WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN INDIA
CAUVERY RIVER WATERS DISTRIBUTION: A CASE STUDY
Dr. Dattatri Jade, (Retd. Professor, NITK Surathkal)
Water plays a vital role in sustaining all forms of life and in maintaining a healthy
ecosystem. It is renewable but a limited natural resource. It is characterised by
its highly uneven distribution in time and space with the result it is not available
when it is required and where it is required. It becomes necessary to store rainwater
in large reservoirs and transfer water to needy areas. This marks the beginning
of major water sharing conflict. Since rivers do not respect State or National boundaries,
the conflicts can stretch to be International in character.
The interstate water disputes in India are generally about the utilization of hitherto
untapped surplus waters. With reference to the Cauvery River, the dispute is about
resharing of the waters that are already being almost fully utilised. The essence
of the Cauvery dispute is a conflict of interest between a downstream state (Tamil
Nadu) which has a long history of irrigated agriculture and has in the process been
making substantial use of Cauvery Waters, and an upstream state (Karnataka) which
was a late starter in irrigation development but has been making rapid progress
and being a upper riparian has greater control over the waters. Kerala and Puducherry
are also parties in this dispute. None of the contesting states are ever willing
to concede a single point to the other states, with the result a negotiated settlement
has been a distant dream. The politicians in Tamil Nadu are unwilling to change
their century old cropping patterns and insist on an undiminished free flow of water
while those in Karnataka want adequate water to feed all their newly developed lands
under irrigation in the Cauvery basin.
The three member Cauvery River Waters Tribunal after 16 years of deliberations with
580 sittings, sifting through the evidence and arguments has come out with its Final
Award in Feb 2007. Water allocation by Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals are
simply not acceptable to political parties or Governments of the contesting states;
the only inevitable acceptability would be a decision by the country’s highest
court – Supreme Court. The Cauvery basin states have approached the Supreme
Court immediately after the Final Award was announced (Feb. 2007) and as on date
the constitution bench of the Supreme Court has not yet taken up the matter.
Water plays a vital role in sustaining all forms of life and in maintaining a healthy
ecosystem. It is renewable but a limited natural resource. Water is unequally distributed
about the earth and its availability at any place varies greatly with time. Skilled
planning and careful management is essential to meet the water requirements of a
rapidly growing population. Rivers do not respect State or National Boundaries and
river water disputes are not uncommon the world over. India is no exception and
we have the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan and Ganges Water Treaty with Bangladesh.
The Inter State River Water disputes in India are generally about the utilisation
of hitherto untapped surplus waters. With reference to Cauvery, the dispute is about
resharing of the waters that are already being fully utilised.
Water Laws
In regions where the water resource is inadequate, to meet all the needs of the
potential users, water is a commodity of considerable value. A system of laws has
been developed to determine who has the right to water, when shortages occur.
Under the concept of riparian rights, the owner of the lands adjacent to
a stream or a river (riparian land) is entitled to receive the full natural flow
of the stream without change in quality or quantity. No upstream riparian owner
may materially lessen or increase the natural flow to the disadvantage of a downstream
riparian. The riparian doctrine has a serious defect in modern society – it
does not provide for use of water by the riparian owners for irrigation or other
purposes. Consequently, the riparian concept has been modified to permit reasonable
use of water and this allows the riparian owners to divert and use the water in
reasonable amounts for beneficial use. No priority of right can exist between
riparian owners, i.e., all riparian owners have equal rights to their share of water,
and no owner can exercise their rights to the detriment of others.
As the demand for water increased to meet the requirements of a growing population,
the doctrine of appropriation, without respect to the riparian rights came
into picture. The outstanding feature of the doctrine of appropriation is the concept
of “first in time, first in right”. The right of the earliest
appropriator is superior to any other claim and further appropriation is possible
only if water in excess of earlier claims is available. During water shortages,
those claimants with the earliest priority are entitled to their full share and
those with later priorities have to do without.
The doctrines of riparian rights and the doctrine of appropriation are quite different
and considerable confusion is to be expected when both doctrines are jointly recognised.
With many rivers crossing State boundaries (and National boundaries), it is inevitable
that disputes over water right’s will arise between States (and Nations).
In general, these disputes take the form of a complaint by the downstream state
that it is not getting its fair share of the river water. It then becomes the responsibility
of the Federal Government to adjudicate either through a River Waters Tribunal or
through the Supreme Court. Judicial decree in India generally follows the English
Law and the Judicial Pronouncements show a definite tilt towards the party which
has enjoyed prior use.
