Cauvery River Dispute

Introduction: The peninsular rivers as one must have studied in geography, are depended on the annual monsoon. So their flow is dependent on the success/failure of monsoon. This year the monsoons were not even close the expectations. So the states that have been sharing the river waters have come under extra pressure to save their farmers, among which, the already heightened battle is the Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. This issue is definitely not new and has been raging for more than 5 decades now. Terms: Tmcft Thousand million cubic feet. Unit of volume which means total water released.

Cusec Cubic feet per second. Unit of flow which means the water flow s released continuously. History of the issue: The river Cauvery has been shared by the states under 2 agreements The Interstate agreements of 1872 and 1924. All was well, till the late 1960s when Karnataka wanted to build 4 new reservoirs in the tributaries of Cauvery. The Planning commission did not approve to give funds and neither did the Central government. This diverted some of the water of Cauvery, due to which Tamil Nadu protested. It directed the Centre to create a Tribunal. But Karnataka state went ahead with the building of the reservoirs with its own funds. These reservoirs were But since the Centre did not create one, Tamil Nadu moved the SC to order the centre. The tribunal was finally formed in 1990. Why confusion over creation of Tribunal? Article Neither the Supreme Court nor any court shall exercise

262

jurisdiction in water dispute between states.

But the Supreme Court commented that it can however order the Centre to create a Tribunal which it is supposed to do so under the Art.262 and the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956. Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) To cut short to the story, the CWDT came up with its final order in 2007, giving Region Tamil Nadu Kerala Water (tmcft) 419

Karnataka 270 30 Puducherr 7 y Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu contested this CWDT order in the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), which are still pending. This has prevented the Centre from publishing the CWDT award in the gazette (which means it will implement the award). In the meanwhile, because of the long time the CWDT took to give its decision, it gave an interim order in 1991 itself for the riparian states. To implement this interim measure, the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) and the Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC) were formed. 2012 and the final showdown Among all this drama, confusion and power plays there emerged a new problem. The CWDT did not come up with a formula for situations when the flow in Cauvery was low (meaning a drought kind situation). This is why the issue has flared up so much in 2012 as this year Karnataka has refused to release water on this basis.

Karnataka side

Tamil Nadu side

1. 1. Low monsoons, so low flow in Cauvery. Water not enough 2. for their own farmers. 2. Very unstable 3. political situation in Karnataka with 3 CMs changing. 3. So Cauvery being a very sensitive issue nobody wants to give it up easily.

Samba crop growers are mainly dependent on Cauvery river. Irrigation is the main water source in the area. So their livelihood in danger. The government not wanting to notify the final order of CWDT is also agitating, as there seems to be no end to the problem. The government replied that it will notify the CWDT tribunals award by December end. But it has not done so. The reason is still not known (maybe even political). TN was wishing that there could be some relief if the gazette notification comes (in 2007 itself) but even after the Tribunals award the issue has been politically and legally entangled for the past 5 years. So TNs position is in a deadlock.

Amid this the Supreme Court had asked the 2 Chief Ministers to meet up and try to finalize on the issue but that too failed. Supreme Court also asked the Central government whether it had any intention to publish the CWDT tribunal award for which the Centre has replied that it will publish the award by December end but it has not done it. Supreme Court asked the Centre to notify the award: Supreme Court directed the Centre to notify the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) dated February 5, 2007. It rapped the government for abdicating its responsibility in not notifying the award as per the mandate of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act. When Additional Solicitor General Harin P. Raval sought further time for the Centre to decide whether to notify the final decision or not, a Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha, J. Chelameswar and Madan B. Lokur rejected the plea. The court ordered the government to notify the final award on or before February 20. Earlier, Mr. Raval said the Karnataka government had communicated to the Government of India that it would need orders from the functionaries concerned and communicate the same to the Centre but it had not been done so far. Justice Chelameswar told Mr. Raval: Central government has abdicated its responsibility. Central government is not here to facilitate an agreement between the parties when they themselves have told this court that they have no objection for notifying the award.

Justice Lokur asked Mr. Raval, Suppose no decision comes from Karnataka for one year, will Central government not take any decision. Central government is supposed to take action in furtherance to Supreme Court orders. Justice Lodha told the ASG: Dont abdicate responsibility. Sorry, this is not the way the government should function. There is no justification for the delay even after the disputing States had stated they have no objection for notifying the award. The disputing States have not approached this court resiling from their stand. While so, Central government has no justification to delay the notification. Justice Lokur said that when something is stated in the court, there has to be some sanctity for it, we proceed on that basis. The Bench, in its brief order, said that, the final decision was given by the CWDT on February 5, 2007. The final decision has not been notified so far. On January 4, 2013, this court noted the agreement of concerned States that they did not have any objection to the final decision by CWDT being notified without prejudice to their rights and contentions raised in the pending appeals. This court also noted the statement of Mr. H.P. Raval, Additional Solicitor General that the final decision by the Central government for publication is expected by January 31, 2013. Due to the scolding from the Supreme Court, with no other options left, Central Government notified the Cauvery Tribunal Award on Feb 19, 2013 . It created much oppose in Karnataka. While Tamil Nadu (particularly the present Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalithaa who strongly fought the rights for her state in the Supreme Court right from 1991) made some rejoices moment. But now, Tamil Nadu must look into dig the new canals, and renew the existing canals and irrigation systems in full swing.