I.

Cauvery River water dispute

The sharing of waters of the Cauvery river has been the source of a serious conflict between

the two states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The genesis of this conflict rests in two

agreements in 1892 and 1924 between the erstwhile Madras Presidency and Princely state of

Mysore. The 802 kilometres (498 mi) Cauvery river has 44,000 km2 basin area in Tamil

Nadu and 32,000 km2 basin area in Karnataka1. The inflow from Karnataka is 425 TMC ft

whereas that from Tamil Nadu is 252 TMCft2 .

Based on inflow Karnataka is demanding its due share of water from the river. It states that

the pre-independence agreements are invalid and are skewed heavily in the favour of the

Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable sharing

of the waters". Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed almost

3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily on the

existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the

livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. 34

Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. The Government of India then

constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all the

parties involved for the next 16 years, the tribunal delivered its final verdict on 5 February

2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 TMC of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270

TMC to Karnataka; 30 TMC of Cauvery river water to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry.
1 "Cauvery River basin map". Retrieved 15 September 2016.

2 Sood, Jyotika (31 October 2012). "The paddy compulsion". Down to Earth.

3 "Cauvery River basin". WRIS. 2014. Retrieved 15 September2016.

4 "Basin Report - Cauvery" (PDF). WRIS. 2014. Retrieved 15 September 2016

1
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu being the major shareholders, Karnataka was ordered to release

192 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu in a normal year from June to May. 5

The dispute however, did not end there, as all four states decided to file review petitions

seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order.

Puducherr
Tamil Nadu Karnataka Kerala Total
y

Basin Area up
2,866 (4% 81,15
to Lower Coleroon 44,016 (54%) 34,273 (42%) 0(-)
) 5
Anicut site (in km)6

Drought area in the 12,790 (36.9% 21,870 (63.1% 34,66

-- --
basin (in km) 7 ) ) 0

Inflow from basin in

252 (32%) 425 (54%) 113 (14%) --
TMC 8

Share for each state as 419 (58%) 270 (37%) 30 (4%) 7 (1%) 726

per tribunal verdict of

5 "Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal report" (PDF). The Gazette of India. 19 February 2013

6 "A Background Paper on Article 262 and Inter-State Disputes Relating to Water". Ministry of Law and Justice. Retrieved May 13,2013.

7 Anand, P. B. (2004). Water and Identity - An Analysis of the Cauvery River Water Dispute. University of Bradford.

8 Anand, P. B. (2004). Water and Identity - An Analysis of the Cauvery River Water Dispute. University of Bradford

2
2007 9

II. History of the dispute

The British controlled both Mysore and Madras for a short period in the middle of the 19th

century. During their regime, numerous plans were drawn up for the utilization of

the Kaveri waters by both states. However, the drought and subsequent famine in the mid-

1870s put a hold on the implementation of these plans. The plans were revived by Mysore in

1881, by which time Mysore was back in the hands of the Mysore kings, while present

day Tamil Nadu continued to remain a part of the Madras Presidency.

Mysore's plans to revive the irrigation projects met with resistance from the Madras

Presidency. Mysore state made a representation to the Madras Presidency then British

government; as a result of which, a conference was held in 1890 with the objective of

agreeing "on the principles of a modus vivendi, which would on the one hand allow to

Mysore in dealing with irrigation works, and on the other, give to Madras practical security

against injury to interests" and eventually the Agreement of 1892 was signed.

Things came to a head in 1910 when Mysore, under N.Krishnaraja Wodeyar as the king and

Capt. Dawes10 as Chief Engineer came up with a plan to construct a dam

at Kannambadi village to hold up to 41.5 TMC of water. The dam was planned to be built in

two stages. In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envisioned, while in the second stage

9 "Cauvery tribunal gives TN 419 tmcft, 270 to Karnataka". Rediff.com. 5 February 2007

10 Kannambadi by Prof. PV Nanjaraj Urs

3
the full capacity was set to be realized. Madras however, refused to give its consent for this

move as it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC.

After a reference to the Government of India, permission was accorded to Mysore, but for a

reduced storage of 11TMC. During construction, however, the foundation was laid to suit the

earlier desired full storage. This raised Madras' hackles and the dispute continued. As a result,

the then British Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the

1892 Agreement. The kaveri dispute thus had come up for arbitration for the first time.

Sir H D Griffin was appointed arbitrator and M. Nethersole, the Inspector General of

Irrigation in India, was made the Assessor. They entered into proceedings on 16 July 1913

and the Award was given on 12 May 1914. The award upheld the earlier decision of the

Government of India and allowed Mysore to go ahead with the construction of the dam up to

11 TMC.

Madras appealed against the award and negotiations continued. Eventually an agreement was

arrived at in 1924 and a couple of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and 1933. The

1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years.