Cauvery River: The Basic Data
The Cauvery river takes its birth at the Talakaveri in the Brahmagiri range of the
Western Ghats almost within sights of the Arabian Sea to the west, but takes an
easterly course over the Karnataka plateau and Tamil Nadu plains before joining
the Bay of Bengal. Of its total length of 802km, 381km is in Karnataka, 357km is
in Tamil Nadu and the remaining forms the boundary between the two states.
The toal drainage area of the Cauvery basin is 81,155 Sq.Km. Karnataka’s share
is 42.2%, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry contribute 54.3% while Kerala’s share
is 3.5%.
The yield (total quantity of river flow available for use) in the Cauvery is realised
from both the monsoon’s, the South – West (June to September) and the
North – East (October to December). The rainfall in the Western Ghats is very
high (2000 – 2500 mm) mainly during the S-W monsoon. the middle basin gets
much less rainfall (700 – 900 mm). The Thanjavur delta gets the benefit of
the N-E monsoon (1100 mm). The S-W monsoon is generally more dependable than the
N-E monsoon.
The yireld in the Cauvery basin as per the Report of Cauvery Fact Finding Committee
of the Govt. of India based on the data from 1934 to 1972 is presented in
Table 1.
The yield of 740TMC on 50% dependability means that the annual river flow was equal
to or greater than 740TMC in 50% of the years. It is the average value.
The yield is presented in TMC which representsThousand Million Cubic feet.
One TMC represents the volume of water that will fill a tank of size 1000ftx1000ftx1000ft.
The rate of flow is measured in cusecs which represents cubic feet per second.
10,000 cusecs of water flowing for one day will amount to
= 10,000 x No. of seconds in one day
= 10,000 x 24 x 60 x 60
= 864,000,000 cubic feet
= 0.864TMC
1 TMC = 22957 acre – feet = 2832.5 Hectare – metres.
One TMC can irrigate 8,000 to 10,000 acres of paddy or 4,000 to 5,000 acres of sugarcane.
The Table above brings out clearly how much the Cauvery Waters have been utilized.
Karnataka which contributes 53% of the Cauvery Waters had utilized only 23.7% of
it while Tamil Nadu which contributes 30% of the Cauvery Waters had utilized 75.5%
of it. The total utilization is actually more than the available yield on 50% dependability
in the year under consideration (1972).
The Core of the Dispute
Chronological Development
The development of irrigation along the Cauvery has been based on the characteristics
and constraints relating to irrigable lands. The steep slopes, undulating terrain
and the soil conditions in the Cauvery basin in Karnataka Plateau are not conducive
to irrigation by inundation, the practice followed in earlier times. Dams and Canals
are essential if these areas are to be brought under irrigation. In contrast the
flat Thanjavur delta area with water supply from innumerable branches and sub-branches
of the river is ideally suited for inundation irrigation. The irrigation in the
Thanjavur delta area dates back to 3rd century and by 1901, Tamil Nadu
had 13.5 lakh acres of gross irrigated area utilising 367TMC of water while the
corresponding figures for Karnataka are 1.11 lakh acres utilising 27 TMC of water.
The Grand Anicut near Srirangam in Tamil Nadu, a masonry structure is believed to
have been constructed by KarikalanCholan in the Second Century AD to prevent the
flow in the Cauvery getting diverted into Coleroon.
Tamil Nadu has been viewing with concern all new developments and even tank restoration
works in Mysore State (earlier Karnataka) as that would reduce supplies to the Thanjavur
delta. As early as 1807, there was correspondence between Madras State and Mysore
State on the latter’s use of Cauvery waters to the detriment of the interest
of Madras. Prolonged negotiations lead to the 1892 agreement to ensure Mysore reasonable
freedom in dealing with her new irrigation works and to give Madras practical security
against injury to her interests. In the agreement, Mysore was practically forced
to accept the protection of prescriptive rights of Madras already acquired and actually
existing.
Mysore State was interested in developing its irrigation potential in the Cauvery
basin and this required the dam, a storage reservoir and a system of canals. It
is a tribute to the great Engineer – Visionary Sir. M Visvesvaraiah that he
visualised a dam at Kannambadi (the present KRS) to serve two purposes: One to ensure
steady water supplies to Sivasamudram Power Station which until then was a run-of-river
plant and secondly to provide for irrigation. Simultaneously Madras state was contemplating
a dam at Mettur to ensure better regulation of water supplies to the delta areas.
