The Cauvery water dispute, revolving around the rivers Cauvery and its tributary Arkavathi, has resurfaced as Tamil Nadu pleads to the Indian Supreme Court for help in ensuring Karnataka releases 24,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) from its reservoir’s water. Additionally, Tamil Nadu has urged the court to order Karnataka to fulfill the release of 36.76 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) set for September 2023 as per the resolution of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) which was last changed by the SC in 2018.
The Reasons Behind Tamil Nadu’s Appeal
The conflict intensified due to Karnataka’s unwillingness to stick to the previously agreed-upon water release. While Tamil Nadu pushes for a 10,000 cusecs release over a 15-day span, Karnataka proposes a lesser release rate of 8,000 cusecs for the same duration. Karnataka’s argument relies on poor inflow due to decreased rainfall in the Cauvery catchment areas. With a 44% rainfall deficiency in the origin point, Kodagu, from June to August, Karnataka refuses to accept Tamil Nadu’s distress-sharing formula demand.
Implications of the Dispute
Farmers in Tamil Nadu are waiting expectantly for Karnataka’s response as their Mettur reservoir retains only 20 TMC, enough for ten days. The Supreme Court’s verdict is critical in resolving this complex dispute and cooperative solutions are essential for equitable water management and conflict resolution.
The Distribution of Cauvery Water
A meticulously constructed monthly timetable oversees the distribution of water between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the two riparian states of the Cauvery basin. During a “normal” water year, Karnataka is required to release 177.25 TMC of water from June to May to Tamil Nadu. This annual quota incorporates 123.14 TMC allocated during the monsoon months of June to September. The ongoing southwest monsoon season often ignites conflicts when rainfall is lower than predicted.
The Cauvery River Dispute Explained
Known as ‘Ponni’ in Tamil, Cauvery is a sacred river that originates on Brahmagiri Hill of the Western Ghats in southwestern Karnataka state and flows southeast into Tamil Nadu before descending through the Eastern Ghats and draining into the Bay of Bengal via Pondicherry. The dispute over Cauvery started 150 years ago, dating back to two agreements of arbitration in 1892 and 1924 between the then Madras presidency and Mysore.
This disagreement stipulated that the upper riparian state must acquire consent from the lower riparian state for any construction activity such as reservoirs on the Cauvery River. The Cauvery water conflict between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu began in 1974 when Karnataka started diverting water without Tamil Nadu’s consent.
Attempted Resolutions: Establishment of the CWDT
It was not until 1990 that the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was established to address and hopefully solve this contentious issue. It took the CWDT a further 17 years to reach a final order in 2007, which explained the sharing of Cauvery water among the four riparian states.
The CWDT issued its final verdict in February 2007, breaking down water allocations among the four states based on the total availability of 740 TMC in a normal year. In 2018, the Supreme Court declared the Cauvery a national asset and largely upheld the water-sharing arrangements determined by the CWDT. It also ordered the Centre to notify the Cauvery Management Scheme.
Current Measures: The ‘Cauvery Water Management Scheme’
In June 2018, the central government made known the ‘Cauvery Water Management Scheme’ which constituted the ‘Cauvery Water Management Authority’ and the ‘Cauvery Water Regulation Committee’. These measures aim to regulate and control the contentious sharing of water resources, ensuring that all parties receive their fair share as stipulated by the agreements and verdicts of the past.
Interstate water disputes like this one highlight the need for improved water governance and diplomacy in resolving such conflicts. The situation remains a topic of discussion in ongoing UPSC Civil Services Examinations, reflecting its continued relevance and significance.