III. Post-Independence developments

In 1947, India won independence from the British. Further in 1956, the reorganization of the

states of India took place and state boundaries were redrawn based on linguistic

demographics. Kodagu or Coorg (the birthplace of the Cauvery), became a part of Mysore

state. Huge parts of erstwhile Hyderabad State and Bombay Presidency joined with Mysore

state. Parts of Malabar which earlier formed part of Madras Presidency went

to Kerala. Puducherry had already become a de facto Union territory in 1954.

4
All these changes further changed the equations as Kerala and Puducherry also jumped into

the fray. Kerala staked its claim as one of the major tributaries of the Kaveri, the Kabini, now

originated in Kerala. The Karaikal region of Puducherry at the tail end of the river demanded

the waters that it had always used for drinking and some minimal agriculture. While these

additional claims complicated matters greatly at a technical level, Mysore state and Tamil

Nadu still remained the major parties to the dispute.

By the late 1960s, both states and the Central government began to realize the gravity of the

situation as the 50-year run of the 1924 agreement was soon coming to an end. Negotiations

were started in right earnest and discussions continued for almost 10 years.

IV. Indian Government notifies Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal

On 20 February 2013, based on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian Government

notified the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing the

waters of the Kaveri system among the basin States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala

and Union territory of Puducherry. The extraordinary notification in the gazette dated 19
11
February 2013 says the order takes effect on the date of publication. The Tribunal, in a

unanimous decision in 2007, determined the total Kaveri basin water availability in a normal

year as 740 TMC at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site, including 14 TMC for minimum

environmental flows and unavoidable wastage to the sea. The final award makes an annual

11 "Cauvery water disputes tribunal award,". GoI. 2007. Retrieved 15 September 2016.

5
allocation of 419 TMC to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 TMC to Karnataka, 30

TMC to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry. 12 13 14

The water sharing criteria is based on two situations:

When water availability is above the normal water year flows.

When water availability is equal or below the normal water year flows

The 50% dependable water year is considered as normal water year whose total water

availability in the basin is 740 TMC15. All the unused water in the reservoirs ( 3 TMC

storage) at the beginning of water year in the basin are also considered for arriving the total

available water in a water year to be shared by the riparian states. Tamil Nadu has to use 10

TMC for minimum environmental flows downstream of Lower Coleroon Anicut and supply 7

TMC to Puducherry out of the 192 TMC water released by Karnataka in a normal water year.

Kerala can use 21 TMC from Kabini river basin, 6 TMC from Bhavani river basin and 3

TMC from Pambar river basin in a normal year. Water going waste to sea at Lower Coleroon

Anicut in excess of 4 TMC (other than 10 TMC minimum environmental flows) in any water

year forms part of utilisable water share of Tamil Nadu. The ambiguity in the verdict is that

utilisable water (clauses IV and V) in the basin is allocated among the states but it has not

defined how to measure the same. Instead clause XIV of final order defines how to measure

the beneficial water uses which is not equal to the utilisable water.

12 Parsai, Gargi (20 February 2013). "Centre notifies Cauvery Tribunal final award". The Hindu.

13 "Centre notifies Cauvery Tribunal award". The Economic Times. 20 February 2013.

14 Vaidyanathan, A. (20 February 2013). "Centre notifies Cauvery Tribunal award; Karnataka braces for protests". NDTV.

15 "Final Order of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal" (PDF). 2007. Retrieved 15 September 2016.

6
 A. Above normal water year

Karnataka can use all the excess water available in its area after releasing 192 TMC

applicable in a normal water year. Tamil Nadu can also use all the excess water available in

its area (including flood water from Karnataka if any).

Karnataka has proposed a project to store excess water during good monsoon years

at Mekedatu for drinking water needs of Bengaluru city and en route, hydro power

generation, etc. Tamil Nadu is raising objections to this project. 16 17

B. Below normal water year

When the total water availability is below 740 TMC (i.e. distress year), the allocated share of

each state is reduced proportionately. Kerala (in Kabini basin) and Karnataka would use their

reduced allocations and release rest of water below Billigundulu gauging station for use in

Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. 18Karnataka has to release water to Tamil Nadu on monthly basis

proportionate to the monthly figures indicated for a normal year.

C. Water use limitations

Based on the river basin water data available from the year 1934 to 1971 (44 years back

data), the tribunal estimated the average water yield in the total river basin as 767 TMC

which corresponds to 47% dependability. The live storage capacity available in the river

basin is nearly 310 TMC which is 40.5% of the average yield. The water used in the Cauvery

delta in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is nearly 280 TMC which is the tail end water use in the
16 "Mekedatu: Floodgates of dispute". Retrieved 15 September2016.

