable soil to have cut-off- no open excavation. Ingenious method using Bentonite adopted and completed in 2 seasons by Er. M.Balasubramaniam Executive Engineer. Cyclone on 30.2.55 affecting Thirunelvely, Madurai and Ramnad districts. 4984 Tanks got breached in Thiruvadanai, Ramnad, Mudukulathur, Sivagangai, Paramakkudi and Aruppukottai taluks. Ring-bunds provided using divers brought from Mangalore at 3511 places by 20.12.55. Many weirs were outflanked and were restored by October 1956. One special circle and 4 EEs and 24 AEEs sanctioned. Crops saved by drawing water from Vaigai R.S.Mangalam (27 breaches), Kalari tank (7 breaches) Mudukulathur tank (1 breach), Ramnad big tank (7 breaches) and Sakkaraikottai tank (7 places). Breach closing cost Rs.250 lakhs.

1960 - 61 : unprecedented rains in July 1961. Coleroon breached at Koviladi between 18/6 and 19/00 on 07-07-61. Major damages at Agarapettai above Cauvery and Kudamurutty regulator. Major portions in Cauvery Delta submerged. Rainfall was 335cm between 1-06-61 and 24-07-61, 100cm between 1 and 30-06-61; 127cms between 1-03-61 and 05-07-61. Balance 108cm between 6 and 7-07-61. Wireless sets promptly erected at critical places. At Upper Anicut, level rose upto 3.9 feet in a few hours and breach at Kaviladi widenend to 1000 feet. Special staff of (Superintending Engineer and 4 Executive Engineers were specially posted. 3 times the capacity of Mettur reserervoir passed out. Army was requisitioned. Mettur dam water level was maintained at 125 feet and calculated risk taken to keep floods away from Cauvery delta. Remedial works were started on 11-07-61 when maximum flow was 1.86 lakh cusecs on 28-07-61. Three pontoons were sunk and breach closed on 30-07-61. It took 23 days and Rs. 20 Lakhs and all works completed only by 24-11-61. Peak flow encountered was 2.75 Lakh cusecs. Er.P.K.Vedanayagam was the SE incharge

37 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

December 1964 : Heavy rains in Ramnad District and Rameswaram island. Dhanushkodi village got wiped out causing largescale damages to railway bridge at Pamban and Railway jetty at Rameswaram. Restoration took 4 months. Mr.T.T.Krishnamachari the finance minister at Delhi and he got Sedthusamudram project sanctioned to give work to people.

1967 : Floods in South Arcot district and 4 new divisions formed at Maduranthangam, Vandavasi, Tindivanam and Villupuram.

1972-73 : Heavy rains and floods in Trichy in December 1972. Breaches occurred in Coleroon banks and were closed and strengthened at a cost of 9.50 lakhs.

1976-77 : Chennai city experienced very heavy rains as detailed below.

24 hour rainfall on 21-10-1846 520mm. 24 hour rainfall on 24-10-1857 460mm

24 hour rainfall on 25-11-1976 452mm.

An intensity of 50mm per hour was recorded in 1976. Out of 1200 slums enumerated in 1975, 800 slums were subjected to flooding. Out of 5 lakhs of people in slums, 3 lakh got displaced. Flood damages as assessed in the Nucleus cell report are

Buildings Roads

1976 2136.17 lakhs 550 lakhs

1977 1119.00 lakhs 810 lakhs

1978- 304.10 lakhs NA

Er.P.Sivalingam, Chief Engineer, PWD was appointed as Chairman of a Committee and members included Chief engineers of Highways, Housing Board (Er. B.A.Jayabalan) were in the committee and they had recommended many schemes for overcoming the floods for a cost of Rs. 1219 lakhs under first priority and schemes for Rs. 982 lakhs under the second priority. MMDA engaged one J.H.Kop, a drainage expert from World Bank to study and give his opinion. He came down in 1979 and gave a report endorsing Er.Sivalingams report. At the instance of MMDA, the Government formed a Nucleus cell in 1979 with one SE (Er.K.Ramalingam) as chairman and superintending Engineer from I.H.H, Poondi. Highways and Chennai Corporation as members for studying the schemes and give list of priorities so that they can be implemented under the proposed MUDP. The Nucleus cell report was given in 1981. In order to avail the funds from World bank, MMDA appointed M/s. Mott Mcdonald International who studied the problem and gave a report in 1994 in 5 volumes.

