Cauvery Dispute: Background, Timeline, Recent Verdict, Issues

The river Cauvery is the third largest river of South India after Mahanadi and Godavari.  Its water drains the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. But the sharing of the water of this river has become an issue of conflict between the two states, with each referring to a British-era document for deciding their claim.

Brief Background of the Dispute

There were two agreements entered into in the years 1892 and 1924 with respect to sharing of the river water between the states of erstwhile Madras Presidency and the Kingdom of Mysore. As per this agreement water sharing is determined with the help of basin area in each state which is 44,000 square km in Tamil Nadu and 32000 square km in Karnataka.

But Karnataka has now claimed that the agreements have been unfair towards Karnataka and that ‘equitable sharing of waters’ should be ensures. But Tamil Nadu claims that it would not be possible to share equal water because the state has already used up 12,000 square km of land around the river and is heavily dependent on the current usage pattern of the river. A change can affect the livelihood of millions of farmers of Tamil Nadu.

Timeline

The dispute arose after the Agreement of 1924 lapsed in the year 1974, putting an end to the obligations of the states under the document. After this, some of the important dates have been as follows:

• 1990-After a constant demand by Tamil Nadu to constitute the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, it was finally created in 1990 in the month of June by direction of Supreme Court.
• 1991-The Tribunal rejected the plea for interim relief of the Tamil Nadu government against which the state went on an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then directed the tribunal to entertain the interim relief petition. The tribunal complied and passed an interim award which required Karnataka to release 205 tmcft of water. But in order to nullify the effects of the interim award the Karnataka government passed an ordinance that also became a matter of litigation and was struck down by the Supreme Court. But Karnataka still refused to obey which resulted in the publication of notification of the interim award in gazette of Government of India.
• 1993-Some dramatic events took place as the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Later Jayalalithaa went on a sudden fast demanding immediate release of the share of water stipulated in the interim award.
• 1998-But the constant denial of the interim award finally led to the constitution of the Cauvery River Authority that would ensure implementation of the interim award.
• 2002-This became another major eventful year which began with the Authority directing Karnataka to release only 0.8 tmcft of water, which angered Tamil Nadu and it again appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a lot of political events unfurled with a Congress MP from Tamil Nadu blaming the AIADMK government for not sufficiently addressing the issue in the Parliament which led to a tussle between the two parties. In Karnataka a farmer jumped into the Kabini reservoir and died in protest against the release of water to Tamil Nadu. Then a Cauvery Monitoring Committee Panel was formed that visited the farmers of Karnataka seeking to know their distress.
• 2003-Loopholes in functioning of the Cauvery River Authority was exposed.
• 2005-A distress sharing formula was decided, but Karnataka still refused to implement this formula.
• 2006-Talks held between farmers of both sides and compromise on water sharing was entered into.
• 2007-The tribunal upheld the agreements of 1892 and 1924 and passed the award, which led to violent protests in Karnataka.
• 2013-Notification of final award by Centre and creation of Cauvery Water Management Board
• 2016-But Karnataka had refused to follow the final award which led to another petition before the Supreme Court seeking execution of the final award. The Court after that kept pressurizing the Karnataka government for releasing 15,000 cusecs of water and to obey the award. Meanwhile the matter continued in the Court.

Supreme Court Decision

The apex Court recently gave its final verdict, settling the dispute once and for all. Some of the important points of the judgement are as follows:

• It was observed that the overall population of a river basin must be given prime consideration for determining equitable share of water. So, on that basis Bangalore with inhabitants of around 10 million inhabitants deserves to have more share of water than was awarded. Additional 4.75 tmcft water has been allocated for the purpose of implementation of water supply schemes of Karnataka and another 10 tmcft for agricultural activities.
• Around 10 tmcft groundwater from the Cauvery delta is to be preserved for safe use by Tamil Nadu.

Therefore, while increasing the share of Karnataka, it did not ignore the needs of Tamil Nadu as well. The Court was fair to both the states while giving its verdict.  However, the Court has not looked deep into the issue like deciding on a deficit formula for sharing of water, issue with respect to construction of a hydel power project in the common boundaries of the river by Karnataka (Mekedatu hydel project), allocation of surplus water and problems of climate change. Moreover, a major drawback of the judgement is that unlike in cases of the coal mine scam or the iron ore mining case, the Court did not seek the assistance of atleast two technical experts as required under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. This can cause serious practical challenges in the future water sharing and disputes may still arise before it.