Cauvery Dispute

Top of Form

Drawing lines in water

M.S. Menon

The Cauvery water dispute is back in the news after the main co-basin states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka rejecting the verdict given by the prime minister at the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) meeting held recently. The authority’s meeting was convened after a gap of nearly 10 years, that too after the Supreme Court pulled up the Centre on the Cauvery issue.

The sharing of the Cauvery waters has been a contentious issue for decades. In 1990, the Centre set up the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) to adjudicate on the dispute. The tribunal had issued an interim order in 1991, directing Karnataka to make available to Tamil Nadu 205 thousand million cubic feet of water in a water year (June to May), following a monthly time table. As part of the scheme for implementing this order, the Centre constituted the CRA in 1998, chaired by the prime minister. Other members included the chief ministers of the basin states — Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Pondicherry. The CRA is not entrusted with the task of deciding on water availability or planning and management of the river; it only ensures implementation as long as the interim order is in force.

The CWDT order of 1991 did not provide a formula for sharing waters in times of distress, when the rains fail. Although a group of experts at the Union ministry of water resources considered the issue in 2003, they could not arrive at a consensus. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC), a panel set up to assist the CRA, decided in 2009 to refer the matter to the authority for decision as and when such conditions arose.

The CWDT gave its final award in 2007. As the Centre and the states needed further clarifications, the award has not been notified till now. Hence, the CRA continued to ensure the operation of the interim order. Since its implementation became difficult due to failed monsoons, the authority had to convene a meeting to decide on the releases to be made. With there being no consensus among the members, the PM ruled that Karnataka should release 9,000 cubic feet per second daily, till October 15, to Tamil Nadu.

Tamil Nadu was not happy with the ruling as it did not meet the demands of sustaining the “samba” paddy crop, cultivated over 15 lakh acres in the Cauvery delta. Karnataka was not happy either; it had no water to spare from its dams. In a state facing its worst drought in 40 years, giving water would mean its farmers suffering and its cities being deprived of drinking water. Both the states have indicated that they will be approaching the apex court for directions and the stalemate continues.

Disputes in the sharing of interstate river water is not limited to the Cauvery. In many basins, there are states busy quarrelling with each other on their water rights. The solution is to have the concerned states hold talks and agree on a criterion to settle the dispute, but there are no institutions that could provide a platform for discussion. So the states rush to the courts seeking legal remedies and the dispute lingers on for years.

A river basin organisation (RBO), constituted to represent the stakeholders, would have enabled frequent dialogue among the states to arrive at the needed consensus on critical water issues. It would also have encouraged them to look beyond water rights and concentrate on water needs for promoting joint ventures in areas like hydropower and flood control.

The only forum for discussion available at present is the National Water Resources Council, chaired by the PM, with the chief ministers of the states and administrators of the Union Territories as members. But the meetings are held many years apart and even then, decisions are seldom taken for want of time, so the forum has not served the purpose an RBO would have.

Although the existing River Boards Act (1956) has provisions for setting up RBOs, it does not give the requisite authority to the Centre to regulate interstate rivers through such institutions. Unfortunately, the Centre has not amended the act so far to empower itself to set up such organisations. Although many high-powered bodies, such as the Sarkaria Commission, had advised the Centre that Entry 56, List 1, of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution gave it ample powers to regulate interstate rivers, the Centre does not seem inclined to use such powers.

It is therefore for the Centre to empower itself to regulate interstate rivers and constitute RBOs with a broad mandate and authority to disentangle the issues that complicate the process of negotiations. It must also provide for better management of the country’s water resources.

The writer is former member secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, express@expressindia.com

 (The Indian Express, 26th September, 2012)

Indian River Linking Project

.

Share, don’t monopolise, water

  MS Menon 

A project to inter-connect rivers of the country has been gathering dust for decades now as it remains mired in complexities of politics. Water-rich States must be convinced of the benefits of linking up their resources

The vagaries of monsoons this year, like in the past, have brought about immense miseries to millions of Indians, with floods wreaking havoc in many parts of the country. However, the authorities concerned continue to deal with such calamities in a routine manner, treating them as crises to be ‘managed’ and not as disasters to be ‘mitigated’. They seem to be content only in taking ad hoc measures, such as doling out some relief funds to the needy and executing few minor schemes to divert the attention of the suffering public.

The problem of droughts and floods inflicting vast devastation on human lives and property year after year points to our continued failure in harnessing the highly skewed, seasonal and spatial distribution of  the monsoon flows. Water professionals have been insisting that the best available option is to link the rivers and divert water from surplus basins to deficit ones. Since the Ganga-Brahmaputhra-Meghna basin covering one-third of the country’s geographical area holds two-thirds of our water resources, the remaining two-third has to be satisfied by the balance resource.

