Drawing lines in Cauvery waters

Source: The post is based on the article “Drawing lines in Cauvery waters” published in The Indian Express on 5^th October 2023.

Syllabus: GS 2 – Indian Polity – Issues & Challenges Pertaining to the Federal Structure

Relevance: concerns with Cauvery water dispute

News: The Cauvery dispute has resurfaced, the first time since the Supreme Court’s 2018 re-adjudication of the dispute and the establishment of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) to enforce the verdict.

What has been the history of the Cauvery water dispute?

Read Here: Cauvery Water Dispute and Interstate River Disputes

What are the reasons behind the current dispute?

Court Order: The recent dispute started in August when Tamil Nadu asked the Supreme Court to instruct Karnataka to release Cauvery waters at a rate of 24,000 cusecs. Karnataka opposed this due to insufficient rainfall.

Further, the court ordered Karnataka to release water at 3,000 cusecs, leading to widespread protests, including a statewide bandh. The dispute caused civic unrest, violence and significant economic losses.

Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA): The recent Cauvery dispute escalation is partly attributed to the effective role of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)

Despite low river water levels causing tensions this year, the CWMA has successfully mitigated the issue by fostering dialogue and facilitating problem-solving between the two states, showing its effectiveness.

Must Read: Cauvery Water Dispute: An analysis and Cauvery Water Dispute: All You Need to Know

What are the concerns with involvement of the Supreme Court in inter-state water dispute?

The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision asserting appellate jurisdiction in interstate river water disputes contradicted its past stance of having no such jurisdiction.

This change was driven by the expectation that states would be more inclined to comply with the Court’s decisions. However, even the court order didn’t prevent disputes from resurfacing and escalating, hampering its image.

This underscores the need to acknowledge the recurring nature of these disputes and respect Article 262 of the Constitution and the Interstate River Water Disputes Act of 1956, which prohibit court involvement in such matters.

What can be the way ahead?

First, recent escalations reveal that river water disputes remain unresolved over time. In transboundary water-sharing, both conflict and cooperation will coexist.

Hence, to address this, we must complement legal solutions with institutional responses to promote cooperation and reduce conflict.

Second, Institutions like the CWMA needs improvement.

Models like the National Council of the Cauvery (NCA), established through consensus, and the Supreme Court-mandated CWMA present distinct approaches. Hence, a renewed focus on consensus-building is required.