17 "What is the Mekedatu project?". Retrieved 15 September 2016

18 "Who Should Karnataka Blame in the Cauvery Dispute? History Has Some Answers". Retrieved 15 September 2016

7
river basin and its regenerated water either goes to sea or outside the Cauvery basin. 19The

total dissolved salt load generated in the basin is nearly 3.5 million metric tons per year. The

estimated salinity or total dissolved salts (TDS) for the water available in Cauvery delta is
20 21 22
441 ppm which is close to the safe maximum permissible 500 ppm. There is no limit

imposed by the tribunal for the ground water use in the river basin. The tribunal has also

permitted the basin states to use all the excess water available in above normal water years.

Moreover, the river basin population has reached 40 million in the year 2015 and the

increasing per capita inorganic salts used/consumed in industrial, agriculture and residential

sectors are enhancing the salt export requirements. 23When adequate salt export from the river

basin is not taking place to the sea by forcing Cauvery delta to face water shortage, the water

quality (salinity, pH, alkalinity, sodicity, etc.) available for Cauvery delta would deteriorate

beyond the permissible limits impeding its sustainable productivity and its aquatic ecosystem

conservation. 24 25
Ultimately salt export criteria is the limitation for the water resources

development in a river basin.

V. THE CURRENT SITUATION

19 "Pages 77, 79 & 100 of Volume III of CWDT" (PDF). 2007. Retrieved 15 September 2016.

20 "Water Quality Database of Indian rivers, MoEF". Retrieved 15 September 2016

21 "MurrayDarling River Basin - Assessment of the salt export objective and salinity targets for flow management 2014-15" (PDF).
Retrieved 15 September 2016.

22 "Conductivity units converter". Retrieved 15 September 2016.

23 "Soon, We May Not Have a Cauvery River to Fight Over". Retrieved 23 September 2016.

24 J. Keller; A. Keller; G. Davids. "River basin development phases and implications of closure". Retrieved 25 August 2016

25 David Seckler. "The new era of water resources management - From 'dry' to 'wet' water savings" (PDF). Retrieved 25 July 2016.

8
 The Supreme Court has reserved order on maintainability on appeal of Tamil Nadu,

Karnataka and Kerala against Tribunal's order of 2007. Meanwhile, 2000 cusecs/per day

water will be provided to Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 18, had

directed the Karnataka government to keep releasing 2,000 cusecs of water per day to Tamil

Nadu till further orders.

Meanwhile, SC asks Karnataka to continue releasing 2000 cusecs water per day to Tamil

Nadu. SC reserves order on maintainability on appeal of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala

against Tribunal's order of 2007, reports ANI. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu administrations

must ensure peace and harmony in both the states

With water bodies gone, 60% of bengalurueans depend on Cauvery. Rail roko protests were

also held , which were successful, more than 600 were heald. The Puduchery and Tamil Nadu

govt. Make pact on water. Opposition, farmers protest, throw life out of gear across Tamil

Nadu26.

Karnataka side Tamil Nadu side

1. Low monsoons, so 1. Samba crop growers are mainly dependent on Cauvery river. Irrigation is the

low flow in Cauvery. main water source in the area. So their livelihood in danger.

Water not enough for

2. The government not wanting to notify the final order of CWDT is also
their own farmers.
agitating, as there seems to be no end to the problem.

2. Very unstable
3. The government replied that it will notify the CWDT tribunals award by
political situation in
December end. But it has not done so. The reason is still not known(maybe even
Karnataka with 3 CMs

26 Cauvery water dispute case, 19th October 2016 , The Times Of India

9
 changing.
political). TN was wishing that there could be some relief if the gazette notification
3. So Cauvery being a
comes (in 2007 itself) but even after the Tribunals award the issue has been
very sensitive issue
politically and legally entangled for the past 5 years. So TNs position is in a
nobody wants to give it
deadlock.27
up easily.

VI. THE FUTURE: WHAT LIES AHEAD

1. The Centre must publish the CWDT order as soon as possible.

2. In the middle of all this the CWDT chairman has resigned, and no new chairman has

been assigned yet. So the new chairman has to be assigned who has to be going-to-retire

SC judge.

3. The CRA and CMC were only interim measures and thus when the award is published

they will cease to exist. A new Cauvery Management Board (CMB) has to be formed to

oversee the proper distribution of the river.

4. The major cause for the confusion is the SLPs being admitted in the SC. They have

been pending for the last 5 years. They must be done away with as soon as possible.