However, the Indian River Linking Project, studied in detail for the last three decades and recommended by many high-powered expert committees, is yet to be implemented. The project is estimated to bring an area of 35 million hectares under irrigation and generate hydropower to the tune of 34,000 mega watts.

The transfer of water from surplus areas to deficit ones to meet local requirements is not a new concept. Presently, about 540 billion cubic metres of river water are being transferred globally every year through man-made canals. Even in India, long- distance water transfer projects have been in existence for centuries, transferring about 30 bcm of water from surplus to deficit areas every year.

For example, the Western Yamuna Canal and the Agra Canal have been carrying water from the Himalayas to the distant plains of Punjab and Haryana for the last few centuries. The Kurnool-Cuddappa Canal and the Periyar-Vaigai Canal in the south, built during the 19th century, still serve many areas that had earlier been arid. After Independence, projects like the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (Rajasthan) and the Telugu-Ganga Project (Andhra Pradesh) were constructed for facilitating inter-basin water transfers.

All these projects have ensured increased water availability for irrigation, protection from floods and droughts and overall regional development improving quality of life in the villages and towns in the command areas. Most importantly, they have also protected residents from the vagaries of the monsoons.

Since, in India, a few months account for most of the year’s monsoon and consequent water availability, the ability to hold water in reservoirs and spread out its release over the year as envisaged in the IRL Project is crucial to bridging the difference between devastating floods and droughts. In spite of these benefits expected from the project, why then is the scheme moving at a snail’s pace when it comes to prompt and effective implementation?

The reasons are not far to seek. The project has become a casualty in the fight for water rights between the States. Though the inter-State rivers carry more than 80 per cent of the annual utilisable water resources of the country, as of now, due to these fights, they discharge most of the water un-utilised into the sea every year. The Union Government pleads that water is a State subject. But many high-powered committees quoting ‘Entry 56, List 1’ of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution have advised it to regulate inter-State rivers using these powers. Due to the Centre’s inaction, water-rich States do not spare any water since they claim that in a foreseeable future they would be requiring all their water to meet their projected requirements. Hence, they do not want to give away their rights at present.

Meanwhile, many NGOs and civil society groups with vested interests and dogmatic beliefs have been spreading misinformation about the project. Making a distorted presentation of the ground reality, they have been offering textbook solutions as options to the IRL Project, basing their studies on unreliable data. Some NGOs claim that in the past, small diversion systems could provide adequate irrigation in Punjab and other places, ensuring enough food grain production without fail. Hence, instead of major dams like the Bhakra which, according to their assessment, has brought only disaster to the people, the construction of small storage facilities all over the country rather than the costly IRL Project, is the solution.

However, relevant District Gazetteers have documented recurring famines in these parts of the region from the 18th to the first half of the 20th century, thereby refuting the claim by the NGO regarding the pre-Bhakra days. Also, the NGOs’ suggested alternative of small irrigation projects has proved a failure in many parts of the country. During droughts, water had to be brought from distant sources by tankers to the affected villages in Gujarat, Maharashtra and other States. It may also be seen that now, post-Bhakra, famines are only a part of history books.

The option of importing food grains as a cheap alternative instead of investing in the mega project has also been mooted by some groups. The current world trade in food grains is too small to feed India’s surging population. Therefore, this alternative is not a dependable one to ensure food security for the country’s population. India has to be self-sufficient in food grain production, and the country has no option but to develop and manage its fresh water resources.

Now that the Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to set up a committee comprising representatives from various Ministries and other experts to chart out a plan for the project, some positive action from the Centre can be expected to expedite the Project. However, the committee will have the daunting task of bringing about the needed consensus among States.

Since water has become an emotive issue, none of the water-rich States will like to accept that it has surplus water to spare. A change in this attitude can only be brought about if the States are convinced of the benefits that can be accrued by sparing water. Hence, if the committee could consider proposals to compensate donor States for the surplus water released for the project, these States may agree as they can use the compensation to meet their needs.

The compensation could be either in cash or in sharing the power generated or agricultural produce, etc. The quantum of compensation could be decided on an agreed criterion. As both the donor and the recipient States will benefit from this provision, it will be a win-win situation, ensuring a water-saving culture among the States. The IRL Project is a means to end human sufferings. We should make it a reality and not allow the ambitious scheme to slip into the shadows of history.

(The writer is a former Member Secretary of Indian National Committee on Irrigation & Drainage, Union Ministry of Water Resources)

(The Pioneer, 20th September, 2012)

Copyright © 2011 The Pioneer. All Rights Reserved.