Negotiations between the two states continued and the Govt. of India did not agree
to the Madras proposal of delinking Mettur from KRS. Mysore in its eagerness to
get acceptance for the KRS was once again forced to accept prescriptive rights of
Madras. Mysore’s keenness to secure clearance for the KRS project provided
Madras the leverage to extract maximum benefit from 1924 agreement. Under this agreement,
Mysore agreed to regulate discharges from KRS in accordance with the Rules of Regulation.
One of the clauses of the 1924 agreement was that it was open to reconsideration
at the expiry of 50 years i.e., in 1974.
KRS was completed in 1931 and was to irrigate 1, 25,000 acres utilising 40 TMC of
water. Mettur completed in 1934 was designed to hold 94 TMC of water.
In 1974 Karnataka (after reorganization of states, Mysore State was renamed as Karnataka)
gave up adherence to the KRS Rules of Regulation stating that as per the terms,
the 1924 agreement has expired in 1974 after 50 years of operation. It has been
the argument of Karnataka that non development of potential in earlier years should
not be a penal factor and there should be equity and regional balance in sharing
the Cauvery Waters. After 1974 there has been substantial irrigation development
in the Cauvery basin, resulting in a change in the inter-state utilisation of the
Cauvery waters. As a result inflows at Mettur have ceased to be predictable or assured.
Tamil Nadu has been opposing from the beginning any new development in Karnataka
as that would affect the inflows into Mettur. Table 2
shows the trends in the utilization of Cauvery waters in recent times.
TABLE 2: TRENDS IN UTILIZATION OF CAUVERY WATERS
|
|
Utilization in %
|
1934-70
|
1970-80
|
1980-90
|
|
1
|
Share of Karnataka
|
22.9%
|
27.6%
|
42.2%
|
|
2
|
Share of Tamil Nadu
|
76.4%
|
71.6%
|
57.1%
|
|
3
|
Inflow at Mettur TMC
|
378.4
|
324.6
|
229.0
|
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
The development of irrigation in Karnataka in the Cauvery basin naturally meant
a decrease in the flow available to Tamil Nadu and this lead to protests from Tamil
Nadu in 1970 and in 1978, the other two riparian states (Kerala and Puducherry)
also joined deliberations. The dispute took the form of correspondence, exchange
of proposals, and a series of meetings at Official, Ministerial and Technical levels,
many of them involving Union Ministers of Irrigation of the status and expertise
of Dr. K L Rao and Technical Experts of Govt. of India. All the serious attempts
at resolving the dispute by negotiations did not yield any tangible results. Forced
by the Supreme Court order, Govt. of India under the Inter State Water Disputes
Act of 1956 appointed Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in June 1990.
In June 1991, at the request of Tamil Nadu routed through the Supreme Court, the
Tribunal passed an order regarding Interim Relief. This order was based on the averages
of the actual inflow data at Mettur in the proximity years i.e., 1980 to 1990 after
excluding the abnormally good and abnormally bad years.
Final Award of Tribunal
The Final Award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was announced by the Tribunal
on Feb. 5, 2007, sixteen years after the Tribunal was set up.
Table 3 gives a brief summary of the Final Award. While
Table 4 gives monthly releases from Karnataka to Tamilnadu
at Biligundlu, as directed by the Tribunal.
TABLE 3: CAUVERY WATER SHARING: FINAL AWARD
|
STATE
|
Tribunal’s award
|
Demands by the States
|
|
Kerala
|
30TMC
|
100 TMC
|
|
Karnataka
|
270 TMC
|
465 TMC
|
|
Tamil Nadu
|
419 TMC
|
566 TMC
|
|
Puducherry
|
7 TMC
|
9 TMC
|
|
|
10 TMC reserved for environmental protection
|
|
|
4 TMC inevitable escapage to sea
|
|
TOTAL
|
740 TMC
|
1140 TMC
|
Total availability of water on 50% dependability 740 TMC
Water to be released by Karnataka at Biligundlu on the border with Tamil Nadu 192
TMC as specified in Table 4 (this includes the 10 TMC set aside for environmental
protection) From Tamilnadu’s share of 182 TMC, it must release Puducherry’s
share of 7 TMC.
