Bengaluru: The Cauvery water crisis is one issue which confuses people more than enabling them to perceive it rightly. While lawyers tend to interpret the imbroglio from the legal perspective, administrators look at it differently while political leaders use a different prism to view it. Captain (retd) Raja Rao, a former irrigation secretary of the state, who is pretty well acquainted with the subject, has a different perspective to decode the crisis and some questions that the public generally ask.
Why is there a delay in settling the petition challenging the Cauvery River Water Dispute Tribunal’s order?
We have passed an amendment to the Inter-State River Dispute Act and now any tribunal hearing the river water dispute has to dispose of the case within three years. Extending the same logic, the Apex Court too should set itself a deadline to hear the river water cases. The final order of the Cauvery dispute tribunal came in 2007 and it is four years since Karnataka filed a SLP in the SC challenging the tribunal’s final order. This is unfair. Even lawyers representing various states give least priority to the hearing of these cases, so they get delayed.
Why has the tribunal’s order on setting up Cauvery Management Board and Cauvery water management committee not come into force?
All the states in Cauvery basin fear that they were given a raw deal, so they approached the Supreme Court challenging the final award. Karnataka opposed the setting up of any committee fearing it would take over the reservoirs.
Why is there a Cauvery crisis during a drought?
During an year with normal monsoon, more water flows to Tamil Nadu. When there is a drought, Tamil Nadu approaches the Supreme Court seeking water as per the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal’s final award while Karnataka objects. This is because, the tribunal suggested a percentile method to work out distress. The quantum of water is to be released corresponding to the percentage of rain deficit. They do not consider real time data like the area of standing crops including sugar and paddy, drinking water, ground water generation between the water measuring station at Biligundlu at Tamil Nadu border and the Mettur reservoir. Because of this, Karnataka farmers complain of an erroneous method in calculating distress.
Comment on the Supreme Court verdict?
When Tamil Nadu approached the court seeking water, the court should have ideally asked the riparian state to approach the Cauvery advisory committee which would in turn send a technical team to assess the distress. This time, without any data, the Supreme Court ordered release of water which is not correct. They should have ticked of the Centre asking why the latter was not dispensing its duty of monitoring the distress in a scientific manner.
How can Karnataka find a solution within its rights?
As per the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribuna order, it has to release 192 tmcft of water to Tamil Nadu. In the final order, the tribunal has given freedom to all states to go for setting up of hydro-electric projects. Using this analogy, Karnataka can build a dam at Mekedatu to store water. Karnataka can generate electricity and the remaining water can be stored for twin purposes: in a crisis the water can be used for drinking purpose in Bengaluru and if need be, it can be released to Tamil Nadu to meet the requirement stipulated in the Cauvery tribunal’s final order.
