Disquieting, indeed, it is to learn from recent news reports that the controversy raging over the performance of the state-of-the-art telemetry system installed last year, at a cost of Rs 250 million, to collect actual data on water releases from the reservoirs and barrages, has acquired alarming proportions.
This has reference, among other developments, to a news report (August 4), saying the Minister for Water and Power, Liaquat Ali Jatoi, has ordered an inquiry against Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company for installing a 'faulty telemetry system,' if remedial measures are not taken within three weeks.
It came about at an inter-provincial meeting held to discuss the issue after an on the spot monitoring of the telemetry system by the officials of Wapda and the contractors. An experts panel which worked at Taunsa Barrage, Kirthar Canal (Garange Regulator) Nowshera (at Kabul River) and Kotri Barrage from July 11 to 21 had presented its report at the meeting.
Incidentally, the same day, a spokesman of Siemens was reported to have claimed that there was no major problem with the telemetry system installed at Kotri, claiming that most of the current problems were associated with improper maintenance, and the system would work according to the specifications when the maintenance problem was addressed.
The Siemens' official pointed out that misconception about the matter was created by the elements opposed to the telemetry system. Further clarifying the situation, he said that in order to determine the importance of maintenance of the system, a model site was set up at Kotri, a week earlier, which was being monitored by the concerned authorities, and that it was found to be working well.
It will also be recalled that taking serious note of the telemetry controversy, last May, President Pervez Musharraf had sought a report on the 'faulty telemetry system' from the Ministry of Water and Power. With little indication of any worthwhile progress in the matter, the issue appeared to have been relegated to the background later.
However, according to a Business Recorder report (August 5), in a letter to the Irsa Chairman, Wapda held it responsible for ruining the entire telemetry system, while expressing its dismay over charges of inefficiency levelled against Wapda and the contractors.
It also alleged that functioning of the system was being badly hit by lack of maintenance by incompetent and grossly insufficient staff deployed by Irsa.
Again, Wapda cautioned that neglect of preventive maintenance could prove fatal to the system, hence emphasising the need of immediate engagement of competent staff to ensure its smooth functioning.
However, tracing the history of the finalisation of the telemetry project, since initiation in March 2002, it drew attention to a number of meetings between the Irsa chairman and other stakeholders, to ascertain its viability from different angles.
Recalling that the differences between Wapda and Irsa authorities at a meeting in March, 2002, when requirements of the project were highlighted was the starting point of the controversy, it referred also to a number of subsequent meetings held between Irsa representatives and the project team, along with project consultants, prior to finalisation of the bidding document of the telemetry project.
On these occasions, the need of putting in place the telemetry system was reported to have been thoroughly discussed. All other efforts to evolve a foolproof system to address the grievances of the stakeholders, having failed, it was deemed expedient to do way with dependence on manual tabulation of parameters for calculating the discharge data at the barrages and its communication to Irsa.
And this led, eventually, to the need of replacing the then existing algorithms and related hydraulic parameters used for discharge measurements at barrages with a fully automated system, thereby establishing the need of the telemetry system.
PC-I of the Project also stated "since the water managers are dependent upon the people having physical control (of releases at barrages), there is every possibility to have a difference between the tabulated position and the actual situation on the ground.
Where a certain canal may be closed as per authorities record, physically some of the gates may remain open as a result of malfunction, which might have gone unnoticed, or intentionally ignored. With this understanding, all the concerned provincial departments are stated to have provided the then existing formulas/rating curves of discharge measurements at the barrages and canals to Wapda for incorporation in the telemetry system.
Again, as elaborated by Siemens, the basic design of the telemetry system was in accord with approved PC-I. All in all, it will be noted that the telemetry system now in place, has nothing to do with the problem being faced in its operation.
Perhaps, the best way of putting an end to the telemetry controversy, which has cost heavily to the country, would be to take recourse to the Revenue Board's approach to installation of scanners for customs purposes.
For realising the intricacies of the work involved, they had allocated the task of its operation and maintenance to the contractors. So, instead of prolonging the dispute, Irsa would do well to arrive at a settlement with the contractors, thereby, transferring the operation and maintenance to the contractors to ensure its flawless functioning for all times to come.