Bengaluru: Last Friday, the Supreme Court took a cautious approach while declining to give an order on the quantum of Cauvery water to be released from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu until it examines the report from the designated expert body.
Tamil Nadu had approached the court earlier this month after Karnataka expressed its inability to release 15,000 cusecs of water per day due to deficient rains across the Cauvery basin.
The two states have tried to argue their case over the Cauvery water sharing, triggering the fear of tensions again in the century-old dispute that comes alive in rainfall deficient years.
Karnataka is now arguing for a ‘distress formula’, which essentially outlines the quantum of river water sharing during years when rains are deficient. On the other hand, Tamil Nadu is demanding what it believes is its ‘fair share’ of water.
But what makes this one of the oldest and most intense water disputes in the country? The Print breaks it down.
Also Read: Karnataka contests TN plea in SC for ‘fair share’ of Cauvery water, cites ‘failed’ monsoon
Stakeholders involved in tussle
The Cauvery is the lifeline for several districts in southern Karnataka and central Tamil Nadu that depend on this river to meet its drinking water needs.
The river originates in Karnataka and flows through Tamil Nadu and Puducherry before it enters the Bay of Bengal. Of the total catchment area of 81,155 sq km, 34,273 sq km fall in Karnataka, 44,016 sq km in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and about 2,866 sq km in Kerala.
The nearly 800 km-long river flows from Kodagu through Haasan, Mandya, and Mysuru districts in Karnataka before entering Tamil Nadu to traverse through districts including Dharmapuri, Erode, Karur, Trichy, Cuddalore, Pudukottai, Nagapattinam, Thanjavur. The river and its tributaries also flow through Kerala and Puducherry as well.
Genesis of dispute
In the mid-19th century, the then government of Mysore wanted to build irrigation projects which raised apprehensions in the state of Madras as it feared this would impede flow of Cauvery water into Tamil Nadu.
The first agreement was signed on this issue in 1892. In 1910, the Mysore government proposed to build a 11 TMC reservoir at Kannambadi, but the Madras administration opposed this. The matter was referred to arbitration and it was resolved in 1924, when the two sides reached an agreement. The Mysore government was permitted to build Krishna Raja Sagara (KRS) dam at Kannambadi village. The agreement was valid for 50 years.
KRS became functional in 1931, and the Mettur dam in 1934. Post Independence, Tamil Nadu filed a case in the Supreme Court in 1971 seeking a tribunal to adjudicate the water dispute. That suit was withdrawn in 1972.
Karnataka had said, in 1974 — when the 1924 agreement expired after 50 years — that the 1924 and the 1892 agreements were weighed against it because the Madras Presidency was administered by the British, while Mysore was under a king.
In 1986, Tamil Nadu again approached the Centre asking that a tribunal be set up. And in May 1990, the SC directed the Centre to set up a tribunal to hear a writ petition filed by a Tamil Nadu organisation, Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappu Sangam.
The Centre then notified the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in June that year. Multiple developments — legal as well as riots and clashes — took place over the dispute since then in the two states.
In 2007, the tribunal determined the total availability of water at 740 TMC and allocated 419 TMC to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 TMC to Karnataka, 30 TMC to Kerala, and 7 TMC to Puducherry. Over the years, the apex court has passed a series of orders setting different limits to the volume of water to be released by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu.
In 2018, the SC in its final order made allocations applicable for the next 15 years. Karnataka got an additional 14.75 TMC, taking its total to 284.75 TMC per year while Tamil Nadu would get 404.25 TMC. Kerala and Puducherry would get 30 TMC and 7, TMC respectively.
Around 10 TMC would be kept for environmental reasons and 4 TMC was set aside as inevitable flow into the sea.
According to the Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal, a ‘normal year’ is when the total yield of the basin is 740 TMC at 50 percent dependability. When rains are normal, this is the approximate amount of water in the basin.
In a normal year, Karnataka has to release 177.25 TMC of water at Biligundlu measuring station in the border district of Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu.
Why Karnataka is refusing to release more water
At the 84th meeting of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) meeting on 10 August, Karnataka was ordered to release 15,000 cusecs of water per day for the next 15 days (starting at 8 am on 11 August), which it opposed due to deficit rains.
Karnataka requested the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) that it can release only 10,000 cusecs of water for the next 15 days, citing concerns over acute water shortages in the coming months.
“In June, instead of the specified 9.19 TMC, we released 2.833 TMC. In July, instead of 31.24 TMC, we released 8.748 TMC and in August, instead of 41.95 TMC, we released 26 TMC until 22 August,” Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah told reporters on 23 August.
He added that there was a 41 percent deficit rainfall over Cauvery river basin, leaving Karnataka little choice but to stop outflows from its reservoirs to the neighbouring state. The deficit has exacerbated concerns that Karnataka’s farmers will lose their standing crop and there will be acute drinking water shortages in the coming months.
Karnataka has pointed out that once it releases water, it cannot be reversed even if Tamil Nadu gets a good bout of both South-West and North-East monsoons. Subsequently, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding its fair share as specified in the 2018 order.
New proposal from Karnataka
The Siddaramaiah-led Karnataka government is now devising a strategy to argue for a ‘distress formula’ which can calculate the quantum of water to be released to Tamil Nadu during years of deficit rains.
Legal experts and Congress legislators aware of the developments say that the distress formula should be in place to account for the rainfall deficiency that year.
One legal expert said that the distress formula cannot be steadfast but function as a guideline as to how deficiency can be accounted for. “See, this year we have a 41 percent deficiency, so the distress formula would be that we will release 41 percent less water than the normal year calculation,” the expert said.
Karnataka is one of the most water-stressed states in India. At least 120 out of the total 177 talukas, or administrative units, are likely to be declared as drought-hit this year, according to a senior cabinet minister.
The Karnataka government has also said Tamil Nadu should not oppose the building of the Mekedatu balancing reservoir-cum-drinking water project as it would benefit both states during drought years.
The Siddaramaiah-led Congress government had approved the construction of the Mekedatu project in 2013. The Rs 5,912-crore project will generate 400 MW of power and utilise 4.75 TMC for drinking water purposes of surrounding districts, including Bengaluru.
Then Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalithaa wrote to the Centre urging not to give environment clearance as the project would disrupt the natural flow of water from Karnataka.
“The major issue is Mekedatu. If Mekedatu was there today, there would not be any problem because we can’t use Mekedatu water for irrigation,” Karnataka deputy chief minister and water resources minister D.K. Shivakumar told reporters in Bengaluru on Friday.
He added that over 409 TMC of Cauvery river water flowed into the sea last year and that Mekedatu can mitigate this by retaining the water which can be used in distress years by both states. “I appeal to the Supreme Court and Tamil Nadu that this has to be settled. The only solution to all this problem is Mekedatu,” Shivakumar said.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: Chennai to get 4th desalination plant to end water woes, environmentalists question need