Pre-cum-Mains GS Foundation Program for UPSC 2026 | Starting from 14th Nov. 2024 Click Here for more information
Source: The post is based on the article “The Cauvery Water Management Authority should act” published in “The Hindu” on 20th September 2023.
Syllabus: GS2- Polity- Interstate relation
News: The article discusses the ongoing water-sharing dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regarding the Cauvery River. It highlights the necessity of a distress-sharing formula, recent developments in the Supreme Court, and the roles of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and other relevant bodies.
What are the main issues with Cauvery River water sharing?
Historical Dispute: The sharing of the Cauvery River water has been contentious since the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s 1991 interim order.
Lack of Clear Guidelines:
There’s no detailed distress-sharing formula in the 2007 Tribunal order or the 2018 Supreme Court judgment.
Both mentioned pro-rata sharing in distress times, but specifics are lacking.
State Perspectives:
Tamil Nadu factors in the deficit in inflows to four Karnataka reservoirs and the rainfall pattern in three Cauvery catchment groups.
Karnataka argues that water sharing should consider both the southwest and northeast monsoons.
Unclear Reservoir Status: From June 1 to August 27, the four Karnataka reservoirs faced a 51.22% shortfall in inflows.
Authority’s Stance: Neither the disputing parties nor the Cauvery Water Management Authority has opposed the concept of distress sharing. The disagreement is on the formula’s specifics.
What do the judicial bodies say?
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) 2007 Order:
The Tribunal did not provide much in its final order regarding distress sharing.
However, it did mention that during two consecutive bad years of rain, the monthly schedule of water release should be relaxed.
The suggestion was to operate all reservoirs in the basin in an integrated manner to “minimize any harsh effect.”
Supreme Court Judgment 2018:
The Supreme Court also did not provide a clear guideline for distress sharing.
The judicial bodies referred to the principle of pro-rata sharing in times of distress.
Current Scenario: Neither the states involved in the dispute, nor the Authority has expressed opposition to the concept of distress sharing. The main disagreement is about the specifics of the formula.
What should be done now?
Transparency is Essential:
The CWMA and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) should publish their meeting proceedings online.
Providing access to these records will help dispel misconceptions in both states.
Proactive Approach:
The CWMA, despite its establishment in 2018, hasn’t made significant progress in five years. This needs to change.
The Authority should not miss the current opportunity to address the issue.
Objective Decision Making:
The Authority comprises officials and technical experts.
They should utilize their expertise to create a rational and objective distress-sharing formula.
Judicious Water Use:
Tamil Nadu should focus on the efficient and judicious use of water, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision on its water quota.
