New Delhi, Aug 26 On August 22, the Supreme Court agreed to constitute a bench to hear the age-old inter-state dispute over sharing the water of the river Cauvery after Tamil Nadu approached it to direct Karnataka to release 24,000 cusecs from the river every day for its crops.
The genesis of this dispute between the two southern states may be traced back to decades before Independence, as far back as the two agreements in 1892 and 1924 between the then Madras Presidency and the Kingdom of Mysore.
In contemporary times, Karnataka demands its share of the water based on the river’s inflow, invalidating the pre-Independence agreements on the grounds that it is significantly in favour of Madras Presidency, which is most of Tamil Nadu today. Hence, Karnataka demands a settlement based on equitable sharing of water.
Tamil Nadu is adamant on its stand that since it has developed close to 12,000 sq km and depends on this pattern of usage to the extent that any alteration in the pattern will adversely affect thousands of farmers in the state.
The archaic agreement had in view the areas that came under Kingdom of Mysuru and the sprawling Madras Presidency. However, the regions not considered for the purpose of sharing the waters of river Cauvery were South Canara, which fell in Madras Presidency, and Coorg province, which now is a part of Karnataka.
As a matter of fact, river Cauvery originates in Coorg, but the erstwhile province was excluded from the agreement, thus questioning the validity of the agreement.
Negotiations over the dispute were of no lasting effect for decades together. Post Independence, an impactful decision came when the Union government stepped in and constituted a tribunal to look into the matter on June 2, 1990.
Over the next 16 years, the tribunal heard all sides involved and gave its verdict on February 5, 2007.
However, the dispute was not resolved with this verdict. All the four states went on to file review petitions seeking to renegotiate the order.
Cauvery originates in Karnataka and passes through Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry before draining into the Bay of Bengal. The total watershed area of this river basin is 81,155 sq km which combines the catchment area of about 34,273 sq km in Karnataka, 2,866 sq km in Kerala and nearly 44,016 sq km in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) adjudicated the water dispute between the three states and the Union Territory.
On June 25, 1991, CWDT passed an interim order directing Karnataka to release 192 TMC of water from its reservoir to Tamil Nadu in a normal year from June to May.
The order clarified that water must be released in four equal installments over four weeks with reference to a particular month. In case this does not happen, the deficit quantity of water must be released in the subsequent week.
It was also ordered that 6 TMC of water was to be given by Tamil Nadu in a regulated manner to the Karaikal region of Pondicherry.
On May 14, 1992, the Government of Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court seeking to give effect to the decisions of CWDT.
On April 9, 1997, the Supreme Court directed the Central government to prepare a plan. In 1998, the Central government notified a Cauvery Water (Implementation of Interim Orders of 1991 and all subsequent Tribunal Orders) Scheme.
This scheme is inclusive of Cauvery Water Authority and Monitoring Committee. The Cauvery River Authority is headed by the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of the basin states are the members. The Secretary of Ministry of Water Resources officiates as the Secretary of this body.
As matters stand, the Karnataka Chief Minister convened an all-party meeting to discuss the inter-state river disputes like Cauvery and Mhadei.
The dispute over sharing waters of river Mhadei is a similar one between the governments of Karnataka and Goa.
Although the Central government issued a gazette notification in 2020 permitting Karnataka to draw 13.42 tmcft of water from the Mahadayi river out of which 8 tmcft is for power generation, the situation remains largely in limbo and this dispute too continues.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor