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)