38 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

As a first relief measure, the Chennai Corporation advanced Rs. 35 lakhs to the PWD and executed the Captain Cotton canal in Vyasarpady region of its last stretch of infall into Buckingham canal. This was completed in 1980.

Next, MMDA entrusted the drainage canal from Kodungaiyur to Buckingham canal for purpose of building quarters in the kodungaiyur tank- bed. This project was executed along the north side of Moolakadai-Korukkupettai road and this was completed by Nucleus cell in 1981 at a cost of Rs. 30 Lakhs. The Mambalam drain was entrusted with PWD by Chennai Corporation and this was executed in 1983 by PWD.

1977 : Heavy rains and cyclone affected Kodaganar dam which got damaged. The reservoir was near Alagapuri village in Vedasandur taluk having an Irrigation extent of 2080 hectares (New) and 144.09 ha (gap). It was completed in 1975 at a cost of Rs. 212 Lakhs. It was rebuilt in 1982 at an expense of Rs. 920 Lakhs.

12-11-1977 : Heavy rains in Thanjavur and Thutthukudi districts. Kodaganar dam got washed away. 3 lakhs cusecs reached Upper Anicut on 13-11-77 and sudden realization at Cauvery barrage and 1.20 lakhs cusecs of water was diverted into Cauvery. But Koarayar was also in floods and brought 40000 cusecs. Trichy town was flooded. Cauvery not able to carry, floods entered into Colreoon and 5 breaches on left bank of Cauvery in the Srirangam island portion. 3 breaches were near Amma mandapam and 2 near Kilikoodu. These breaches were similar to those in 1924. Breach closing could be started only on 20-11-77. Ring bunds were erected despite the fear of crocodiles. Skilled workers brought from Koviladi, Uthamanur, Sakkarahollan and Trichinampoondy and casuarina piles employed. Special Chief Engineer for floods was Er.S.Manavalan and supply to delta could be restored only in December 77.

Depression in bay which crossed Nagapattinam on 12-11-1977. Heavy damages to crops, cloud burst on the eastern slopes of Western Ghats in Vedasandur taluk of Madurai. Vedasandur range recorded 241.50mm on 13-11-1977. Several tanks breached in Varattar and Kodaganar which is a tributary of Amaravathi carried floods several metres high sweeping off all habitations. 3 villages of Nallamana, Kottar and Thirukkai swept away leaving no traces. Earthern dam at Kodaganar overflowed discharging 45000 cusecs, later estimated at 2 lakh cusecs over large expanse of cultivated land. Amaravathi breached. Peak discharge of 3.08 lakh cusecs received on 13-11-1977. Several channels like Ayyan, Peruvalai, Pullambadi, Uyyakondan breached. Kudamurutty drain carried 1.63 lakh cusecs

39 nrg;lk;gh; - 2011

and breached Srirangam island at 3 places. Large parts of Trichy got flooded. Grand Anicut received 1.44 lakh cusecs on 13-11-1977 discharging 114000 cusecs into Cauvery and 15000 cusecs into Vennar. Above 1.80 Lakh cusecs diverted into Coleroon at Upper Anicut and 1.14 lakh cusecs at Grand anicut. 1.5 lakh cusecs in Kudamurutty and lot of damages through Kilikkoodu breach. Coleroon flow exceeded 4.50 lakh cusecs as it approached Lower Anicut. Earlier it was only 4 lakh cusecs in 1858. Left bank of Coleroon above Lower Anicut spreading over 3 lakhs cusecs in the area north of Coleroon. Lower Anicut passed d