5. Proper use of the Cauvery water by both sides so that they dont become too

dependent on the water.

6. The water sharing formula in low flow years must be formed with as soon as possible.

27www.mrunal.org/2013/01/polity-cauvery-kaveri-water-dispute-tamil-nadu-
karnatakahistory-2012-controversy-future.html#174

10
 VII. MY OPINION

A lesson from the events over the last few months over sharing of Cauvery waters show that

one time, prescriptive, top-down solutions either by the tribunal or the Supreme Court may

not resolve the conflict. For a socially and environmentally just solution, we need to move to

an adaptive management approach and an alternative set of principles of sharing, sound

science and a participatory processes with non-state actors. This was the overwhelming

feeling of academics and civil society activists from of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and

Pondicherry, who met recently in Bengaluru to discuss the issue.

The Cauvery tribunal award restricts itself to sharing only stream (surface) flows. According

to geo-hydrologist Sekhar Muddu of Indian Institute of Science, stream flow cannot be the

indicator of total available water. Only a fraction of rainfall, around 10 to 20 per cent, ends up

as stream flows. Nearly 60 to 70 per cent of the rainfall is taken up by vegetation from soil

and evapotranspired to the atmosphere.

Thus it is important that all available water in situ water, groundwater, stream flows be taken

into account for water allocation.

Cauvery basin gets both the southwest (SW) and the northeast (NE) monsoons. The

Karnataka part of the basin is dominated by the SW monsoon while the delta region in Tamil

Nadu is dominated by the NE monsoon. This has direct implications for the tribunal award,

especially its stipulation to share shortages on a pro rata basis. The critical issue is when and

how we estimate the shortage and work out a schedule of release from upstream storages. It

means shortages are not uniform across time and space and we need a more nuanced

11
understanding of how to deal with shortages as well as an institutional mechanism to deal

with it in a flexible manner.

In 2013, the ministry of water resources came out with a Draft National Policy Guidelines for

Water Sharing/Distribution Amongst States.

It advocates for equitable apportionment of available water and the factors to be considered

include contribution of each of the co-basin states to the waters of the basin, requirement of

water in each of the co-basin states, practicability of utilisation of water demanded and,

availability of alternate or supplementary sources. It states setting priorities for the allocated

water within the co-basin states is not part of inter-state water sharing, though these priority

uses and needs may be considered.

This is highly problematic because it can go against the grain of a socially and ecologically

just sharing arrangement. Take the case of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal award. The

tribunal awarded nine MAF (million acre feet) water to Gujarat, much higher than its riparian

contribution to the flow because of the extensive drought-prone areas in Gujarat. However, in

the design of the Sardar Sarovar Project, a larger share 59 per cent of the water was

allocated to the highly developed central Gujarat leaving very less to the drought prone

regions of Kutch, Saurashtra and north Gujarat.

Also, the guidelines stipulate to protect the existing uses while deciding on the relative share

of the co-basin states. This too is problematic because development of water resources among

the co-basin states is not uniform. It can privilege the states that are historically advanced in

water resources development. It could foreclose future options for more sustainable and

equitable sharing .

12
The joint statement that grew out of the Bengaluru meeting talks of an alternative set of

principles and processes for inter-state water sharing. It argues for an integrated water

management in the river basin that should be guided by the normative concerns of equitable,

sustainable, and efficient use and also democratic governance. These need a rigorous and

nuanced understanding of the ecological and socio-economic situation in the basin.

The statement provides four principles in a sequential manner: First, water for life to provide

adequate water of acceptable quality for meeting the drinking, cooking and sanitation needs

of all the people and animals in the basin; second, water for the ecosystem to ensure water

flows in the river system for aquatic life and other ecological functions; third, water for

sustaining livelihoods to enable productive activities while ensuring equitable use and public

health; and fourth, water for adaptation to change to keep reserves and margins for

demographic, economic and land-use changes and climate change. The statement calls for a

participatory and transparent process for deciding water sharing.

Sharing of the Cauvery waters cannot be left to a centralised political, bureaucratic or judicial

process. Water governance must be democratic, decentralised and participatory. There is also

a need to set up collaborative networks of citizens, civil society organisations, academics and

state agencies dedicated to analysing and communicating this information for use by

decision-makers. All information and data must be publicly available. An informed public

discourse alone can transform conflict into cooperation.

VIII. BIBLOGRAPHY

www.wikipedia.com

www.timesofindia.com

13
 www.thehindu.com

www.indianexpress.com

www.mrunal.org/2013/01/polity-cauvery-kaveri-water-dispute-tamil-nadu-

karnatakahistory-2012-controversy-future.html#174

www.epu.in

www.firstpost.com

14