As per the constitution, within 90 days of the publication of the Final Award, the
parties concerned can approach the Tribunal for explanation or clarification and
all the states concerned have done so. It should however be noted that the Final
Award cannot be revoked or changed substantially. The Award is a judicial verdict
which is final and binding.
In addition all the States concerned have challenged the Award in the Supreme Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
These have been accepted and admitted by the Supreme Court to a hearing by a larger
bench since important questions on the interpretation of the Constitution have been
raised.
The Supreme Court has no doubt admitted the petitions but first has to decide on
its jurisdiction to intervene as the Constitution of River Water Tribunals under
article 262, Section 11 clearly States “Not withstanding anything contained
in any other Law, neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court shall have or exercise
jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a Tribunal
under the Act”.
The Tribunal on the 11th July 2007 declared that it would hear the applications
for clarifications and explanations only after the disposal of SLP by the Supreme
Court. As on date today (26th July, 2013) the Supreme Court has not yet
taken up the matter.
On April 12, 2012 the chairman of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Justice N
P Singh resigned on health grounds saying that his age of 80 would not permit him
to be involved in active work.
It should be noted that the Tribunal continues to function as the review applications
have been filed and the Tribunal has to give its opinion on these. The Govt. of
India have yet to appoint a new chairman and only a Supreme Court judge who is on
the verge of retirement can be appointed to head the Tribunal.
On Dec. 11, 2012, Govt. of India notified the Final Award (even before the Tribunal
or the Supreme Court have given their opinions on the petitions before them) in
its Gazette, after which it becomes a Law which can be enforced. This would require
setting up of a Cauvery Management Board and a Cauvery Water Regulation Committee
which would ensure the implementation of the Final Order. The allocations of water
as made by the Tribunal in its Final Award will be in force until the Supreme Court
and the Tribunal give their final verdict.
Discussion
Cauvery is a deficit river with the demand far exceeding the average availability.
It is natural that any attempt at apportioning the available water cannot meet the
expectations of all the people. The Tribunal has given its award and much now depends
on the political acceptance by the States concerned. A deciding factor considered
by the Tribunal in making the allocations has been the extent of prior appropriation.
Regarding the contentious issue of distress sharing, the Tribunal has only stated
that the distress be shared proportionately. Since the extent of the distress will
be known only at the end of the water year, how to quantify in advance the monthly
releases that Karnataka has to make at Biligundlu in a distress year?
The Tribunal should have come up with a clearer and more elaborate distress sharing
mechanism. Probably the Tribunal may take up this issue when the matter comes up
for “clarifications, explanations or guidance required on any point not originally
referred to the Tribunal”.
Karnataka now feels hurt that it must release 192 TMC at Biligundlu where according
to the Interim Award it would have been only 180 TMC (205 TMC to be realised at
Mettur minus 25 TMC the yield between Biligundlu and Mettur as estimated by the
Tribunal). Also why only Karnataka should release the 10 TMC of water meant for
Environmental protection? Should not the other States share this?.Karnataka gets
its yield almost entirely during the South West monsoon months June to Sept. During
the other months, the natural river flow being very low, it has to dig deep into
its storage to make the monthly releases.
Tamil Nadu has extensive Ground water resources in the delta area. The Tribunal
itself has estimated it to be around 30 TMC. But this has not been considered while
making allocations.
The drinking water requirements of Bangalore have not been fully met with the Tribunal
declaring that two-thirds of the city lies outside the Cauvery river basin and hence
cannot be eligible for any allotment.
Conclusions
The long awaited final order of the Cauvery Tribunal has come but the States concerned
have expressed their dissent that the allocations fall short of their demands and
that there is no specific distress sharing formula. They have asked for a review
by the Tribunal and also approached the Supreme Court which is yet to take up the
matter for adjudication. In the mean time, the Technical Experts have a clear role
to play in implementing sustainable solutions relevant to the utilisation of the
Cauvery Waters. Political wisdom lies in allowing them to do so.
Author: Dr. Dattatri Jade, (Retd. Professor, NITK Surathkal),Visiting
Professor and Engineering Consultant
Bangalore – 560040 Email:
jadedattri@hotmail.com
|
WATER STORAGE CAPACITY CREATED
|
|
INDIA |
213 m3 / capita |
|
PAKISTAN |
150 m3 / capita |
|
AUSTRALIA |
4733 m3 / capita |
|
USA |
1964 m3 / capita |
|
CHINA |
2200 m3 / capita |
|
GLOBAL AVERAGE |
900 m3 / capita |