{"id":16253,"date":"2018-02-23T17:24:28","date_gmt":"2018-02-23T11:54:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.forumias.com\/?p=16253"},"modified":"2018-02-23T17:24:28","modified_gmt":"2018-02-23T11:54:28","slug":"verdict-on-cauvery-fair-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/verdict-on-cauvery-fair-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"Verdict on Cauvery: fair enough?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><u>Context:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Even though the Supreme Court has come up with a verdict that serves the cause of both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and has given peace a chance, there are still a few grey areas which need to be attended.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><u>Background:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The judgment was passed on a <strong>batch of appeals by the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala challenging the 2007 award passed by the Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The Supreme Court <strong>curtailed Tamil Nadu\u2019s share of Cauvery water by 14.75 tmcft and increased Karnataka\u2019s share to meet Bengaluru\u2019s drinking water needs.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Tamil Nadu will get 404.25 tmcft, <\/strong>which will be 14.75 tmcft less than what was allotted by the tribunal in 2007.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Karnataka will now release only 177.25 TMC ft Cauvery water<\/strong> from Billigundlu site to Mettur dam in Tamil Nadu.<\/li>\n<li>The SC has also directed the formation of the\u00a0<strong>Cauvery Management Board (CMB)<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The 2007 tribunal award of 30 <strong>TMC ft to Kerala and 7 TMC ft water to Puducherry will remain unchanged<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><u>What are the reasons for which the judgment of additional allocation of 14.75 thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) of water to Karnataka can be justified? <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Yes, there is much to be satisfied with in what has been allotted to Karnataka in the recent order.\u00a0The reasons are as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Referring to river Cauvery as a\u00a0<strong>\u201cnational asset\u201d,<\/strong>\u00a0the Supreme Court has further said <strong>that \u201cno state can claim exclusive right to a river passing through different states\u201d.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The order is <strong>fair and does not take away anything significant<\/strong> from Tamil Nadu.<\/li>\n<li>What the apex court has done is to <strong>address some concerns that were present in the 2007 order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The court observed that <strong>several clauses in the 1924 agreement did not indicate permanency,<\/strong> <strong>and had lapsed after 50 years, by 1974. +-<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The court also rightly observed that the <strong>overall population of river basin States has to be placed on a pedestal, and be taken into account as a fundamental principle for equitable distribution.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>Keeping this in mind, the court acknowledges the need for a higher share of <strong>Cauvery water for Bengaluru,<\/strong> which now has more than 10 million inhabitants.<\/li>\n<li>The Supreme Court rightly notes that the tribunal\u2019s view ignores the basic <strong>principle pertaining to drinking water. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>Keeping in mind the <strong>global status that Bengaluru <\/strong>has rightly attained, an <strong>additional 4.75 tmc ft has been awarded<\/strong> to it in order to implement the existing water supply schemes.<\/li>\n<li>The remaining 10 tmc ft can be used to expand <strong>agricultural activities.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The Supreme Court\u2019s judgment significantly includes <strong>some aspects of groundwater, references to water allocation priority from the National Water Policy, directions to set up the implementation mechanism in six weeks, and fixing the water-sharing quota for 15 years.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><u>What are the grey areas in the judgment provided by the apex court to resolve Cauvery water dispute? \u00a0<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The grey areas in the judgment provided by the apex court to resolve Cauvery water dispute are as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The apex court treats the dispute as a <strong>water-sharing dispute rather than as a river-sharing dispute. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>There is inattention to factors like <strong>changing rainfall pattern, rainwater harvesting, the potential of soil water capture, catchment degradation and local water systems. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The order also justifies <strong>water supply to areas outside the Cauvery basin when other options exist.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>The court has opened up possibilities of some sub-optimal allocations in the name of <strong>higher priority uses in other basins. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>Considering <strong>areas outside the Cauvery basin (two-thirds of Bengaluru)<\/strong> for such allocation is another aspect that is bound to set a complicating precedent.<\/li>\n<li>The court has brought groundwater into the equation of water-counting which is <strong>ad hoc and not based on science. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>If groundwater is to be taken into account, full <strong>assessment of the groundwater (as also water stored in storages smaller than 3 tmc ft) should have been taken into account.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>While the Supreme Court sought the assistance of <strong>technical experts<\/strong> in the coal scam and the iron ore mining case, it has <strong>not done so in the Cauvery dispute. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li>Fixed allocation of water can be also problematic in case of an <strong>unusual drought year, which is not very uncommon these days.\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><u>What are the impacts of Supreme Courts\u2019 verdict on Cauvery water dispute?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The impacts of Supreme Courts\u2019 verdict on Cauvery water dispute are as follows:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Political significance:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>This Supreme Court verdict will have a huge political significance, particularly when Karnataka is going to election soon and the Tamil Nadu\u2019s post-Jayalalithaa politics is passing through a churning process.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Hydro-politics:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>More than the on-going politics in these two southern states, the impact of this Supreme Court\u2019s verdict will be immense on country\u2019 hydro-politics as well.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Emerge new water conflicts:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Cauvery River is not the only inter-state water sharing dispute India is facing.<\/li>\n<li>The list of this type of dispute is a very long one: Sutlej, Yamuna, Krishna, Bhima, Narmada, Mahi, Sone, Mahadayi and Mahanadi rivers to mention a few.<\/li>\n<li>Many new inter-state water disputes will come up if Narendra Modi government pursues its obsession with river-linking projects, in order to transfer the waters of Himalayan rivers to southern peninsula.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>It is a virtual win-win for both states.<\/li>\n<li>But it would require statesman like conduct from our politicians to behave responsibly.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Context: Even though the Supreme Court has come up with a verdict that serves the cause of both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and has given peace a chance, there are still a few grey areas which need to be attended. Background: The judgment was passed on a batch of appeals by the states of Karnataka,&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/verdict-on-cauvery-fair-enough\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Verdict on Cauvery: fair enough?<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":61,"featured_media":8657,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured-editorials","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/supreme-court_7f9c8246-c2c5-11e6-913d-826c0833a15d.jpg?fit=1008%2C508&ssl=1","views":{"total":0,"cached_at":"","cached_date":1704900849},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/61"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16253"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16253\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8657"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}