The longstanding conflict over sharing water from the Cauvery River has once again taken center stage, as the Tamil Nadu government seeks the intervention of the Supreme Court to address its concerns regarding water release from Karnataka’s reservoirs. The dispute, involving Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Puducherry, revolves around equitable distribution of Cauvery River water for irrigation, drinking, and industrial purposes.
Tamil Nadu’s Plea for Urgent Intervention
In a recent move, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court, urging it to direct Karnataka to release 24,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) of water from its reservoirs immediately. Additionally, Tamil Nadu emphasized the importance of enforcing the release of 36.76 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) of water, as mandated for September 2023 under the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) award of February 2007, which was later modified by the Supreme Court in 2018.
Scheduled Releases and Seasonal Challenges
Under the existing monthly schedule, Karnataka, as the upper riparian state of the Cauvery basin, is obligated to release water to Tamil Nadu. In a “normal” water year (June to May), Karnataka is required to provide Tamil Nadu with a total of 177.25 TMC, with 213.14 TMC allocated for the monsoon season (June to September). The monsoon season often becomes a flashpoint as disputes arise due to unexpected lower rainfall impacting water availability.
Contentions and Catalysts
The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) convened on August 11, calling on Karnataka to release 10,000 cusecs of water at Biligundlu over the next 15 days, beginning August 12. This translates to 0.86 TMC daily or a total of 12.9 TMC over the period. Tamil Nadu’s grievance stemmed from Karnataka’s refusal to adhere to the agreed-upon quantity set during the prior day’s CWRC meeting. Karnataka’s argument revolves around diminished rainfall in the Cauvery catchment area, including Kerala, leading to reduced inflow into its reservoirs.
The Historical Dispute: Origins and Agreements
The Cauvery River water dispute traces its origins back to 1892 during the British colonial era when conflicts emerged between the Madras Presidency and the princely state of Mysore. An agreement was reached in 1924, but it expired in 1974. Post-independence, Karnataka started diverting water into its new reservoirs without Tamil Nadu’s consent, igniting a dispute that continues to this day.
The Role of CWDT and its Award
To address the conflict, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was established in June 1990 under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. After a 17-year deliberation, the CWDT issued its final award in February 2007, detailing water allocations for each state during different times of the year. The tribunal assigned Tamil Nadu 419 TMC, Karnataka 270 TMC, Kerala 30 TMC, and Puducherry 7 TMC. Notably, 10 TMC was earmarked for environmental use and 4 TMC for inevitable outlets to the sea. However, the award lacked a comprehensive formula for water scarcity situations due to insufficient rainfall, only suggesting proportionate reductions.
Supreme Court’s Involvement and Subsequent Developments
The Supreme Court came into the picture in 2013 when the Tamil Nadu government filed a special leave petition under Article 136, as Karnataka failed to abide by the CWDT’s award. Article 136 designates the Supreme Court as the highest appellate authority, granting it discretionary power to hear appeals from judgments, decrees, and orders of Indian courts and tribunals. In 2018, the apex court delivered a landmark judgment, declaring Cauvery a national asset and largely upholding the CWDT’s water-sharing arrangements. The judgment allocated 284.75 TMC to Karnataka, 404.25 TMC to Tamil Nadu, 30 TMC to Kerala, and 7 TMC to Puducherry. The Supreme Court directed the formation of the ‘Cauvery Water Management Authority’ (CWMA) and the ‘Cauvery Water Regulation Committee’ (CWRC) to implement its decisions.
UPSC Mains Questions
- How has the monsoon season impacted the recurring disputes over Cauvery River water sharing?
- What were the key provisions of the CWDT’s final award and how did the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment influence these provisions?
- In the context of inter-state water disputes, what implications does the categorization of Cauvery as a “national asset” carry for future conflict resolution mechanisms?
