Central Idea

• Tamil Nadu has urged the Supreme Court to compel Karnataka to release 24,000 cusecs of water immediately.
• The state seeks the release of 36.76 TMC for September 2023, as per the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s (CWDT) award.

Cauvery Water Dispute: Historical Background

• 1892 Onset: The water dispute dates back to 1892 between the British-ruled Madras Presidency and the princely state of Mysore (now Karnataka).
• 1924 Agreement: A 50-year agreement mediated by the British aimed to quell tensions but merely laid the groundwork for future disagreements.
• Post-Independence Battles: Karnataka’s dam constructions in the 1960s-80s sparked Tamil Nadu’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) followed.
• Interim Measures: The Cauvery River Authority (CRA) in 1998 implemented interim orders. Contentious issues persisted despite CWDT’s 2013 award.
• Final Award: The CWDT’s award in 2013 allocated water quantities for Tamil Nadu (419 TMC), Karnataka (270 TMC), Kerala (30 TMC), and Puducherry (7 TMC).

Water Sharing Criteria

• Monthly Schedule: Karnataka, the upper riparian state, is mandated to provide Tamil Nadu with a specified water quantity each month.
• Annual Allocation: In a “normal” year, Karnataka must provide 177.25 TMC to Tamil Nadu, of which 123.14 TMC is during the southwest monsoon.
• Challenges: The contentious period is the monsoon when disagreements often arise due to varying rainfall.

Constitutional Provisions for Water Sharing

• Article 262: Empowers Parliament to address inter-State river disputes; IRWD Act, 1956 enacted under this article.
• Seventh Schedule: Defines the legislative authority over water resources in Entry 17 (State List) and Entry 56 (Union List).

Resolving Cauvery Water Sharing

(A) Supreme Court’s 2018 Verdict

• Cauvery as National Asset: The Supreme Court declared Cauvery a “national asset” and upheld inter-State river water equality.
• Allocation Adjustments: The Court noted deficiencies in CWDT’s assessment, leading to Karnataka receiving marginal relief and Tamil Nadu’s allocation reduced to 177.25 TMC.
• Formation of CMB: The Court directed the establishment of the Cauvery Management Board (CMB) for effective implementation of orders.

(B) Cauvery Water Management Scheme

• CWMA Establishment: The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) was formed to regulate water releases with assistance from the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC).
• Permanent and Technical Bodies: CWMA oversees water regulation, while CWRC ensures data collection and implementation of the final award.

Current Status and Future Implications:

• Ongoing Challenge: The Cauvery water dispute remains an ongoing challenge with historical and legal dimensions.
• Resource Management: The establishment of CWMA and CWRC aims to address the dispute through effective water management.
• Continued Struggle: The dispute underscores the complexity of water sharing in a federal system and the need for equitable solutions.

Tamil Nadu’s Contention

• CWMA’s Decision: The CWMA sought 10,000 cusecs for 15 days from Karnataka, but Karnataka proposed only 8,000 cusecs up to August 22.
• Previous Agreement: Karnataka’s refusal to adhere to the earlier agreement of 15,000 cusecs for 15 days at the CWRC meeting irked Tamil Nadu.
• Distress-sharing Formula: TN CM supports a distress-sharing formula, but Karnataka has not embraced it.

Karnataka’s Perspective

• Rainfall Deficit: Karnataka claims lower rainfall in Cauvery’s catchment areas, including Kerala, leading to reduced inflow into its reservoirs.
• Challenging Situation: Karnataka stated that it couldn’t release water as the reservoirs received less inflow this year.
• Lack of Consistency: Despite Karnataka’s endorsing distress-sharing, the state declined to accept the formula.

Future Scenario

• Tamil Nadu’s Concerns: The Mettur reservoir’s storage is critically low, impacting farmers and the upcoming kuruvai crop.
• Water Shortage: The current water availability may last only 10 days, considering dead storage and drinking water needs.
• Awaiting Supreme Court: The case’s outcome now rests with the Supreme Court’s interpretation and decision.
• Need for a Resolution: The pressing need for a mutually acceptable distress-sharing formula is evident.

Ongoing Challenges and Factors Prolonging the Dispute:

• Erratic Water Levels: Flood-drought cycles, pollution, and groundwater depletion have led to unpredictable water levels.
• Idealistic Calculations: SC’s verdict relies on favorable conditions that often do not align with reality.
• Dependency and Population: Both states rely heavily on the river, causing conflicting water needs for urban areas and agriculture.
• Inefficient Water Use: Inefficient irrigation methods lead to low crop productivity per unit of water used.
• Hydropolitics and Delays: Political parties capitalize on water disputes for mobilization. Prolonged tribunal adjudications contribute to delays.

Conclusion

• The Cauvery River dispute is a microcosm of water-related challenges in India.
• To address this century-old struggle, collaborative efforts, sustainable practices, and empowered community involvement are essential.
• By learning from global examples and innovating locally, a future of equitable water allocation, prosperity, and harmony can be envisioned.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now